We Don't have to Vote out of FEAR !

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

As it stands now Most Americans have submitted to the REP&DEM
Monopoly and vote for the party that they "CLOSER" align to!

You vote more out of the FEAR that the "other" Party might win, instead
of voting with the passion that the Party you are voting for will do a
spectacular job at making your country great !!

i.e. REPS&DEMS are corrupt and you know it, but you have to pick one because the other discuss you more.

Also it is almost statistically impossible for a party out side the REPS&DEMS
to get elected that many are discouraged to compete.

Well here's a solution that is:
1) Fair to everyone
2) Ensures an accurate "MAJORITY" rule
3) Is far more DEMOCRATIC than the current system
4) And does not violate any constitutional laws

Instant Runoff Voting!!!
http://instantrunoff.com/

Now, say you like Ron Paul but you "KNOW" in our current system
that if too many REPS or Cons or Libertarians write in Paul, Obama will win
and you hate the DEMS/Obama more than the REPS/McCain!
So you are stuck voting for the lesser of two Evils! You are VOTING OUT OF FEAR and YOU CAN NOT VOTE for what is best (in your view).


Now, say you like Nader but you "KNOW" in our current system
that if too many DEMS or Libs or Indies vote Nader, McCain will win
and you hate the REPS/McCain more than the DEMS/Obama !
So you are stuck voting for the lesser of two Evils! You are VOTING OUT OF FEAR and YOU CAN NOT VOTE for what is best (in your view).

(See how they have us(you!) in check ?)

Now if we had I.R.V. you could vote for anyone you wanted! You get to vote
for the Candidates in the order that you like !! If your 1st pick is a minority
it's ok ! Your next pick will then be used ! If your 2nd pick is a minority
then (YOU GUESSED IT !) your third pick will be used ! This will continue
till one candidate gets a Majority (>=51%) vote the popular vote !!

And I know that States get to pick the Prez. but States need to accurately
represent their constituency, so this still applies.

[Stoner]

I fail to see how voting for whomever you want is 'voting out of fear."

The best candidate including all 3rd parties and independants is John McCain...so that's who I'm voting for.

Amaerica has the best voting system in the world. Not sure what your beef is.

[Kperry]

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader aren't unpopular because of the party system; they're unpolular because they're wackjobs who focus on specific issues while ignoring others. I don't think "Fear" has much to do with it.

Our voting system is complicated enough without 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Ok, say McCain and Obama were running as some 3rd party and you two wanted to vote
for them! The fact that they were not on the GOP or DNC ticket statisically excludes
them for having a real chance of winning. So do you vote for them (as a 3rd Party) or do
you vote for the REP or DEM party candidate that least offends you?

With IRV you could vote for them first then pick candiates in order of your liking.
Why would that scare you ?

[Buck Laser]

I am not voting out of fear, and I can't recall when I ever did vote out of fear, except in 1964, when part of my decision to vote for LBJ over Goldwater was based on fear of what Goldwater's cowboy ideas about war might do to us. In the end, it was a very mixed bargain. We got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Medicare, and the the War on Poverty, but we also got the worst quagmire in US history, a war that didn't get lost until Ford was in office.

Even without Goldwater, I'd have voted for LBJ because he kept most of his promises to us.

[Milton Bradley]

I am not voting out of fear, and I can't recall when I ever did vote out of fear, except in 1964, when part of my decision to vote for LBJ over Goldwater was based on fear of what Goldwater's cowboy ideas about war might do to us. In the end, it was a very mixed bargain. We got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Medicare, and the the War on Poverty, but we also got the worst quagmire in US history, a war that didn't get lost until Ford was in office.

Even without Goldwater, I'd have voted for LBJ because he kept most of his promises to us.


Well, again, that seems like the logical process of somebody who is only willing to consider the two most popular options.


What about the rest of us?

[Kperry]

You're assuming that the people you're talking to belong to the republican or democratic parties. I'm an independent. I vote within the mainstream because I have a reasonable chance of my candidate winning. I can agree with Obama's platform enough that I can justify voting for him; I'm not voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

And granted, that's a vicious self repeating cycle, but it's the best way of getting things donw so far.

[Buck Laser]

Well, again, that seems like the logical process of somebody who is only willing to consider the two most popular options.

What about the rest of us?
First, my concern is for casting a vote for someone I believe in.

