• 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!

Third parties and voting

I

Izzy

Active member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
321
Reaction score
121
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

People just need to vote third party. There are third parties on both sides of the aisles. I do it often. As for what others do, well some people prefer rapists who can win over non-rapists who can't I suppose.
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

We have numerous parties in Canada, three of which are mainstream, and not very far apart philosophically imo, although the Green Party is has begun inserting itself into that conversation. I think it works better than a two party system. Personally, I like the Rhino party:

Rhinoceros Party - Wikipedia
Central planks:
Counting the Thousand Islands to see if the Americans have stolen any


We know what you're up to! Don't think you can get away with it!
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

Using ranked choice voting, in addition to eliminating (party) primary elections, would render it possible for 'alternative' (independent of party) candidates to win elected public office positions. The problem would still exist where these 'alternative' candidates would most likely take seats away from only one of the two (existing) major parties and they would suffer from a campaign cash deficit.
 
Drawdown said:
People just need to vote third party. There are third parties on both sides of the aisles. I do it often. As for what others do, well some people prefer rapists who can win over non-rapists who can't I suppose.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone prefers Mr. Rape and Mr. Diddle, too many elections are between the lesser of two evils. You can say we should all just vote third party, but which third party? Even if more than half the voters went third party, that doesn't mean everyone would vote the same party, we would just lose the power of our vote.

It doesn't make since to me for people to vote for someone they know has a minimal chance of winning. If we could vote third party as our primary choice and red v blue on our secondary and third, then maybe enough people would be confident enough to vote third party. Until then I don't think it's reasonable to just tell people they should be throwing their votes into the void. We need a system we trust to represent our decisions, not one where group think is inherently more powerful than independent choice.
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

The electoral college is the primary problem. Any democracy that can consistently allow a minority of the people to choose the head of state isn’t a democracy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Using ranked choice voting, in addition to eliminating (party) primary elections, would render it possible for 'alternative' (independent of party) candidates to win elected public office positions. The problem would still exist where these 'alternative' candidates would most likely take seats away from only one of the two (existing) major parties and they would suffer from a campaign cash deficit.
Click to expand...

What if we also made it so there was no more campaigning? You wouldn't need money to get into the race just your voice. Kinda like a blind dating thing. Candidates are hidden and they speak through a robot voice, so nobody can make a hasty decision on race or gender. Then have them describe the real policies they want to implement and have the people vote on policy instead of character.

You don't need to be a good person to be the best speaker. If there were laws against false campaign promises maybe we could finally trust politicians to do as they say. I understand these are very big changes to our current system, but I can't think of a better way to ensure our vote counts towards the change we want to see in this country.
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

Mostly the problem is that the Republocrats have crafted campaign finance and debate participation rules purposefully to prevent being challenged by third parties. It's really tough. I wouldn't mind a system like Instant Runoff Voting, but we'd also need to make it so that 3rd parties were allowed to participate in debates and get coverage as well.

I do vote 3rd party routinely, I'm sick of the Republocrat Oligarchy controlling everything and the fact that they'll only put up the ****tiest of candidates each Presidential election. But it won't go too far unless people choose to place their vote in 3rd parties in greater numbers.
 
Izzy said:
I don't think anyone prefers Mr. Rape and Mr. Diddle, too many elections are between the lesser of two evils. You can say we should all just vote third party, but which third party? Even if more than half the voters went third party, that doesn't mean everyone would vote the same party, we would just lose the power of our vote.

It doesn't make since to me for people to vote for someone they know has a minimal chance of winning. If we could vote third party as our primary choice and red v blue on our secondary and third, then maybe enough people would be confident enough to vote third party. Until then I don't think it's reasonable to just tell people they should be throwing their votes into the void. We need a system we trust to represent our decisions, not one where group think is inherently more powerful than independent choice.
Click to expand...

Groups (major political parties) are obviously going to continue to field more powerful (since they have more campaign cash to offer) candidates than 'alternative' (independent or "third" party) candidates can manage. Ranked (below first) choice voting is still likely to amount to a 'lesser of two evils' decision, but would at least offer an 'alternative' candidate (or political party) an outside chance to gain enough popularity to eventually win seats.
 
