It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let the revolution to start voting in REAL leaders begin!
Originally posted by Amuk
Yall will soon be deludged by both parties claiming your vote for who you believe in will just result in (fill in the blank) winning the election.
I am still weak and cant sit up long so I will make this short.
SCREW THEM
Vote your heart and who you believe is the best man for the job, dont buy into this lesser of two evils BS. At least you will be able to look yourself in the mirrior the day after the election and say "I tried MY best"
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
No amount of parties would be too many, but even in a completely open system I think that the inherant nature of society would limit them.
Personally, I would like to see as much diversity as possible. If the office holders know they have a 50+% chance of winning and have been in office 20+ years, they will not work as hard and will have further financial ties with business than a new guy with a 20% chance in winning.
We need to cap public office terms. This is just an example.
1 term on the federal level
1 term on the state level
2 terms on the local level.
This will create a pipeline from local government for fresh folks with "downhome" (for lack of a better word) ties from the not to distant past.
We need new life to survive, and the reason it is not popular, is that people would rather turn a blind eye and ride as comfortably as possible til the end than to risk any of the security they have for lasting change.
Originally posted by wraith30
An intersing idea.. however what kind of effectively free and just system would we have if say there were 50 parties.. one fore each state. Due tot he inherant tendencies of man each state will simply vote for their own candidate bacasue they woudl feel that their state party would have them in mind. This would result in an almost default win for the most populace state.
Originally posted by PistolPete
I don't think people are that dumb. The residents of 49 other states know that if they voted for their individual state candidates California would win hands down every time. I understand the point you're making, but the example doesn't work.
A few clear cut leaders will always rise to the top. Look at elections in Democratic nations around the world to see that.
While the current system in the US is a two-party system, does it have to always be? The current system favors corporate interests over the good of the people. I sure hope not.
Ross Perot made great leaps toward ending the two-party system in 1992, but the Reform Party was subsequently run very poorly, losing all that ground.
Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
So I'm voting for Badnarik...I'm now a registered Libertarian, and that feels a whole hell of a lot better and honest then I've ever felt before, politically speaking...
[edit on 10/4/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]
Originally posted by Bout Time
Voting 'in opposition to ' as a sole factor is not the right way.
Though they've decried the Dems along with the GOP, I don't think enough Libertarians have been honest with themselves and gleaned away whether their vote is a protest of or an endorsement for.
Just don't join a party.
Originally posted by Amuk
I am voting FOR the Libertarians not against the other two.
I honestly believe in their stand on 99% of the issues.
I must admit I have mopre respect for someone who votes Dem or Rep because they BELIEVE in what they say than those who are voting "the lesser of two evils"
Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
I know that I'll add one vote to the third party voters, and just maybe a few more people will make that choice, and our voices will be heard...
So I'm voting for Badnarik...I'm now a registered Libertarian, and that feels a whole hell of a lot better and honest then I've ever felt before, politically speaking...