What is happening in Britain is why I don't support third parties

[klamath]

No one won a majority so now the backroom deals are happening to pick the prime minister. The leaders of the party that I voted for may pick the the very issues I didn't want compromised to compromise on. I always have to compromise some of my issues when I vote for a president even RP but I make the determination of the issues, not some party leader working backroom deals.
In america it would be the electoral college making the deals to give one of those candidates 270 votes, not I.
Sometimes I am disenfranchised like the last election where none of the candidates that were selected in the primary process agreed with enough of my issues to vote for them but that is just the cost of being in a very small minority.

[Keller1967]

No one won a majority so now the backroom deals are happening to pick the prime minister. The leaders of the party that I voted for may pick the the very issues I didn't want compromised to compromise on. I always have to compromise some of my issues when I vote for a president even RP but I make the determination of the issues, not some party leader working backroom deals.
In america it would be the electoral college making the deals to give one of those candidates 270 votes, not I.
Sometimes I am disenfranchised like the last election where none of the candidates that were selected in the primary process agreed with enough of my issues to vote for them but that is just the cost of being in a very small minority.

You can't honestly say two parties are a better alternative though.

We don't need a 3rd party, we need no parties - candidates running off their individual merit, this was also that advice of Washington (at least from what I've heard).

[klamath]

You can't honestly say two parties are a better alternative though.

We don't need a 3rd party, we need no parties - candidates running off their individual merit, this was also that advice of Washington (at least from what I've heard).

How would a no party system work, say electing a president?

[Keller1967]

How would a no party system work, say electing a president?

The same way it works now, the guy who became the most popular would win.

There weren't parties to begin with, I guess how it happens is it turns into groups of people who support this guy or that guy (a la Hamiltonains or Jeffersonians) and that pretty quickly evolves into political parties.

[Carole]

Among the three candidates, not one was a true conservative and I have read that all three were supportive of bigger government. Where was the choice?

Then there was this? It looks as though there may have been a concerted attempt to suppress voter participation.


Voters declare their anger as thousands are turned back at polling station door

(h ttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7118998.ece)


General Election 2010: Electoral Commission accused over 'third world' ballot

(h ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7689014/General-Election-2010-Electoral-Commission-accused-over-third-world-ballot.html)

[klamath]

The same way it works now, the guy who became the most popular would win.

There weren't parties to begin with, I guess how it happens is it turns into groups of people who support this guy or that guy (a la Hamiltonains or Jeffersonians) and that pretty quickly evolves into political parties.

But then you get right back to the problem of say having 6 candidates spliting the vote in the general election and no one winning a majority of 270 electoral college votes. The electoral college has to go into back rooms to make deals in order to elect a president.
I am not quite ready to get rid of the electoral College and go to a direct election as this in contrary to a Republic. Plus I don't think giving the job of president to a man that only won 15% of the vote because all the other candidates only won 14.6% is going to be a stable government.

[ChaosControl]

Parties in general suck, there should be none.

Just have people run independent and have some kind of runoff voting.

The UK election was screwed up. The damn labour party screws everything up and makes UK a police state and yet the people still vote them in to such a high degree. Granted morons here do the same thing when they vote D or R.

[fisharmor]

Iris out a little, and the solution is to reassert federalism. Put greater power in the constituent states, taking it away from the elected dictator, and it has a two-fold effect: first, with less power it becomes less important who the elected dictator is, and second, with less power, fewer people will go out of their way to control who becomes the elected dictator.

Iris out farther than that, and we see that this was tried for 80 years in the early 19th century, and it failed. Hell, communism almost has an equal track record.

It's why I'm willing to support anarchy. There are places in the world where it has a track record longer than 80 years.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

A European conservative = American Progressive

[klamath]

Parties in general suck, there should be none.

Just have people run independent and have some kind of runoff voting.

The UK election was screwed up. The damn labour party screws everything up and makes UK a police state and yet the people still vote them in to such a high degree. Granted morons here do the same thing when they vote D or R.

The primary system and the general election is a runoff system. We have had some pretty good candidates run in the republican primaries this spring but we didn't have the votes to get them elected. This is a voter problem not a party problem. Voter education is the problem.

[slothman]

You vote for issues and the candidate who matches most wins.
There would have to be like 20 issues and it wouldn't be perfect as every issues can't be used but it could be better.

[Linus]

America lacks a second party, not a third party. We have Guelphs and Ghibellines: two familially-based factions fighting for control of the exact same ideological power center.

America is ruled by a Republocrat totalitarian regime.

[Mini-Me]

No one won a majority so now the backroom deals are happening to pick the prime minister. The leaders of the party that I voted for may pick the the very issues I didn't want compromised to compromise on. I always have to compromise some of my issues when I vote for a president even RP but I make the determination of the issues, not some party leader working backroom deals.
In america it would be the electoral college making the deals to give one of those candidates 270 votes, not I.
Sometimes I am disenfranchised like the last election where none of the candidates that were selected in the primary process agreed with enough of my issues to vote for them but that is just the cost of being in a very small minority.

