Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Poll majority says likely to vote for Clinton; Hillary Clinton that is...
Topic Started: May 27 2005, 01:56 PM (910 Views)
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ds9074
May 27 2005, 05:51 PM
24thcenstfan
May 28 2005, 12:22 AM
UncleSlickhead
May 27 2005, 04:21 PM
24, don't think that if McCain ran for President as an independent, that we would see the rise of a viable third party.
We're a LONG way from seeing anything like that happen.
The two major parties have too much invested in maintaining the status quo for either of them to allow a third to solidify and and become a true force in government.
For one thing, the rise of such a party would reveal the phoniness of the Republicans and Democrats, as well as exposing the fact that their really isn't much substantial difference between them.
And I have to ask Noah:
What makes you believe that Hillary is qualified to President? I don't think she was even legitimately qualified to be a senator.

I admit it, it was a little wishful thinking. :lol: I am ready for a really good third party to bust onto the scene. It will take an exceptional candidate to launch it though. Then it will take many years to build up a membership/support.

One way to encourage it would be to change the voting system for the Congress. By going to some kind of proportional system it would make it far easier for a third party to appear and, to steal a phrase, break the two party mold of US politics.

Not going to happen any time in the forseeable future. It conflicts very much with our concept of one person, one vote.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Whats wrong with one person, two votes - provided everyone gets the same number?

For instance in Scotland for the Parliament there you vote as normal for a representative in your constiuency. The Candidate with the most votes wins.

You then get another vote for a regional representative. In the regions several candidates are elected, how many from each party depends on the share of the votes.

The result is a legislature which much more closely resembles the share of the vote for each party.

Nevertheless a PR system isnt a requirement of three or multi-party politics. There are 11 parties represented in the House of Commons under a first past the post system with 1 independent.

Having that kind of system keeps the two big parties on their toes and forces them to listen more to the electorate because they cannot take votes for granted. When the Conservatives were at their worst they lost seats to the Liberals in the south, when Labour ignored their grass roots over Iraq they losts seats in their heartlands. When the people of Scotland felt ignored they voted for Scottish Nationalists and the main parties responded by giving them their own Parliament.

I'm sure if more than two parties could develop in the US it would help keep the main two sharper.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
UncleSlickhead
May 27 2005, 08:43 PM
As far as I know, she never ran a business. She was an attorney with the Rose Law Firm. Her husband may have put her in charge of developing a new national health care plan, but she failed quite miserably at it. And her business acumen can be pretty much summed up by Whitewater.
As for her experience as a senator, if you want to give her that point, then you have to give Dubya the governorship of Texas.

That's sums up her experience pretty well. She has pretty much the same resume (and experience) as John Edwards.

Governors usually make far better Presidents than Senators because they have experience in dealing with a state government that is set up much the same way that the federal government is. Senators often haven't directed much more than their personal paid staff - certainly not federal agencies. Of course, it's really hard to say since it's been a long time since a Senator was elected President.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I nominate Fes.

Noah,

Well, I did write 'almost anyone.' ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ds9074
May 27 2005, 06:12 PM
Whats wrong with one person, two votes - provided everyone gets the same number?

Simple. Ideally you think long and hard about who best deserves your support. Who best truly represents you then you put your support behind that candidate. If you are really concerned that the candidate you prefer can't win, then at least have the courage to vote for the person you think has the best chance at defeating the person you dislike more. The system you are describing essentially should give the lesser of two evils the win anyway, why waste one's time and effort (as little as it may be to mark a card or flip a switch) with a "just in case" vote?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
No, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Things haven't gotten that bad?

Have they...? :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Swidden
May 28 2005, 06:03 AM
ds9074
May 27 2005, 06:12 PM
Whats wrong with one person, two votes - provided everyone gets the same number?

Simple. Ideally you think long and hard about who best deserves your support. Who best truly represents you then you put your support behind that candidate. If you are really concerned that the candidate you prefer can't win, then at least have the courage to vote for the person you think has the best chance at defeating the person you dislike more. The system you are describing essentially should give the lesser of two evils the win anyway, why waste one's time and effort (as little as it may be to mark a card or flip a switch) with a "just in case" vote?

Under the system I discribed you do have an opportunity to vote for the candidate you want (and not to effectively waste your vote) - even if normally they wouldnt be able to win - because they have a much greater chance of picking up a regional proportional seat.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
From the poll here, most would not vote for her. I would like to see Rice elected.

My preference would be Rice, a Senate with over 60 republicans, and a House that is democratic.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
who
May 28 2005, 06:46 AM
From the poll here, most would not vote for her. I would like to see Rice elected.

My preference would be Rice, a Senate with over 60 republicans, and a House that is democratic.

I would love to see a Rice vs. Clinton match. I don't think Hill would have a snowball's chance in that oh so eternally hot place. It will be many decades before you see a Democratic House again.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I would like to see an Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Elizabeth I match. That way, I couldn't lose. :D :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Darthsith
Ensign
Fesarius
May 28 2005, 02:12 PM
I would like to see an Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Elizabeth I match. That way, I couldn't lose. :D :)

Well if it isn't "Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Fesarius" or "Fesarius vs. Elizabeth I" of course you couldnt lose.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Well if it isn't "Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Fesarius" or "Fesarius vs. Elizabeth I" of course you couldnt lose.

It was obviously a hypothetical. Both were IMO great women. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
psyfi
May 28 2005, 08:01 AM
I would love to see a Rice vs. Clinton match.

Weren't they on MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch? :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Fesarius
May 28 2005, 09:12 AM
I would like to see an Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Elizabeth I match.

Put five dollars on Eleanor Roosevelt in the third round! :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
CSB,

LOL! I'll put $20 on Elizabeth I in the fifth. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus