I think it's safe to say, here in the U.S., we know we definitely can't trust the Republican Party, and now we certainly cannot trust the Democratic Party. Luckily there's still the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, which I've no doubt is just as corruptible given a quantifiable time in power. The people need to ultimately learn, in my opinion, not to become fanboys of partisanship.

Bobknight's post is a great example of missing the point.

In that entire historical diatribe about how the Democratic Party is bad because of it's history he manages to completely ignore the ideas that formed the basis of the parties.

Hey Bob, if you read this let me ask you something. Do you really think the label "Democratic Party" has any meaning in the historical context you're so painfully trying to cite?

Do you think that the old south was full of liberals, or do you think the old south was conservative as ever and just the LABELS of what the party means changed?

Here's a history lesson for you, pal. The Democratic Party was started in the south as a conservative anti-federal, anti-government party. Sounds just like the south today. Sounds a lot like the republican party doesn't it?

Everything you criticize and ascribe to the "Democratic Party" you're laying the blame on the conservatives.

The democrats were the conservatives. Understand what that means?

The south didn't change, only the label of the party did. The republicans of the 19th century? They were the legacy of Hamilton's federalists, the industrialists, the northern bankers, supporters of strong central government, just the type of people you hate.

So when you condemn the democratic party history, you sound like an idiot coming from a conservative anti-federal government point of view. You're condemning the ancestors to your own movement.

You could call it the green party, or the birthday party for all it matters, it's the IDEAS that count.

The democrats were wrong in 1860 not because they were democrats, but because they were backward thinking, rural, anti-union, state rights supporters who plunged the whole country into a bloody war because they couldn't wake up and smell the 20th century coming.

Sounds like you'd get along with them famously! Doesn't it?

The problem with the Tea Party isn't who buys their bus rides, it's that, like you, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

>> ^lantern53:

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.


I just read through the position that Jill Stein takes on the issues. Not only is it the most sane and democratic approach I've seen, it's also the most comprehensive list explaining what to do. If Obama or Romney were honest and tried to put out a list this good, they'd never get elected because we'd know what they were actually going to do.

Jill will never get elected either, but if you gave her half a billion dollars I'll bet she'd get elected because she addresses a lot of issues the way most americans would support, if they were educated on the subjects.

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.

So at what point can scientist's finally say, "We told you so!" I bet it'll happen in the next 5 years. I'm guessing by that point, the climate effects will be severe enough to prove climate science absolutely irrefutable. For now, we can march forward in relative uncertainty with the well-funded media campaigns of climate sceptics and their message of ignorance.

There might even be a bounce-back year coming up. One where the global climate actually averages 1.0 to 0.5C cooler over the year. I'm hoping it doesn't fuel the sceptic campaign too much longer, because the trend is far too frightening to imagine if humanity misses the window.

[edit: 7/8/2012] My father in-law, a staunch climate change denier, says humorously that he was planning to die in 4 years. In order to prove me wrong and laugh in my face however, he says he will now hang on for another 6!

ChaosEngine, your comment below is understandable. I think world citizens will change their tune in the next 5 years, however. The Green Party will probably gain huge waves of support even without SuperPacs because their campaign message will be felt more and more each year. Just as organized religion had its reign and lost influence as science and society have revealed its fallacy, so too will the sceptic's argument lose out over ever-mounting empirical support of the truth: that human activities have indeed altered the Earth's climate for centuries to come. That is to say as long as we have free lines communication through tools such as the Internet.

It's from late 2010, when Merkel's party felt it neccessary to regain a more distinct profile with regards to the then surging Green party, who pride themselves as the vanguard of multiculturalism.

Wow so this is what happens if a country clings to two parties.



Here I vote for the green party and they get into government or opposition. In the US, into obscurity.
So Germany is not in Irak, gets out of nuclear power, has a working economy, fairly good welfare, free university, and very few gun-owners.

Yay mixed-member parliament!

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ghark:
... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).

I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.
Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.
I'm sick of rhetoric


I wonder what the alternative is at this point - I looked at the vote numbers for independents or non GOP/Dem parties in the 2008 election and they seem really low. It's almost setup so that if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you are just shooting yourself in the foot, as your voice/vote will simply get drowned out by the media hype that surrounds the main runners.

It's similar in Australia - we have the Green Party (who do actually get quite a few votes), but the trouble with voting for them is that they tend to form a coalition with either of the two main parties who gets the majority of votes and simply do what they are told, like puppies. So in essence, if you voted Greens at the last election, you may as well have voted Labor, because that's who the Greens are taking their orders from.

@NetRunner, I think some people who seek a voluntary society want to do so immediately and within their lifetimes, but others know it isn't pragmatic to just jump headlong into a complete repeal of government.

It's a process with an end goal of no government (or as Thoreau said, "That government is best which governs not at all." But it's not a process of "choosing the worst of the two evils" to gain some myopic short-term benefit that will ultimately increase the scope of government. It's about continually moving toward the goal of no government, or more personal freedom.

Even voting Green Party is a move in that direction because it helps to decentralize power within the two party system.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
As for stopping supporting Obama, I'll stop when there's actually some better alternative. I'm happy to criticize him for being timid and not having gone nearly far enough, but that doesn't translate into me deciding that the world would be better with a Republican in the White House.

Maybe there's more to voting for POTUS than just voting within the two party system. You're basically resigning yourself to a vote between two people, which isn't really an effective choice at all. Broaden your horizons and vote for Green Party or something else entirely.


I'm not interested in voting as an exercise in personal expression, I'm using what tiny amount of direct power I have to influence the world in the way I think will help the most.

Keeping Obama in the White House is the best outcome I see from 2012. If polling says a better option is possible next November, I might choose to vote another way, but I'm not too big on the whole "don't blame me I voted for <insert losing candidate here>" thing.

But hey, the last thing I want to do is encourage you guys to vote Republican instead of whichever 3rd party candidate you guys like best. More to the point, I really hope you guys peel off a good solid 10-20% of the Republican base for whichever pet cause it is you guys are working on.

>> ^NetRunner:

As for stopping supporting Obama, I'll stop when there's actually some better alternative. I'm happy to criticize him for being timid and not having gone nearly far enough, but that doesn't translate into me deciding that the world would be better with a Republican in the White House.


Maybe there's more to voting for POTUS than just voting within the two party system. You're basically resigning yourself to a vote between two people, which isn't really an effective choice at all. Broaden your horizons and vote for Green Party or something else entirely.

n.b. Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, was not allowed to participate in the debates this year, despite participating last year and even being considered the winner of the English debates. The Green Party has candidates all across the country compared to the Bloc Quebecois who only have candidates in one Province.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29/elizabeth-may-not-invited-to-leaders%E2%80%99-tv-debates/

It's been awhile since intro polisci, but I recall the upshot was this:

Any reasonable electoral system on a 1 dimensional spectrum (i.e. left/right)will eventually gravitate toward the preferences of the median voter. This is true of first past the post, proportional representation, and ranked preference systems.

If you model voter preferences in more dimensions (for instance one dimension on social policy, one on economic) theoretically you can have fairly chaotic and divergent results based on different electoral systems, but in practice it tends to end up near the median on each dimension anyway.

So it might feel good to be able to point to your green party representative in congress under a proportional system, or a candidate that shares your cultural background under a gerrymandered system, but you end up getting the same policies either way.

>> ^blankfist:

Had 100% of the people who voted Democrat but wanted to vote Green Party instead did so, and 100% of the people who voted Republican but actually wanted to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party also voted that way, the world would be a better place.


I actually totally agree. But I think the way people are voting now makes perfect sense -- and I imagine they do too!

That's why I wanna try to reform elections to try to make strategic voting obsolete. People should be able to say "I want Ralph Nader to win, but if he doesn't, I'd rather have Gore than Bush", and have the election results actually play out that way.

^Lame. First, I'm sure he was speaking about the recent election. Either way, it's not like Democrats have been particularly courteous in the realm of civil liberties recently. They, too, seem to enjoy this war, torture, FISA, wiretapping, etc. Exhibit A.

Had 100% of the people who voted Democrat but wanted to vote Green Party instead did so, and 100% of the people who voted Republican but actually wanted to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party also voted that way, the world would be a better place.