Ikari said:
Mostly the problem is that the Republocrats have crafted campaign finance and debate participation rules purposefully to prevent being challenged by third parties. It's really tough. I wouldn't mind a system like Instant Runoff Voting, but we'd also need to make it so that 3rd parties were allowed to participate in debates and get coverage as well.

I do vote 3rd party routinely, I'm sick of the Republocrat Oligarchy controlling everything and the fact that they'll only put up the ****tiest of candidates each Presidential election. But it won't go too far unless people choose to place their vote in 3rd parties in greater numbers.
Click to expand...

A lot of people who agree that the 2 party system sucks want people to vote 3rd party in greater numbers, I agree, but how? I don't mean to make you solve this issue on your own but I would like to know if there might be some policy or rules that would make you feel more confident in your vote?

I wish I had the strength that you have, to vote third party, but I'm too convinced that the Republicrats (great name btw) would take the election anyways. Are there any solutions you might offer to a coward such as myself?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Using ranked choice voting, in addition to eliminating (party) primary elections, would render it possible for 'alternative' (independent of party) candidates to win elected public office positions. The problem would still exist where these 'alternative' candidates would most likely take seats away from only one of the two (existing) major parties and they would suffer from a campaign cash deficit.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why the 2 party system has become such a two headed monster. People are not represented well by a 2 party system as demonstrated by so much of the social unrest and division we see today. It seems to me that many people vote now out of fear of "the other party" rather than the issues that are relevant to them. In my experience, most Americans have complicated ideals. A conservative may still be adamant about environmental protection. A liberal may still believe that guns should be bought without government interference. Just the introduction of a meaningful third party would force the extremes more toward the center, and force any party to be more appealing to a broader spectrum of left and right leaning Americans. I also think that several parties would have a soothing effect on people who feel that cannot be heard by the major parties today. At least they would have a voice, and I think that is psychologically very important for American cohesion!!
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

57% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

This hasn't been more apparent than in 2016 when the two most unliked in our history and unwanted to be president from the two major parties ran against each other.

The problem with having another viable party, third party is that Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever rise. Although the two major parties are shrinking, their share, those who identify or affiliate with both major parties, their share of the electorate today is roughly 58% as compared to 2000 when the two major parties share was 65% and 70% in 1984.

Independents, those not affiliated with the two major parties have risen from 30% in 2006 to 40% today. Folks are deserting both major parties, yet both major parties have more power today over our electoral system then they did years ago when close to 80% of all Americans identified with them.

I don't like ranked voting. Taking 2016 as an example, both Trump and Clinton disgusted me so much I voted third party. Against both. I didn't want neither one to win. If I had to make a second choice, it would had to be one or the other. Two candidates I despised. Since there were only three choices on the ballot here in Georgia, Trump, Clinton and Johnson. I'd make number one Johnson, number two Johnson, number three Johnson.

I might suggest none of the above be added to all ballots since the two major parties have a monopoly on our electoral system. If none of the above won, then a new election would be held with no one who was on the ballot originally. New faces, new candidates. I'd be happy to see none of the above added.
 
Drawdown said:
People just need to vote third party. There are third parties on both sides of the aisles. I do it often. As for what others do, well some people prefer rapists who can win over non-rapists who can't I suppose.
Click to expand...

People need to vote to rid ourselves of Trump this year. There is nothing more important. That means voting Democrat for President.
 
Izzy said:
What if we also made it so there was no more campaigning? You wouldn't need money to get into the race just your voice. Kinda like a blind dating thing. Candidates are hidden and they speak through a robot voice, so nobody can make a hasty decision on race or gender. Then have them describe the real policies they want to implement and have the people vote on policy instead of character.

You don't need to be a good person to be the best speaker. If there were laws against false campaign promises maybe we could finally trust politicians to do as they say. I understand these are very big changes to our current system, but I can't think of a better way to ensure our vote counts towards the change we want to see in this country.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) would amount to limiting (banning) free speech as well as giving incumbents even more of an advantage. Interacting with the electorate/press (answering questions), background checking and debating are necessary campaign elements - your proposal would be much like hiring an applicant for a job based on (faked?) resume content alone.
 