You're right that Britain's system is screwed up. There IS a right way to do elections though, and that's approval voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) or range voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting), where the person with the most support overall wins. Of course, full-out liberty with no legislators or arbitrary legislation (and therefore no need for elections) would be preferable, but if you're going to do elections, there's a right way and a wrong way...and almost everyone does it the wrong way. (Personally, I think the "really right way" is approval voting where, if someone doesn't get 100% of the vote, you redo the entire election with entirely new candidates or call for smaller jurisdictions. ;))

It's our plurality voting system that has led to two-party (or one party, really) domination...because that's the natural equilibrium for plurality voting systems.

[Brian4Liberty]

How would a no party system work, say electing a president?

No one gets elected without getting over 50% of the vote. There is supposedly a way to do instant run-off, where there is only a single ballot, but you get to rank several candidates.

[Brian4Liberty]

Voter education is the problem.

That is definitely a problem.

[klamath]

America lacks a second party, not a third party. We have Guelphs and Ghibellines: two familially-based factions fighting for control of the exact same ideological power center.

America is ruled by a Republocrat totalitarian regime.
And this is exactly what the American people voted for. There has been several chances this spring to vote in candidates with more principles but it was the American voters that turned them down NOT the parties.

[Linus]

And this is exactly what the American people voted for. There has been several chances this spring to vote in someone with more principles but it was the American voters that turned them down NOT the parties.


Our movement has messaging issues. It almost makes me shed a tear when I realize how badly the American people not only WANT what we're selling, but genuinely NEED it. And we're not giving it to them.


There's nobody to blame for the overstock but ourselves. It should motivate us to work harder, that's all.

[klamath]

You're right that Britain's system is screwed up. There IS a right way to do elections though, and that's approval voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) or range voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting), where the person with the most support overall wins. Of course, full-out liberty with no legislators or arbitrary legislation (and therefore no need for elections) would be preferable, but if you're going to do elections, there's a right way and a wrong way...and almost everyone does it the wrong way. (Personally, I think the "really right way" is approval voting where, if someone doesn't get 100% of the vote, you redo the entire election with entirely new candidates or call for smaller jurisdictions. ;))

It's our plurality voting system that has led to two-party (or one party, really) domination...because that's the natural equilibrium for plurality voting systems.

I would be more in favor of range voting but the way it is now people already do this in their mind when they select the candidates.

[klamath]

Our movement has messaging issues. It almost makes me shed a tear when I realize how badly the American people not only WANT what we're selling, but genuinely NEED it. And we're not giving it to them.


There's nobody to blame for the overstock but ourselves. It should motivate us to work harder, that's all.

I agree but I think that there are still too darn many Americans that like the gravy train and security blanket.

[Linus]

I agree but I think that there are still too darn many Americans that like the gravy train and security blanket.

True. That's why sometime you have to give 'em a little chaos...to remind 'em how fun it can actually be.

[klamath]

You vote for issues and the candidate who matches most wins.
There would have to be like 20 issues and it wouldn't be perfect as every issues can't be used but it could be better.
That sounds great but who decides which candidate matches the results the best:D

[Anti Federalist]

I agree but I think that there are still too darn many Americans that like the gravy train and security blanket.

Yup, can't argue with that.

The gravy train has already jumped the rails, all we are waiting for now is the sudden stop at the bottom of the ravine.

[Quinn Rogness]

To be honest, having no one with a majority sounds like a positive thing to me. I wish we had more parties, and not just these two corrupt parties who pretend to be completely different, but govern almost identically.

[Teaser Rate]

You vote for issues and the candidate who matches most wins.
There would have to be like 20 issues and it wouldn't be perfect as every issues can't be used but it could be better.

YouTube - The George Bush You Forgot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc)

[chadhb]

YouTube - The George Bush You Forgot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc)

Faux News seemed to misplace this video.

[Mini-Me]

I would be more in favor of range voting but the way it is now people already do this in their mind when they select the candidates.

People may think of it that way internally, but ultimately being able to pick only one translates into "lesser of two evils" voting at the booth. Because of the way our system works, people tend to actually vote for the candidate they think can beat the one they hate the most, instead of voting for the candidate they like the most. That's why we get trapped in such a vicious cycle.

Even instant-runoff voting has the same problem, to a lesser degree. Range voting is really the best, although I suggested approval voting above, simply because range voting might be too complicated for some of the stupids. ;) With range voting, some people might still upgrade the candidate who they think is most likely to beat their most hated, but at least they don't have to downgrade their favorite (perfect 10! ;)) to do so.