|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 17, 2005 21:18:56 GMT -5
Interesting that in this very unscientific poll, the majority favor alternatives to the mainstream political parties. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true in the general populace as well. You're probably right, but in that other post of yours, you pointed out that big political parties try to root out the possibilities of third, fourth and fifth parties. There are many ways of doing this, which are entirely built into the constitutional system we have here. Probably the best way is by manipulating the electoral college system. The electoral college focuses on giving the electoral votes to the candidate who has the most popular votes per state, and not neccesarily on the nation as a whole. By this way can thirdm parties be rooted out. Remember the 1992 election, between George Bush and President Clinton? If i remember correctly, Clinton did not even recieve 45% of the popular vote. Ross Perot, a popular third party candidate, recieved nearly twenty percent of the popular vote. But because of the electoral college system, Clinton recieved the majority of the electoral votes, thus making him President. Similarly, George W. Bush in 2000 only recieved about 44% of the popular vote, but because of similar circumstances, he became President. The case could be made here that democratic minorities surely are running the country now. Reall wierd, isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2005 21:24:16 GMT -5
I am an independent. I vote for whoever I feel is good for the job. I even voted for Ralph Nader even though I knew he never had a chance.
U.S. needs more than 2 parties, and stop corporate contributions, make it all fair for everyone, instead of buying a way in.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jul 17, 2005 22:26:18 GMT -5
i think the majority chose non mainstream parties because Bristish people voted in this American poll. the correct thing to do would be to start over and take up arms against the British people that infringe upon our right to answer honestly as Americans in this poll. join me minutemen of the shy.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 18, 2005 1:54:36 GMT -5
i think the majority chose non mainstream parties because Bristish people voted in this American poll. the correct thing to do would be to start over and take up arms against the British people that infringe upon our right to answer honestly as Americans in this poll. join me minutemen of the shy. I don't know much about the British parties, but it seems to me (but I'm only taking a guess) that they have more in common with our two party system than Europe's more open party system. So I'm sure their votes didn't corrupt your poll THAT much, SPG. I voted in one of the "other" categories as well, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jul 18, 2005 2:12:25 GMT -5
The Conservatives and Republicans used to have a lot in common and still do to some extent, New Labour and the Democrats do as well (Blair admired some of Clinton's ideas). Anarchist, communist and green are applicable in either country. Since independents are few and far between in Britain, I'd be surprised if many Brits voted for that option. Thus I doubt us Brits impacted the results that much.
Also you won't get a scientific poll unless you apply complicated statistics to the results. The Net population is more liberal or left wing and shy people are also more liberal and left wing from what I've seen, so your raw results will be biased whatever you do.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jul 18, 2005 9:29:52 GMT -5
i just did it because im bored im not looking for a scientific sampling here.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jul 18, 2005 9:39:00 GMT -5
yeah go ahead Brits I dont care at this point. I like all my British freinds and everyone here despite our diferences .
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Dec 8, 2005 23:23:50 GMT -5
I was just screwing around, looking at some old threads, and i found this one. I decided to move this one to the debates forum because i saw that we had an interesting discussion going here about political systems between the US and UK. I like discussion about foreign political parties, particularly past British and Irish parties. Also, i liked the little discussion we had going about third parties.
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Dec 9, 2005 5:02:11 GMT -5
I voted republican conservative. ;D One of the few here it seems which is unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by wonkothesane on Dec 9, 2005 7:58:03 GMT -5
No offence to anybody but I always found it deeply disturbing that you had to register your political beliefs in a country, not that you are then forced to vote that way but it just seem's undemocratic. Not that it seems to matter much anyway, in america only to groups can have power and to an outsider they look the same to me on vast majority of issues; Britian is the same and the other possible governing party is in a shambles at the moment, I know the regional assembelies get a look of stick from people but at least there is an opportunity for smaller parties to have some input; In Ireland because we vote with porportional representation you get larger amounts of parties elected but you would be hard pushed to find a difference in opinion between most of them and especially with the two main parties of which one is assured to be in power at any one time.
One thing I have been thinking about recently is that all of our parliments are based on at bests 19th century models and some even older- we vote in political parties who serve their own party interests before those of the people who elected them. In my country only a very small percentage of the population actual vote for the upper house of our parliment- I don't have a vote in it at the moment but If I pass my degree I have a vote just like that- kinda disturbing
It also a bit disturbing that most of of a countries real business is conducted by questionings carried out by committies. These committies are made up of representatives of the various elected parties. Anybody can be called to give evidence at them, but the only questioning is done by the parties who may have vested interests is calling or not calling particular people. Now in a court the private individual can be called to be on a jury and sit in judgement on a case that in my country can cause the imprisonment of a person for life and in others the death penalty (jury's do not question witness's directly but can in effect ask a question by seeking clarification from a judge on any point). However there is never a seat on a committie for a member of the public to act as a balance to vested interests.
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Dec 9, 2005 14:38:09 GMT -5
No offence to anybody but I always found it deeply disturbing that you had to register your political beliefs in a country, not that you are then forced to vote that way but it just seem's undemocratic. Not that it seems to matter much anyway, in america only to groups can have power and to an outsider they look the same to me on vast majority of issues; Britian is the same and the other possible governing party is in a shambles at the moment, I know the regional assembelies get a look of stick from people but at least there is an opportunity for smaller parties to have some input; In Ireland because we vote with porportional representation you get larger amounts of parties elected but you would be hard pushed to find a difference in opinion between most of them and especially with the two main parties of which one is assured to be in power at any one time. One thing I have been thinking about recently is that all of our parliments are based on at bests 19th century models and some even older- we vote in political parties who serve their own party interests before those of the people who elected them. In my country only a very small percentage of the population actual vote for the upper house of our parliment- I don't have a vote in it at the moment but If I pass my degree I have a vote just like that- kinda disturbing It also a bit disturbing that most of of a countries real business is conducted by questionings carried out by committies. These committies are made up of representatives of the various elected parties. Anybody can be called to give evidence at them, but the only questioning is done by the parties who may have vested interests is calling or not calling particular people. Now in a court the private individual can be called to be on a jury and sit in judgement on a case that in my country can cause the imprisonment of a person for life and in others the death penalty (jury's do not question witness's directly but can in effect ask a question by seeking clarification from a judge on any point). However there is never a seat on a committie for a member of the public to act as a balance to vested interests. In the USA you don't have to chose a party when you register to vote you can just leave it blank or fill in your party if you are not one of the two major parties. It isn't that only two parties can have power they just do because they are more popular than socialism or communism etc. If someone came along with a party that is popular and started a movement than it is possible they can become a major party. Is that going to happen anytime soon? no. Not with the way the USA is right now with special interests lobbying the two major parties every year. Where did you get the idea that you had to be a part of one of just two parties?
|
|
|
Post by wonkothesane on Dec 10, 2005 10:09:36 GMT -5
In the USA you don't have to chose a party when you register to vote you can just leave it blank or fill in your party if you are not one of the two major parties. It isn't that only two parties can have power they just do because they are more popular than socialism or communism etc. If someone came along with a party that is popular and started a movement than it is possible they can become a major party. Is that going to happen anytime soon? no. Not with the way the USA is right now with special interests lobbying the two major parties every year. Where did you get the idea that you had to be a part of one of just two parties? I know there are more than two parties in america, I meant to say that there are only two capable of ever holding power and don't think they will ever allow that to change. I just don't think the question should be asked in a democratic country, it creates a psycological barrier to you changing you beliefs or viewing proposals objectively- in my very unscientific opinion If you leave the form blank when you register are you then just considered an independant for stastistical purposes? In some European countries it is illegal not to vote in elections, but most of them also allow you to vote for 'none of the above'- atleast that gets counted too. A few things I would like to know from the americans, First in your state how many non democratic or republican party represenative do you have? And how many independants are in the the senate and house of representatives? And when was the last time, if ever a non republican or democrate presidential nominee actualy won the backing of a states electoral college?
|
|
|
Post by shytothebone on Dec 10, 2005 13:45:28 GMT -5
I know there are more than two parties in america, I meant to say that there are only two capable of ever holding power and don't think they will ever allow that to change. I just don't think the question should be asked in a democratic country, it creates a psycological barrier to you changing you beliefs or viewing proposals objectively- in my very unscientific opinion If you leave the form blank when you register are you then just considered an independant for stastistical purposes? In some European countries it is illegal not to vote in elections, but most of them also allow you to vote for 'none of the above'- atleast that gets counted too. A few things I would like to know from the americans, First in your state how many non democratic or republican party represenative do you have? And how many independants are in the the senate and house of representatives? And when was the last time, if ever a non republican or democrate presidential nominee actualy won the backing of a states electoral college? I have to revert back to what I said earlier the way the lobbying and special interests work in USA and how they back the two major parties. Everyone else who wants to hold office isn't going to be able to compete because of lack of funds. It takes money. In my state which is Arkansas a moderately conservative state, I have two democratic senators Blanch Lincoln and Mark Pryor and my Representative is John Boozman a republican and the governor is Mike Huckabee a republican. Right now the Democrat and the Republican voters are about the same in the USA, and I don't believe that having two major parties is a bad thing. I would rather have a majority of people who believe in two popular ideas that the same amount of people believe in lets say 30 less popular ideas. It creates instability. I also don't believe that the American people don't wish there was another major party I think that most of them are happy being a Democrat or a Republican and that most of their values fall under one or the other. Also it is all about who runs for office too. You can have very liberal, moderate, middle of the road, moderate, Conservative people run for office. Some of them have Ideas and values of other parties besides just republican and democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Dec 10, 2005 16:22:28 GMT -5
I'm a pragmatist. I have no affiliations. Peoples lives shouldn't be ruled by fanboys, whose arguments amount to PS3 pwns M$ $hitbox 360!!!!
If I can't work out at each election who I think will be the best party for my country then I just vote for the guy who dresses up as a fish.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Dec 11, 2005 0:26:30 GMT -5
In the USA you don't have to chose a party when you register to vote you can just leave it blank or fill in your party if you are not one of the two major parties. It isn't that only two parties can have power they just do because they are more popular than socialism or communism etc. If someone came along with a party that is popular and started a movement than it is possible they can become a major party. Is that going to happen anytime soon? no. Not with the way the USA is right now with special interests lobbying the two major parties every year. Where did you get the idea that you had to be a part of one of just two parties? I know there are more than two parties in america, I meant to say that there are only two capable of ever holding power and don't think they will ever allow that to change. I just don't think the question should be asked in a democratic country, it creates a psycological barrier to you changing you beliefs or viewing proposals objectively- in my very unscientific opinion If you leave the form blank when you register are you then just considered an independant for stastistical purposes? In some European countries it is illegal not to vote in elections, but most of them also allow you to vote for 'none of the above'- atleast that gets counted too. A few things I would like to know from the americans, First in your state how many non democratic or republican party represenative do you have? And how many independants are in the the senate and house of representatives? And when was the last time, if ever a non republican or democrate presidential nominee actualy won the backing of a states electoral college? Yep, that'e one of my key critique of our American system; people have the freedom not to vote. One of my professors at school has a theory, that when a third party ains a considerable number of the electorate in any dual party political system, that it can be a major indicator of dissent or dissatisfaction in said country. From what i've seen of both American and European history, i believe this theory is correct. Whenever a third party came to existance, particularly in US or France, the third party springs up with great vigor, but then crumbles. The third party's idealism or priorites get absorbed into one of the other two political parties. However, one thing i do not particularly care for in a multi party system as in some European countries was the instability that elections could create. Many times in the history of Germany or France this happened. One of the best historians i've ever read was Hugh Brogan. Brogan was very supportive of both the American and British systems because of the stability brought by the two countries in the face of change: with the British, they were simply very willing to compromise; with the Americans, they simply were not willing to let any party split or controversey destroy the country after the 1860's. Under the American system, independents have no possible chance in any given district of being voted into office, because of the built in measures in the US Constitution. This is the electoral college. The electoral college roots out independents because the candidate who recieves the most popular votes in any given district wins all the electoral votes for that district. This system strongly influences the campaign stategies of the two political parties, by the way. Both candidates seek to campaign in mostly the NorthEast, the Mid West, the Pacific rim, and in Texas and Florida. Very little campaiging is done in ythe other regions.
|
|