It is going to be very difficult to break the hold that Republicans and Democrats have on the process and the media, may be impossible now given our current political climate and division oriented attitudes across this nation.
 
Cardinal said:
The electoral college is the primary problem. Any democracy that can consistently allow a minority of the people to choose the head of state isn’t a democracy.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is the winner take all states ( almost all the states are winner take all )
now IF each rep. to the EC came from each Congressional district and had to vote by what the people in that district wants the voters voice would be heard
as it it now say a state has 29 districts and 15 of them vote one way and 14 the others voted the other way the 14 districts are not getting their voices heard
and it could be in one of the 15 districts 1 vote could decide the way that district votes
that one vote could tip a winner take all state one way or another
as I said the EC should be by by Congressional district so the peoples voice is heard not by winner take all
have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
Part of the problem is the winner take all states ( almost all the states are winner take all )
now IF each rep. to the EC came from each Congressional district and had to vote by what the people in that district wants the voters voice would be heard
as it it now say a state has 29 districts and 15 of them vote one way and 14 the others voted the other way the 14 districts are not getting their voices heard
and it could be in one of the 15 districts 1 vote could decide the way that district votes
that one vote could tip a winner take all state one way or another
as I said the EC should be by by Congressional district so the peoples voice is heard not by winner take all
have a nice day
Click to expand...

Or we could just have a majority/plurality of the total population select the next head of state, which makes sense if you’re a democracy.
 
Izzy said:
A lot of people who agree that the 2 party system sucks want people to vote 3rd party in greater numbers, I agree, but how? I don't mean to make you solve this issue on your own but I would like to know if there might be some policy or rules that would make you feel more confident in your vote?

I wish I had the strength that you have, to vote third party, but I'm too convinced that the Republicrats (great name btw) would take the election anyways. Are there any solutions you might offer to a coward such as myself?
Click to expand...

Well the first step is to vote and vote 3rd party.

The Republocrats will take the election anyways so long as people don't vote 3rd party. It's a hard row to hoe, but the only way to support 3rd party candidates is to vote for 3rd party candidates.
 
Perotista said:
57% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

This hasn't been more apparent than in 2016 when the two most unliked in our history and unwanted to be president from the two major parties ran against each other.

The problem with having another viable party, third party is that Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever rise. Although the two major parties are shrinking, their share, those who identify or affiliate with both major parties, their share of the electorate today is roughly 58% as compared to 2000 when the two major parties share was 65% and 70% in 1984.

Independents, those not affiliated with the two major parties have risen from 30% in 2006 to 40% today. Folks are deserting both major parties, yet both major parties have more power today over our electoral system then they did years ago when close to 80% of all Americans identified with them.

I don't like ranked voting. Taking 2016 as an example, both Trump and Clinton disgusted me so much I voted third party. Against both. I didn't want neither one to win. If I had to make a second choice, it would had to be one or the other. Two candidates I despised. Since there were only three choices on the ballot here in Georgia, Trump, Clinton and Johnson. I'd make number one Johnson, number two Johnson, number three Johnson.

I might suggest none of the above be added to all ballots since the two major parties have a monopoly on our electoral system. If none of the above won, then a new election would be held with no one who was on the ballot originally. New faces, new candidates. I'd be happy to see none of the above added.
Click to expand...

Well if 57% think we need a viable 3rd party, the 57% needs to start voting 3rd party. 3rd parties cannot make gains without support.
 
Cardinal said:
The electoral college is the primary problem. Any democracy that can consistently allow a minority of the people to choose the head of state isn’t a democracy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, yes and no. The electoral college was put in place to insure that under populated areas would still have reasonable representation, as the concerns of a say, a farmer, are very different than the concerns of say, a citified clerk. If left to direct voting, densely populated citified states would always win out, and sparsely settled states would be abiding by laws that potentially would not serve them. I don't think the electoral college precludes our country as a valid democracy, nor do I think it stands in the way of viable third parties. I think it would mean a slight modification in how it would be implemented, with no ability for the electoral representative to change his or her vote or undermine the majority vote of their district!!
 