Second, I don't think a multiparty system is ever gonna happen in the US. One party or the other may be replaced or substantially changed, but the two party structure is going to remain. Your intimation that you think violence toward party officials may be OK is almost totally counterproductive. But there's no way I can force you to see that. so dialogue isn't gonna get us anywhere.

[Stoner]

The fact that they were not on the GOP or DNC ticket statisically excludes
them for having a real chance of winning.

That has nothing to do with what ticket they're on. It has everything to do with their views and policies. You don't vote for a party, you vote for the individual.

[freespeech]

You're assuming that the people you're talking to belong to the republican or democratic parties. I'm an independent. I vote within the mainstream because I have a reasonable chance of my candidate winning. I can agree with Obama's platform enough that I can justify voting for him; I'm not voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

And granted, that's a vicious self repeating cycle, but it's the best way of getting things donw so far.

so you vote mainstream because they have an actual chance of winning even though there may be someone you agree with more?
With the IRV system you could vote for who you agreed with most while ensuring that your favorite so called "mainstream candidate" would still get your vote if your number 1 candidate didn't get enough support

[Kperry]

so you vote mainstream because they have an actual chance of winning even though there may be someone you agree with more?

Absolutely. In the primary I thought Kucinich was brilliant. I agreed with every oen of his ideas; however he was a crackpot. He wasn't realistic and he was far too liberal for the nation. I voted for Gravel. And failing him, I'm a firm supporter of Obama. Granted, these were all democrats, but I have an extreme distaste for all things Ron Paul.

[freespeech]

Absolutely. In the primary I thought Kucinich was brilliant. I agreed with every oen of his ideas; however he was a crackpot. He wasn't realistic and he was far too liberal for the nation. I voted for Gravel. And failing him, I'm a firm supporter of Obama. Granted, these were all democrats, but I have an extreme distaste for all things Ron Paul.

Well if you agree with everything Kucinich does then you would not agree with many of Obama's policies so you can't be too enthusiastic about him. If I were to guess, you are voting for him: a)because you will vote dem no matter what. or b)you are voting the lesser of TWO evils. With IRV you would have many more choices, so you could vote for the lesser of FIVE evils, or, god forbid, a candidate you actually AGREE with.

[Kperry]

Lesser of the two evils; He's semi pro choice, he's marginally more sympathetic towards gay rights than McCain and he's (in theory) less open to gaining oil and more geared towards alternate energy Sources.

And I'll admit; so long as McCain is kept far away from the big red button, I'm happy.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

You're assuming that the people you're talking to belong to the republican or democratic parties. I'm an independent. I vote within the mainstream because I have a reasonable chance of my candidate winning. I can agree with Obama's platform enough that I can justify voting for him; I'm not voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

And granted, that's a vicious self repeating cycle, but it's the best way of getting things donw so far.

So tell me when and how do you plan on stopping this downward spiral of supporting the
Least Evil candidate ? How long have you been voting ? With our current voting system,
when will there Ever be (for a NON-REP-DEM) a "reasonable chance of my candidate winning"?

You just indirectly proved my point of a monopoly by "The Mainstream Parties" !

With IRV you will always have a chance of getting the best possible candidate elected!
Not just the lesser of the two evils......

[Stoner]

I vote within the mainstream because I have a reasonable chance of my candidate winning

That mentality is why 3rd party candidates don't fair well. As long as people continue that way of thinking you'll never see 3rd parties and independants do well.

The system is set up so many qualified candidates can run. It's people like you that hurt the non-mainstream candidates.

[Milton Bradley]

First, my concern is for casting a vote for someone I believe in.

Second, I don't think a multiparty system is ever gonna happen in the US. One party or the other may be replaced or substantially changed, but the two party structure is going to remain. Your intimation that you think violence toward party officials may be OK is almost totally counterproductive. But there's no way I can force you to see that. so dialogue isn't gonna get us anywhere.


You know, this post smells of blame. Blame you are attempting to place on me for not wanting to play by the rules. Incidentally, I'd love nothing more than to be able to play by the rules, but the rules are changing. However, the rules were thrown out by the people in control. The people who intend to remain in control.


So you could accurately say that my opinion was formed by dealing with the ( now ) built in system of disenfranchisement advocated by the people who changed the rules to begin with.


I do hope you can see who the real victim is here. Not only that, but you guys are responsible for building the moster that you fear. My position is in response to yours. I only exist because of people like yourself.

[Buck Laser]

You know, this post smells of blame. Blame you are attempting to place on me for not wanting to play by the rules. Incidentally, I'd love nothing more than to be able to play by the rules, but the rules are changing. However, the rules were thrown out by the people in control. The people who intend to remain in control.


So you could accurately say that my opinion was formed by dealing with the ( now ) built in system of disenfranchisement advocated by the people who changed the rules to begin with.


I do hope you can see who the real victim is here. Not only that, but you guys are responsible for building the moster that you fear. My position is in response to yours. I only exist because of people like yourself.

Call it blame if you wish, MB. But when you and your armed band of resisters kill all the politicians you consider to be traitors, where is MY protection against being considered a traitor? Where would it be??? If you can decide that the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party deserved to die, what's to keep you from deciding that Buck Laser, who's given a few hundred dollars to Obama's campaign isn't also a traitor? Who's gonna protect me in your brave new world? Or should I get the old 12 ga. out, cut the barrel off and load it with buckshot?

You say the constitution has been violated. I think it's been violated too, but I've seen this country correct its excesses for more than 70 years now, with remarkably little blood shed. You've done NOTHING to convince me that you and your confreres can hold the bloodshed to a minimum. In fact, you scare the shit out of me. But I still support the First Amendmet, which gives you the unalienable right to say what I consider to be stupid things.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Call it blame if you wish, MB. But when you and your armed band of resisters kill all the politicians you consider to be traitors, where is MY protection against being considered a traitor? Where would it be??? If you can decide that the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party deserved to die, what's to keep you from deciding that Buck Laser, who's given a few hundred dollars to Obama's campaign isn't also a traitor? Who's gonna protect me in your brave new world? Or should I get the old 12 ga. out, cut the barrel off and load it with buckshot?

You say the constitution has been violated. I think it's been violated too, but I've seen this country correct its excesses for more than 70 years now, with remarkably little blood shed. You've done NOTHING to convince me that you and your confreres can hold the bloodshed to a minimum. In fact, you scare the shit out of me. But I still support the First Amendmet, which gives you the unalienable right to say what I consider to be stupid things.

This post is about using IRV ! That is something that will give every American more ability
to exercise their 1st Amendment right !!! Why would you not want it ?

It's like why wouldn't McCain and Obama want to let Nader or Barr in to the debates ?
If the RESP&DEMS are "The Mainstream" Parties because the are the best, then this would
be a chance to destroy the "NUT JOB" third party candidates like Nader or Barr ! Right !

[freespeech]

A system that gives two corrupt parties indefinite power seems broken to me...

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

A system that gives two corrupt parties indefinite power seems broken to me...

That is such a plain and obvious conclusion (right?) !

It just freakin AMAZES me that so many Americas can't see it !
And even the ones that do, continue to support this OBVIOUSLY broke system .

[DamnYankee]

I vote according to what is best, IMO, for the country.

[Buck Laser]

I vote according to what is best, IMO, for the country.
And I vote for what's best in my opinion for the country. Yet you and I would probably not agree on a single issue. So what's really best?

[Phyxius]

Well, again, that seems like the logical process of somebody who is only willing to consider the two most popular options.


What about the rest of us?

Hmmm. One of the principles behind MAJORITY RULE is the fact that the minority either has to SUCK IT UP, or create a majority of their own. Seems you can't do either one... :madlaugh:

[Buck Laser]

Hmmm. One of the principles behind MAJORITY RULE is the fact that the minority either has to SUCK IT UP, or create a majority of their own. Seems you can't do either one... :madlaugh:
Actually, one of the reasons that democracy moves so slowly is that we put some pretty serious restrictions on majority rule, and work very hard to protect the rights of the minority, be they the plutocrats or poor people living in ghettos. Nobody is completely happy, but the system does work, despite the naysayers.

I agree with you on most of your political points in your posts, but the rights of the minority party in the US is a basic concept in our version of democracy.

[DamnYankee]

So what's really best?

To have a gov't fulfill the will of the majority of people, such as drilling for our own oil.

[Buck Laser]

To have a gov't fulfill the will of the majority of people, such as drilling for our own oil.
The gummint drill for oil? What are you, some kinda communist?:shame:

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Hmmm. One of the principles behind MAJORITY RULE is the fact that the minority either has to SUCK IT UP, or create a majority of their own. Seems you can't do either one... :madlaugh:

B.Clinton won with only 43% of the peoples vote!
Bush won when Gore had more votes !

Is it hard for you to understand that the Majority is not what our current system supports?

Suck it up ! You are supporting a corrupt system!