The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DLS — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:13:30 -0000

Direct election of the President is even cheaper, by an order of magnitude or more, than the cheapening of the office of Senator (populist democratic change) early in the twentieth century. However, I suspect it will replace the Electoral College eventually, and certainly it is consistent as well as logical, given the trends we&#39ve seen involving related changes (first and foremost being direct election of Senators).

I&#39d be more intrigued by how the office of the Vice Presidency would be redesigned, if not abolished, and how the Vice President would be selected. Having him or her on a party slate with the candidate for the Presidency only perpetuates and supports the two-party Duality we have now; the office could become an appointed office, or be abolished -- either would be acceptable.

As to the earlier improvements to the existing system, that support breaking the Duopoly, readers can view these:

a) Approval voting

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot...

b) Proportional representation

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DLS — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:13:30 -0000

I'd be more intrigued by how the office of the Vice Presidency would be redesigned, if not abolished, and how the Vice President would be selected. Having him or her on a party slate with the candidate for the Presidency only perpetuates and supports the two-party Duality we have now; the office could become an appointed office, or be abolished -- either would be acceptable.

As to the earlier improvements to the existing system, that support breaking the Duopoly, readers can view these:

a) Approval voting

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/go...

b) Proportional representation

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/ac...

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Don Quijote — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:05:18 -0000

It’s bad enough that one percent of the votes will be cast by Al Franken.

You&#39re going to have to get over Franken winning in Minnesota. It&#39s a state wide vote therefor there was no gerrymandering, he got into the Senate with 1,212,629 votes which is more votes than there are voters in
Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, South Dakota, Delaware, North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, District of Columbia or Wyoming. There are at least 34 other Senators in the Senate who have had far less people vote for them than Franken did.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

ThurmanHart — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:24:23 -0000

Ask Texas if they care that their current Governor received only 39% of the vote in 2006.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

mvy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:24:17 -0000

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Don Quijote — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:05:18 -0000

It’s bad enough that one percent of the votes will be cast by Al Franken.

You're going to have to get over Franken winning in Minnesota. It's a state wide vote therefor there was no gerrymandering, he got into the Senate with 1,212,629 votes which is more votes than there are voters in
Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, South Dakota, Delaware, North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, District of Columbia or Wyoming. There are at least 34 other Senators in the Senate who have had far less people vote for them than Franken did.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

ThurmanHart — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:24:23 -0000

Ask Texas if they care that their current Governor received only 39% of the vote in 2006.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

mvy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:24:17 -0000

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularV...

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:55:39 -0000

Approval voting is better, still, for single-person offices.

For multiple persons (seats in a legislature), proportional representation is the way to go.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

shannonlee — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:03:25 -0000

We have a winner!

If you don&#39t believe it, just ask Ralph Nader. He has documented many of these laws.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Doc3 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:42:48 -0000

The Democrats and Republicans have stacked the election laws so as to make the success of a Third Party almost impossible.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DemocracyBoy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:54:48 -0000

There&#39s an elegant and powerful solution to the problem Jazz describes above, and that&#39s instant-runoff voting. It eliminates the spoiler effect, enables voters to "vote for the candidate they like the most without helping to elect the candidate they like least," ensures a winning candidate has a majority of votes, and reduces negative campaigning. It&#39s a great way to show the major parties the amount of support for other ideas, too. And in our history, that has led to more responsive major parties, as they expand to include those groups of voters.

Note, too, that instant runoff is essentially the same as having an expensive, low-turnout runoff weeks later, but it&#39s done at once, with more voters, and saves money.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Ron Beasley — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:28:47 -0000

We now live in a Corporatocracy where members of both political parties are controlled by the big money of Wall Street. It may sound like the Ds and the Rs are singing different tunes but they are all marching to the same drummer and that drummer isn&#39t on Main street. We live in a world where the profits are privatized and the risks are socialized but only if you are very rich. The economic policy of the Obama administration has been no different than that of the Bush administration when it comes to the big banks and Wall Street. Even the so called health care reform has really only taken on the insurance industry, which is a small part of the problem, but not the Medical Industrial Complex.
The Teabaggers and everyone else are unhappy about many of the same things they just don&#39t always realize it. The rise of third party candidates is a symptom not the problem. People realize the two party system is broken or perhaps bought would be a better word.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

David Baker — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:27:29 -0000

Assuming that such a third party would fall in between the Dems and Repubs politically, how could such an option be bad? Obviously a fracturing of political views into multiple (4 or more) parties is never good, but we're no where near that problem yet. Third parties need to have momentum/progression in order to be seen as viable options in society, and, as you pointed out, until the House becomes a more politically diversified environment, a runoff vote will most likely be in favor of the Dems or Repubs. I don't see a third party becoming an option until we have more moderate support in the House.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:55:39 -0000

Approval voting is better, still, for single-person offices.

For multiple persons (seats in a legislature), proportional representation is the way to go.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

shannonlee — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:03:25 -0000

We have a winner!

If you don't believe it, just ask Ralph Nader. He has documented many of these laws.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Doc3 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:42:48 -0000

The Democrats and Republicans have stacked the election laws so as to make the success of a Third Party almost impossible.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

DemocracyBoy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:54:48 -0000

There's an elegant and powerful solution to the problem Jazz describes above, and that's instant-runoff voting. It eliminates the spoiler effect, enables voters to "vote for the candidate they like the most without helping to elect the candidate they like least," ensures a winning candidate has a majority of votes, and reduces negative campaigning. It's a great way to show the major parties the amount of support for other ideas, too. And in our history, that has led to more responsive major parties, as they expand to include those groups of voters.

Note, too, that instant runoff is essentially the same as having an expensive, low-turnout runoff weeks later, but it's done at once, with more voters, and saves money.

Re: NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

Ron Beasley — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:28:47 -0000

We now live in a Corporatocracy where members of both political parties are controlled by the big money of Wall Street. It may sound like the Ds and the Rs are singing different tunes but they are all marching to the same drummer and that drummer isn't on Main street. We live in a world where the profits are privatized and the risks are socialized but only if you are very rich. The economic policy of the Obama administration has been no different than that of the Bush administration when it comes to the big banks and Wall Street. Even the so called health care reform has really only taken on the insurance industry, which is a small part of the problem, but not the Medical Industrial Complex.
The Teabaggers and everyone else are unhappy about many of the same things they just don't always realize it. The rise of third party candidates is a symptom not the problem. People realize the two party system is broken or perhaps bought would be a better word.