The problem with most third parties is how they are viewed; most are seen as a one-issue party.

Take your pick...

The Green Party focuses on environmental issues.
The Reform Party focused on economic issues.
The Constitution Party focuses on social issues.
The Libertarian Party focuses on the minimization of government.
etc.

In the public's eye, the Democratic and Republican Party can't be nailed down to one particular issue - they have a well-known stance on a broad range of social, economic, civil, and foreign policy issues. This is not to say that these third parties don't hold a stance on such issues, they just don't focus on them, so they seem like a one-issue party. A single issue will never appeal to the entire population (especially a single stance on one issue), hence they remain largely unpopular.

Until a third party can become known for a strong position on multiple issues and run on those positions, they will remain unpopular.

It's really a catch 22.

Third parties are usually formed by voters who have an extreme view on a certain topic ("extreme" being a view not held by the Democratic or Republican party, since those two have the "slightly left" and "slightly right" center positions pretty much nailed). Take a look at the history of third parties in the USA - they're mostly either extremely liberal or extremely conservative; the ones that are center were mostly formed by Ross Perot in the 90's, and based on economic principles. An extreme view, by definition, is only going to be found in a minority of the population.

Therefore, until common sentiment changes (and it does...eventually...take a look at the civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement) and public opinion sways, the Dems or the Reps will remain in power. However, even when sentiment sways it will be hard to establish a third party, as one of these major parties will just adopt the new changing sentiment and disregard their old stance, evolving with the sentiment of the people.

I'm also in the "who cares" camp on the "That One" quip. I generalize that feeling to much of the attacks and small lies by both campaigns, because they are expected and obvious. Then again, I did a lot of research during the primary season and made my decision on who to vote for months ago, so I'm probably not the target audience for that kind of statement.

Full disclosure: I'll be voting Obama/Biden on November 4th, though I identify as Independent. In general I dislike some Democrats and Democratic (in)action, but I outright hate the neoconservatives that represent today's Republican party, so I end up leaning Democratic nationally. I haven't researched the local races yet but I will likely cast the majority of my votes for Green party candidates.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Harper, Dion, Layton, May, Tory, Liberal, NDP, Green Party' to 'Harper, Dion, Layton, May, Tory, Liberal, NDP, Green Party, Rick Mercer Report' - edited by calvados

Demo:
Barack
Repubs:
Mccain
Independent Green Party:
Chuck Baldwin
Libertarian party:
Barr
Green party:
Cynthia McKinney
Independent:
Nader

Hello? The Democrats were the ones at the recount who most obstructed fair and open recounts. Go read the green party observer reports and you'll find usually the worst people were the Deputy Directors (the Dems). This was true in Franklin County as well. "Democrats" have no control over elections this year. It is completely run by the Directors and Deputy Directors of the 88 counties. The only thing the Dems do in Ohio is the Democratic Secretary of State breaks tie votes and issues Directives. In fact the Dems have left Brunner out to dry against GOP attacks and I suspect they don't like her very much.

To anyone in Columbus, please tell your friends and loved ones to vote early or by absentee. The GOP already knows this which is why they have been so aggressive with the absentee applications.

The study done by an Industrial Engineering professor at OSU has predicted:

Our simulations predict 37 locations will likely
experience average waits of longer than three hours.

And then also on page 4, with these
assumptions, we predict numerous locations where
the average voter will wait longer than 60
minutes. The number of these locations out of
543 locations range between 137 and 229
precincts.

Report and meeting minutes from Franklin County.

As to Netrunner's comment about the McCain absentee application, that is clearly shenanigans by the GOP. In Ohio, the McCain people sent out a campaign flyer with a return postcard and on the back they had a homemade application for absentee, well instead of using a county or state form or even copying the text from those, they did it from scratch and happened to remove what used to be a statement, "I am a qualifier voter" to using a checkbox that was not pre-filed in. So if a voter did not check the McCain added box, it would be an invalid application, just like on any application where it might say [ ] I am at least 18 years old.

The McCain folks are also sending these similar absentee application flyers to states like MI and WI where the return address on the back is not the correct town clerk for the address of the voter it was sent to. And if voters did not notice this, their application would be sent to the town over and never really completed.

In Ohio, the McCain application goof up is going to mean tens of thousands of applications around the whole state will have to be redone by Boards contacting voters to correct their faulty applications. (This was a requirement by Brunner that any invalid applications must be attempted to contact a voter and correct it. In past Republican run elections, this application would have just been thrown out)

For the record, for the first time in eight years, Ohio's chief election official is NOT the chair of a Republican (or Democratic) presidential candidate's campaign.

Sorry roughy.. that's not the libertarianism I know... nor does it sound like the libertarians I know... also I know of several libertarians that voted green party (myself included).

I hope his opponent in the next election uses that last bit in an attack ad.

[edit] Oh, he'll be running essentially unopposed this November - Green Party candidate Rebekah Kennedy will be the only challenger. Funny you should mention his father, Zonbie. His dad, David Pryor, had previously held that office for 3 terms.

Nice video. I agree with most of it.

I'd like to remind you that plenty of immigrants starved to death in the United States around 1900 without any "socialist policy destroying the economy". With the exception of railroad land grants, the USA was nearly laissez-faire until 1906. Monopolies thrived anyway.

If you want a recent example of price-fixing by suppliers whose initiation did not require government help (but ending it did require government help), look up the SDRAM collusion scandal of the early 2000s.

OPEC's openly stated goal is to control oil prices by collusive production-limiting, so it's ridiculous to call that a "tinfoil hat" allegation. They succeed because demand for oil is not very elastic and their competitors cannot easily increase production. Also, irrespective of OPEC, the price of oil will continue to rise as the limited worldwide reserves are consumed and demand continues to rise. OPEC and the United States are playing it well by conserving their reserves. The price of oil, relative to gold, will probably double by 2020.

And I do support nuclear power. Don't be so insolent as to presume that any left-leaning person you meet online supports every plank of the Green Party Platform.

A large conglomerate can drive all its competition in a particular niche out of business by selling at a slight loss. Or the conglomerate offer to buy the competitors first, and then run the holdouts out of business. Then they can raise prices to whatever they want and make a profit more than enough to compensate for the earlier loss. Some new capitalist will presume that he can sell the product cheaper, so he will waste the overhead cost of market entry before getting run out of business by the larger company selling at a loss again. Then the larger company goes back to selling at very high prices without any competitors. In any market with high entry overhead costs and impracticality of long-term temporal arbitrage, a monopoly can thrive without government help.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith


Industries such as tap water, sewers, and electical grids are natural monopolies. There is not one place in the world where you have a choice of which tap water grid to connect to, or which sewer network to connect to, or which power grid to connect to.

If Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party had not run for President, Gore would have ended up with more votes than Bush. So don't blame Nader.

You know who I blame? The MILLIONS of people who voted for Bush. Especially those who did it twice.

You know who else I blame? The idiot old fucks who accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot was "too confusing." If it's too confusing, go home and sit on your hands, Grandma.

I also blame this entire ridiculous country for its elections that have no runoffs, even if the tally is split by one vote.

But I never blame Nader, because he doesn't deserve to be blamed.

>> ^chilaxe:
Whenever Nader complains about Bush, keep in mind without Nader, Gore would have easily beaten Bush. I think Nader needs to indicate he understands how wrong he was in order for his current predictions to be credible. Not even the Green party supports him anymore.

Whenever Nader complains about Bush, keep in mind without Nader, Gore would have easily beaten Bush. I think Nader needs to indicate he understands how wrong he was in order for his current predictions to be credible. Not even the Green party supports him anymore.

Where's the Green Party when you need it? Oh right... busy getting laughed at by ignorant Republicans and Democrats.

Reminds me of:
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-it-all-ends

Which pretty much tells it like it is ... we're setting ourselves up for an early demise as long as we continue to take no action.

Yeah, Mycroft. I just don't get it. Third parties can only fail in our winner takes all system. I wish we would switch to a parliamentary system.

I'd be happy to see Nader take one percent of the vote if it resulted in the green party taking one percent of the congress, but with our current system, that one percent equals nothing, in fact less than nothing considering he will draw votes from Obama. Perhaps he has some late game strategy of throwing his support to Obama at some key point? Or some list of private demands Obama must meet? Who knows?

That said, I think McCain is his own worst enemy and will be crushed by Obama, so Nader's little nibble shouldn't be of much significance, which brings us back to why again.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I don't understand why Republicans should be less in favor of IRV than Democrats. Who gains the upper hand from a split vote changes ever election.

You may have misread my post, I used the portmanteau Republicrats

I don't see how this could be a realistic approach to a national election. Consider the ballet: there are 10-20 candidates on there. I wouldn't want to rank all of those myself and a I think a lot of voters would have a tough time figuring it all out.

Generally you are not required to vote for all outcomes, usually one or two "minor" candidates as first choices, then a "major" candidate for last pick, so that your general preference will always be counted.

Now an admittedly ignorant question: why do we need to support so many parties when we have open primaries? I understand, for instance, the Green Party is based around strong environmental views. Why do we need a whole political party built around this? Same goes for the Libertarian Party. Al Gore was very "green" but was a Democrat and Ron Paul is very Libertarian, but Republican. Why don't we just have the smaller independent parties run under the party they most closely associate with (Rep/Dem)? Consider the success Ron Paul is enjoying and then consider if he would have the same with the title "Libertarian."

The general argument against this is that the major parties, and the primary system in general, are designed to reduce electoral choice/input. Not all states have open primaries, or primary elections at all, some have caucuses, which further marginalize "unelectable" candidates.

The real value of IRV is that people can vote for people because they agree with them, not because they are "electable". IRV allows everybody to add their "electable" preference as a backup to their real choice so people are more likely to vote with their ideals than with cynical pragmatism.

Right now in the US less then 2% of the electorate votes with their ideals against pragmatism. When people vote for a Libertarian, Green or Socialist candidate for president or governor they know that they will not win, but they feel that votes should be based on ideas, not cynicism. IRV makes it possible to have both, everyone can vote their ideals, without having to worry about it having negative pragmatic consequences.

I don't understand why Republicans should be less in favor of IRV than Democrats. Who gains the upper hand from a split vote changes ever election.

I don't see how this could be a realistic approach to a national election. Consider the ballet: there are 10-20 candidates on there. I wouldn't want to rank all of those myself and a I think a lot of voters would have a tough time figuring it all out.

Now an admittedly ignorant question: why do we need to support so many parties when we have open primaries? I understand, for instance, the Green Party is based around strong environmental views. Why do we need a whole political party built around this? Same goes for the Libertarian Party. Al Gore was very "green" but was a Democrat and Ron Paul is very Libertarian, but Republican. Why don't we just have the smaller independent parties run under the party they most closely associate with (Rep/Dem)? Consider the success Ron Paul is enjoying and then consider if he would have the same with the title "Libertarian."

I'd actually like to know, not trying to induce flames here.

rgroom1, you did yourself in with your own definition of moron. It is "mental age" like you said, not physical age like you later said. Plus any twelve year old can read the bible and find scary things to mark with a highlighter. But either way Dr. K is not a moron because he is a manipulative shyster. A moron can’t do that.

It funny that you mention Chinese Christians because in China the philosophy of Christianity is completely different than it is here. As a majority, they view Christianity as Westerners view Buddhism. It’s more about a strange mysticism. Buddhism seems new and interesting to Westerners, but to the Chinese, it the same old bag; that’s why they turn to Christianity. So, as vapid as it sounds, it sounds kind of sheik to call yourself a Christian in China. It’s kind of like how here in the late 90’s it was cool to say you were a Taoist, or that you voted for the green party.

Also, yes, some religions and types of mediation, such as Falun Dafa, are punishable in China, but Christianity certainly is not one of them. It is encouraged because they believe it makes them seems more western cosmopolitan, therefore easier to do business with.