• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congratulations to the Third Parties

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,710
Reaction score
35,488
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

tumblr_njh1nsOKs41r533zto1_500.gif
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

3.2% of the popular vote and 0 electoral votes is nothing to cheer about

Tweeners have zero power or influence over how the next four years will play out
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

On that one aspect of American politics, Trump was correct about the system being rigged.

It's rigged to prevent any third/alternative party outside of the D's an R's from ever having a chance.

And that is just WRONG.
 
Zyphlin said:
The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%.
Click to expand...

It really seemed that this would have been the year for a third party. But perhaps it wasn't just the fact that the two major parties offered pitiful candidates but rather there was so much hate for these two candidates.
A lot of votes were just against someone rather than for someone.

Am believing now that there will never be a viable third party.
 
Mac77 said:
3.2% of the popular vote and 0 electoral votes is nothing to cheer about
Click to expand...
Having a purportedly democratic election system where nobody other than whatever trash candidates the two main parties put forwards is allowed to have any chance of winning is nothing to cheer about.

Attacking a third party because they “only” got 3.2% of the vote, despite everything being designed against them, is entirely the wrong way to improve anything.
 
HonestJoe said:
Having a purportedly democratic election system where nobody other than whatever trash candidates the two main parties put forwards is allowed to have any chance of winning is nothing to cheer about.

Attacking a third party because they “only” got 3.2% of the vote, despite everything being designed against them, is entirely the wrong way to improve anything.
Click to expand...

"Is allowed?"

Johnson was on the ballot just like trump and hillary

No one "allowed" you to vote for him or prevented anyone from voting for him

The thing holding libertarians back is libertarians themselves.
 
Mac77 said:
"Is allowed?"

Johnson was on the ballot just like trump and hillary

No one "allowed" you to vote for him or prevented anyone from voting for him

The thing holding libertarians back is libertarians themselves.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Who was "allowed" to debate?
 
HonestJoe said:
Having a purportedly democratic election system where nobody other than whatever trash candidates the two main parties put forwards is allowed to have any chance of winning is nothing to cheer about.

Attacking a third party because they “only” got 3.2% of the vote, despite everything being designed against them, is entirely the wrong way to improve anything.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense than cheering them for finishing a dismal and distant third in a four man race

I think libertarians should follow the example of ron and rand paul by trying to take over the republican party
 
Dragonfly said:
Seriously?

Who was "allowed" to debate?
Click to expand...

Is 15% an unreasonable number?

I dont think so

Look at the republican primary where the had a dozen candidates debating each other.

That was very difficult to follow
 
Mac77 said:
That makes more sense than cheering them for finishing a dismal and distant third in a four man race
Click to expand...
Neither makes sense. The point is that they’re not largely responsible for their electoral performance beyond a couple of percent either way because they system is designed to keep them down. Either cheering or condemning them is just playing along with that corrupt system (and if you imagine Trump is an outsider who’s going to stir it all up, I think you’ll be disappointed).
 
HonestJoe said:
Neither makes sense. The point is that they’re not largely responsible for their electoral performance beyond a couple of percent either way because they system is designed to keep them down. Either cheering or condemning them is just playing along with that corrupt system (and if you imagine Trump is an outsider who’s going to stir it all up,

I think you’ll be disappointed).
Click to expand...

I would have been disappointed if trump lost.

But he didnt

So my side won while you and the clinton voters lost

If libs want to win I suggest that you hold your nose and get involved in major party politics - either one depending on your political leanings.

Because that is a better path to victort for you.

But if not its no skin off my nose because you will remain on the outside looking in.
 
Mac77 said:
Is 15% an unreasonable number?

I dont think so

Look at the republican primary where the had a dozen candidates debating each other.

That was very difficult to follow
Click to expand...

Yes. Especially since it's a requirement put forth by a non-transparent, private organization that is apparently answerable to no one. How we let a small group of private individuals control access to arguably the largest platform in presidential politics is completely beyond me.
 
Mac77 said:
So my side won while you and the clinton voters lost
Click to expand...
It's a sad demonstration of how ingrained your (that word is a clue) binary political system is that you assume anyone you believe disagrees with you must be a liberal Clinton voter because you're literally incapable of imagining any other alternative. This thread is even about people who voted for a third party! :roll:
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes. Especially since it's a requirement put forth by a non-transparent, private organization that is apparently answerable to no one.

How we let a small group of private individuals control access to arguably the largest platform in presidential politics is completely beyond me.
Click to expand...

if not for these private organizations there would be no debates.

Before the debates candidates would campaign seperately and never meet face--to-face during the election
 
I would enjoy seeing 4-5 parties in America.

The competition would be incredible, and good for everyone.
 
HonestJoe said:
It's a sad demonstration of how ingrained your (that word is a clue) binary political system is that you assume anyone you believe disagrees with you must be a liberal Clinton voter because you're literally incapable of imagining any other alternative. This thread is even about people who voted for a third party! :roll:
Click to expand...

I said you AND the clinton voters.
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly disagree. The third parties performed incredibly poorly given this was their year. ESPECIALLY GARY JOHNSON.
 
Mac77 said:
"Is allowed?"

Johnson was on the ballot just like trump and hillary

No one "allowed" you to vote for him or prevented anyone from voting for him

The thing holding libertarians back is libertarians themselves.
Click to expand...

Not true. I had to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out whether I wanted to or not. The third party is clearly getting black balled by the media. The people that own the media also own both parties. What a coincidence. Plus they have to come up with umpteen billion dollars to compete with the bought and paid for parties we are stupid enough to believe work for us.
 
Mac77 said:
if not for these private organizations there would be no debates.

Before the debates candidates would campaign seperately and never meet face--to-face during the election
Click to expand...

Then perhaps that's what we should go back to. It would be better than the essentially free advertising the debates give the major party candidates.

If you're on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning you should be in the debate.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Not true.





I had to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out whether I wanted to or not.

The third party is clearly getting black balled by the media. The people that own the media also own both parties. What a coincidence. Plus they have to come up with umpteen billion dollars to compete with the bought and paid for parties we are stupid enough to believe work for us.
Click to expand...

I understand

That was the responsible thing to do

But if building a new party from the ground up to compete with repubs and dems is so expensive why not take my advice and join them?

You eill have more influence as an insider than as an outsider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom