View Topic

That's awesome, North I always like meeting people from Minnesota for some reason.

As for the debates, I believe it was O'Malley who said something about needing more debates because a lack of debates would decrease exposure of lesser candidate and disproportionately favour the frontrunner, i.e. Hillary. Speaking of which, it seems funny how the media resigns itself to believing she is the inevitable Democratic nominee, or rather, the only one, and how the press had just begun to notice Samders, and even that's falling. Then again it seems as if maybe internet communities and young college students were the only ones to notice him in the first place.

As someone who will be freshly 18 come election time, I can say I happen to like O'Malley the best because he is well-spoken about the issues, has experience running the city of Baltimore and state of Maryland, and seems to understand the implications of his economic policies without seeming like he wants to drive the country into endless debt or pushing wars to no avail.

However, his nomination is a far cry from happening, so I can give my support to Sanders based on his liberal social policies (including gun rights) and campaign finance reform. If Hillary gets the nomination I don't know who I'd vote for. I'd consider voting Republican due to having become more economically centrist/conservative than before, but their stance on the social issues really irk me. I suppose then that I'd like Rand Paul and John Kasich instead, but both are long shots.

Who knows. I've been trying to keep informed through all the debates (Republican and Democratic) and I have eleven months to decide. I suppose, then, that I also have to decide which state I'll be voting in next November, whether that is my home Wisconsin or the state I move to for college.

That being said, that is kind of important in terms of swing states and party leanings, and it seems as if I'd rather vote in a competitive state because I don't believe in following blindly with the Democrats or otherwise. I have at least somewhat of an advantage/choice in influencing that due to moving in 9 months.

Haha, my American neighbour made an interesting comment when I asked him who he'd vote for next year: "I don't know. It's like choosing between HIV and Chlamydia. I might think chlamydia is preferable, but they're both fucking terrible."

How do the Americans among you respond?

Haha, my American neighbour made an interesting comment when I asked him who he'd vote for next year: "I don't know. It's like choosing between HIV and Chlamydia. I might think chlamydia is preferable, but they're both fucking terrible."

How do the Americans among you respond?

Personally, I feel the same.  The candidates from both sides of the field are equally terrible in my opinion, but because nobody likes to vote overwhelmingly for one of the 3rd parties, it's one of those two sides that we're guaranteed to be stuck with.

The Bush versus Kerry election is an example.  Both were equally terrible candidates and there were far better ones in the third parties.  But of course with the majority of America being of the "Fuck third parties!" mindset, those candidates never, and still will never, stand a chance against the best looking of the two biggest turds.

I don't think Americans necessarily have a fuck third parties attitude...they're just constantly told that voting for a third party will sap votes from 'their' party and make it easier for the other side to win. Some people still feel that Ralph Nader and his third party run siphoned enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to allow Bush to win in 2000.

Edit: Also want to point out that the two main parties have worked together in one area: making it very hard for third parties and independent candidates to even get on the ballot.

Your democracy sounds like a sham. Especially since it seems the parties have different ends (or so they claim) but the exact same means.

To be honest, I kind of wish that Donald Trump would launch a third party if he fails to win the Republican nomination...not because I agree with him at all, but because he's rich enough and has enough disgruntled supporters to crack the door open for other parties. I think especially in the Republican party there are people so disgusted with it that it would just take one person with enough money and power to split it wide open.

I can understand that. Everytime a faction within the ANC breaks off from it and forms a new party (like what has happened with the COPE and EFF) I smile, knowing it weakens the ANC's hold each time. The danger here is that a party like the EFF (basically filled with radicals, racists and blithering idiots) can gain enough support to pose a far more serious threat than the ANC ever could.

To be honest, I kind of wish that Donald Trump would launch a third party if he fails to win the Republican nomination...not because I agree with him at all, but because he's rich enough and has enough disgruntled supporters to crack the door open for other parties. I think especially in the Republican party there are people so disgusted with it that it would just take one person with enough money and power to split it wide open.

Probably the Democrats' best case scenario in the short term. It guarantees their candidate a win next year, but in the long term the Republican party might actually become sane enough to field a serious candidate like Kasich.

If the Tea Party was a legitimate "party," Trump would get the nod instantly.

@Laurentus, we've had similar radical groups pop up in the past, usually demanding attention for one specific cause or issue. Once these proto-parties develop real platforms and become halfway serious, they get enough attention from the Big Two to convince the majority of their supporters to come back. The main reason third parties

I suspect it would start a movement, where eventually even liberal splinter groups would form and governance would depend on coaltions...this way, no one party could stonewall otherwise popular legislation and extremist elements would be relegated to the fringe.

The two party system isn't like an informal cultural convention of the USA.. variants of its First Past the Post (FPTP) election system will usually produce exactly 2 major parties. It's a property of the system.

The FPTP system also allows easy mode gerrymandering, allowing a state administration to virtually guarantee that their party will win the most seats in the next congressional election.

Basically, our election system is overly simplistic and easily hackable, and politicians have been happily hacking away at it for generations and it's not in their best interest to change the rules of their game. I wouldn't shy from calling gerrymandering a legal hack, an exploit.. loophole, whatever you want to call it. It means that even more people's votes won't matter, and the only winners are the politicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Third parties won't happen in a firmly 2 party FPTP electoral system unless proportional representation (or something similar) is implemented.

Trump wouldn't win as a third party, but the votes given to his third party would destroy the Republican party's chances of winning utterly. I suppose that's his "Trump" card, if it was in his best interest (it isn't) he definitely could hand the election to the Democrats if he so chose.

He seems arrogant, though. Do you think he might just think too highly of himself to realise that if he goes his own way, he's shooting himself in the foot?

I just think he's smarter than that. This all of course precludes that Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee.

I don't know. He's been getting the most support of the Republican candidates until recently, but I don't think an actual smart person would go on the way he does, and legitimately expect to win.

Or at least, I HOPE he doesn't stand an actual chance of winning.

Surprisingly a lot of what he is saying appeals to people. My dad supports Trump.