Logophile said:
Hmmm, yes and no. The electoral college was put in place to insure that under populated areas would still have reasonable representation,
Click to expand...

You've got a bunch of problems with that arguement:

1. That is a right wing fantasy unsubstantiated by anything written by the founding fathers. Now that may be a benefit for you and that's why you like it, but that was not the EC's purpose.
2. And in any case, that appeal to an authority (which doesn't even exist) doesn't defend a minority of a nation's people consistently choosing the next head of state.
3. What does that population of an individual region of the country have to do with anything? If I move from a small town to a city, why does my vote become worse in any way?
 
There are two problems with the libertarian and green parties: uninspiring candidates, low national name ID. You cannot move the ball forward and get that 5% of the popular vote, if you don't like the taste of their products.
 
Izzy said:
I got inspired to make this after talking with someone who wants america to break away from the 2 party system. I agree with her that we need to stop with the red vs. blue bs, but I don't have many ideas on how.

I think a ranked vote where your primary choice dropping out doesn't negate your second and third choice, would do a lot for this cause. Does anyone have some input on how you might make a new voting system with diversity in choices?

We can also just argue about how everything is fine and we should do nothing. If you want to be a square.
Click to expand...

Most democracies in the world have avoided a two party system. Some have a majority of elected officials from two parties, but still there are other parties that are elected. Some countries offer free and equal air time to candidates to help limit the role of money. I mean honestly there are a thousand ways to help effect what you are looking for. The real problem here I believe is that is works for them. Red v blue is safe. So state gerrymander districts to ensure this one stays blue and that one stays red. The electoral college is basically the antithesis of democracy, but when a president wins the ec vote what are the odds he will disban it?

Most other democracies require a prime minister to form a coalition. People vote for the party they favor. Parties can be single issue. For example if we had that kind of system we could have had say a 9-11 party. They would be focused only on issues related to the event and response. There would be a business party, labor party, heck you could have a national parks party. Each is given representation in parliament based on the portion of votes. The party can not argue amongst itself. Its members will always vote the same. The PM has to convince each party he wants to join his coalition. If he can not form a majority there may be a new election for a PM that can.

We don't have to have this system, but the politicians want it. And most of our citizens are too busy working or not caring to actually understand any of it.
 
Logophile said:
Hmmm, yes and no. The electoral college was put in place to insure that under populated areas would still have reasonable representation, as the concerns of a say, a farmer, are very different than the concerns of say, a citified clerk. If left to direct voting, densely populated citified states would always win out, and sparsely settled states would be abiding by laws that potentially would not serve them. I don't think the electoral college precludes our country as a valid democracy, nor do I think it stands in the way of viable third parties. I think it would mean a slight modification in how it would be implemented, with no ability for the electoral representative to change his or her vote or undermine the majority vote of their district!!
Click to expand...

We have farmers all across the United States. Why is the farmer in Wyoming more valuable than the farmer in update NY or northern California?

The EC was only designed as a great compromise between the small colonies and the large colonies, and people who wanted Kings and Queens and those who wanted a direct democracy.

Under the current system, nobody campaigns in Mississippi, Vermont, Rhode Island, or Wyoming. Trump and Biden are going to spend pretty little in California and NY. Their big push will be in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Penn, Ohio, and Michigan. You know, all the states with the heaviest population. 31 out of the 51 presidential contests will be ignored entirely.

Dividing out the electoral college votes proportionally or going toward a system where you have to win the most presidential contests and the popular vote, would actually make the system more logical and more open to everybody.
 
The Old Soul said:
Here's a thought, have just ONE National primary with every registered and viable candidate on the ballot - democrat, republican, independent, libertarian, or whatever. Then each party could choose their candidate or candidates depending on popularity, and anyone else within a certain viable percentage would be on the ballot instead of being a write-in. 10 people get 10% each, then 10 people would be on the final election ballot. 2 people get 50% each in the primary, then just those 2 on the ballot.
But that would spoil too many of the games the parties love to play.
Click to expand...
Also, eliminate 'Party Line' voting, and take any and all party affiliations off the final election ballot; then voters would actually have to investigate who and what they are voting for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom