The Party Of Two

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3117
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Party Of Two

There are several threads with the subject of the "other parties" which have Presidential candidates on the ballot this year, but why won't any one vote for them?

I found the following article asking the same question:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/10/18/will-you-waste-your-vote-why/

First, this article is deceptive. I believe they are only trying to stir the pot.

Second, none of the other candidates were asked to join the debates for one reason only. Money. It's all about profits. The other parties don't have the money to compete with the big two.

The last item is, why don't they have more money?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The last item is, why don't they have more money?

Campaign finance laws only allow people to donate a maximum of $2,500 to an individual candidate each election, it is extremely difficult (and expensive) to raise the millions needed to run even a congressional campaign let alone the hundreds of millions needed for a presidential race $2,500 at a time without a massive party structure supporting you. Remove the donation caps and some eccentric millionaire could fund a third party candidate themselves and you would see a lot more serious third party candidates.

The politicians pretend they have the limits to prevent corruption and the buying of politicians but that is complete bullshit. You can donate massive amounts of money to the political parties which is used to support candidates of their choice and that puts third party candidates at a huge disadvantage since none of the third parties have the resources to fundraise at the level that the two major parties do constantly. Removing campaign donation limits wouldn't cause a complete destruction of the two party system but it would allow for the occasional spoiler outside of the rare occasions that some wealthy person funds a third party campaign for themselves ala Ross Perot. 

With the Citizens United case I was hopeful that some super PAC might sink serious money into supporting a third party but that isn't happening, probably because the right wing is highly energized against Obama and wealthy people that might be willing to sink money into a libertarian superpac like the Koch brothers have apparently decided that supporting the lesser of two evils is better than risking an Obama victory. Hopefully in a future election they will reconsider. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The last item is, why don't they have more money?

Campaign finance laws only allow people to donate a maximum of $2,500 to an individual candidate each election, it is extremely difficult (and expensive) to raise the millions needed to run even a congressional campaign let alone the hundreds of millions needed for a presidential race $2,500 at a time without a massive party structure supporting you. Remove the donation caps and some eccentric millionaire could fund a third party candidate themselves and you would see a lot more serious third party candidates.

The politicians pretend they have the limits to prevent corruption and the buying of politicians but that is complete bullshit. You can donate massive amounts of money to the political parties which is used to support candidates of their choice and that puts third party candidates at a huge disadvantage since none of the third parties have the resources to fundraise at the level that the two major parties do constantly. Removing campaign donation limits wouldn't cause a complete destruction of the two party system but it would allow for the occasional spoiler outside of the rare occasions that some wealthy person funds a third party campaign for themselves ala Ross Perot. 

With the Citizens United case I was hopeful that some super PAC might sink serious money into supporting a third party but that isn't happening, probably because the right wing is highly energized against Obama and wealthy people that might be willing to sink money into a libertarian superpac like the Koch brothers have apparently decided that supporting the lesser of two evils is better than risking an Obama victory. Hopefully in a future election they will reconsider. 

This is funny. You get the rulling you want and now you complain that a third party cannot be funded? What happend to competing? Shouldn't you be saying "It is your own fault you cant raise that kind of money"

You know what this says to me? You don't mind bullying when you get what you want. So why even if you got the Koch Brothers to fund your party at the same level it STILL amounts to the bully in the schoolyard picking on the weaker kids. Funny how the chicken has come home to roost?

So I think those limits were put in place, not to prevent third parties from competing, but to prevent the MESS we have now.

So in lue of limits my only other suggestion would be public funding where any applying party gets the same amount of money and no more. That makes the competition fair and then it can truely be based, not on who can buy the office, but then they would have to rely on substance much more than money.

I find it hypocritical for you to imply it would be ok for the Koch brothers to pump unlimited money into a Campain, but if someone that rich were to give Obama the same, then somehow it would be unfair?

It is either fair, or it is not fair. Complaining that your third party doesn't have a shot is the hight of hypocrisy. Obama right now in this ellection may still win, only by sheer numbers of individuals. But if you keep getting your way, both you and I will be bowing to republicans, so I cant even emagine what kind of totalitarian state a Libertarian monopoly would create.

1984 and Animal farm were about what happens when you take your eye off the possiblitity of a monopoly always being a possibility.

"Peoples Republic of China" sounds nice "It has the word "people" in it so they must value the individual.

You are not anti monopoly otherwise you would understand how dangerous Citizens United is. You mentally at the core still think money automatically equals morality. I will never trust the Koch brothers to put people in power to make the rules for my life. There are many rich people I would, those two no way.

This ruling has opened a floodgate to INSURE a greater chance of  two party monopoly, but give it time, we too can be a one party system like China, but think about all the money you'll make being part of that monopoly of big money, lots of sweatshop slavelords over there you can emulate.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3117
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Take away all the money, the

Take away all the money, the superpac and all the other political bullshit and I believe that ALL politicians need to take a test to be on the ballot.

Break the test down in to seven parts.

1 - International policies

2 - Domestic policies

3 - Finance

4 - Religion (all religions)

5 - Morality

6 - Science

7 - Rational thinking

 

Questions would come from professors from the various colleges in America; they could submit ten essay style questions and ten multiple choice questions in to a database. The test would be one hundred questions.

After you take the test your name is then put on the ballot and people can vote for you in a primary. No convention needed. The top four candidates are selected for the final show down.

There is one month of campaigning for each election with a limit of 100 million dollars spent on the campaign

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is funny.

Brian37 wrote:

This is funny. You get the rulling you want and now you complain that a third party cannot be funded? What happend to competing? Shouldn't you be saying "It is your own fault you cant raise that kind of money"

I think it is a good start but Citizens United does not allow unlimited donations. Superpacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates, so while they are helpful, it is illegal for a superpac to help a candidate with basic campaign support like hiring fundraisers or paying for campaign events. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You know what this says to me? You don't mind bullying when you get what you want. So why even if you got the Koch Brothers to fund your party at the same level it STILL amounts to the bully in the schoolyard picking on the weaker kids. Funny how the chicken has come home to roost?

So I think those limits were put in place, not to prevent third parties from competing, but to prevent the MESS we have now.

So you think all the extra political ads we are getting now is bad? We should have less political speech?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So in lue of limits my only other suggestion would be public funding where any applying party gets the same amount of money and no more. That makes the competition fair and then it can truely be based, not on who can buy the office, but then they would have to rely on substance much more than money.

How do you decide who gets the money? Should every crackpot who wants to run for president get $500 million? Or are you just going to give it to the two major parties and fuck everyone else?

 

Brian37 wrote:

I find it hypocritical for you to imply it would be ok for the Koch brothers to pump unlimited money into a Campain, but if someone that rich were to give Obama the same, then somehow it would be unfair?

Where did I ever say it is unfair to give money to Obama? I think it is great that Morgan Freeman, George Soros and company have been able to give millions to Obama superpacs. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is either fair, or it is not fair. Complaining that your third party doesn't have a shot is the hight of hypocrisy. Obama right now in this ellection may still win, only by sheer numbers of individuals. But if you keep getting your way, both you and I will be bowing to republicans, so I cant even emagine what kind of totalitarian state a Libertarian monopoly would create.

libertarians being totalitarian? Do you know what a libertarian is? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You are not anti monopoly otherwise you would understand how dangerous Citizens United is. You mentally at the core still think money automatically equals morality. I will never trust the Koch brothers to put people in power to make the rules for my life. There are many rich people I would, those two no way.

Money doesn't put people in power, it simply allows them to buy political ads. There is plenty of political diversity among the rich. I am not anti-monopoly, I will put every single one of my competitors out of business and have a monopoly myself if I am able to. Like you said, many rich people will donate money to causes you support, others will donate to ones I support, I consider that a good thing. Why do you want to shut up anyone who agrees with me? Talk about hypocrisy. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

This ruling has opened a floodgate to INSURE a greater chance of  two party monopoly, but give it time, we too can be a one party system like China, but think about all the money you'll make being part of that monopoly of big money, lots of sweatshop slavelords over there you can emulate.

How does allowing more political speech lead to a monopoly?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Superpacs are not

Quote:
Superpacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates

Yea, just like cops are not allowed to speed while not in pursuit, "WINK WINK". Dont give me this shit they cant, just change your language and speak in code and it is all peachy.

You are so for superpacks but your ilk is out of the 10 biggest only 3 are unions. Once those are destroyed HELLO class and political monopoly.

The right to peacably assemble only applies to you and what you want and only when you get what you want.

I doubt if those top 10 superpacks were supporting Obama and not Romney you'd be saying the same thing.

And thanks to our Corporate bought court it is now legal for my boss to use intimidation tactics at work.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Money doesn't put

Quote:
Money doesn't put people in power

No, thats why Gadaffi became a dictator, because he had no money. Thats why he couldn't aford the gold plated rifles or the mansion or the Statue of the American Jet in his front yard. Because he knew he couldn't influance anyone with his money. No, you are right Gaddifi lived in poverty and never used money to influence anyone.

From a constitutional standpoint money should NOT, in theory buy infulence, but it can buy spin to convince people to vote for things that are against their own interest.

Out of all the "capitallists" I know do not lie to me and say you don't buy into "Money talks bullshit walks"

You sound in the past couple days more like Romney saying one thing one day and then the opposite the next.

Cut the crap, utimately to you it is about you. Just stop lying about it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Superpacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates

Yea, just like cops are not allowed to speed while not in pursuit, "WINK WINK". Dont give me this shit they cant, just change your language and speak in code and it is all peachy.

You are so for superpacks but your ilk is out of the 10 biggest only 3 are unions. Once those are destroyed HELLO class and political monopoly.

The right to peacably assemble only applies to you and what you want and only when you get what you want.

I doubt if those top 10 superpacks were supporting Obama and not Romney you'd be saying the same thing.

And thanks to our Corporate bought court it is now legal for my boss to use intimidation tactics at work.

Where have I ever argued against anyone's right to peacefully assemble? Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with what your boss does or says at work, it solely has to do with purchasing mass advertising. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Money doesn't put people in power

No, thats why Gadaffi became a dictator, because he had no money. Thats why he couldn't aford the gold plated rifles or the mansion or the Statue of the American Jet in his front yard. Because he knew he couldn't influance anyone with his money. No, you are right Gaddifi lived in poverty and never used money to influence anyone.

From a constitutional standpoint money should NOT, in theory buy infulence, but it can buy spin to convince people to vote for things that are against their own interest.

Out of all the "capitallists" I know do not lie to me and say you don't buy into "Money talks bullshit walks"

You sound in the past couple days more like Romney saying one thing one day and then the opposite the next.

Gadaffi? WTF does he have to do with it? He was in power because he had guns and used them. Are you saying that Romney is going to have a military takeover of the US because he has money?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Cut the crap, utimately to you it is about you. Just stop lying about it.

Where did I ever lie about it? Yes, the only reason I pay attention to politics at all is because of concern for myself and my business. I would love nothing more than to have the luxury of not giving a shit about politics at all. I hate politicians, I hate laws and I hate regulations, I would love to be able to never worry about them again. Unfortunately, people like you keep wanting more laws. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The core problem is the

The core problem is the party system. It's too divisive, inefficient, elitist, and costly. Most other problems stem from this problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.