http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=11673

The only problem is getting one with current ballot access.

4/26/2006 8:17:33 AM

I'm forming my own party

4/26/2006 8:21:13 AM

Because 3rd parties have done so well in states with easy ballot access

I mean Libertarians got de-listed in North Carolina precisely b/c no one gives a fuck about those wackos...


[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 8:39 AM. Reason : Poll: Majority of Americans want viable cure for cancer...]

4/26/2006 8:38:25 AM

Which means the Libertarians aren't viable, duh.

4/26/2006 8:53:14 AM

^
no 3rd party is viable, now or in the future, regardless of ballot access -- that was the point


[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 8:57 AM. Reason : Poll: Majority of Americans want 0% tax rates...]

4/26/2006 8:56:11 AM

^ Well, can't we tax foreigners or something? I needz me some subsidized student loans.

4/26/2006 9:45:29 AM

why dont we just divide up the contentious debates and make a couple of new parties.

anti-gay marriage w/pro-abortion
no gun control + socialized medicine
etc.

[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 10:08 AM. Reason : i bet there could be one that was kinda social lib, fiscal con without being too extreme]

4/26/2006 10:07:33 AM

We should totally have a wheel of issues. Spin it and throw darts and assign "positions" to new third parties.

The Brown Party gets "tough on immigration", "Environmentalism", and "Pro gay rights".

4/26/2006 10:12:23 AM

"First Past the Post" voting system, as we have in America, necessarily precludes any third party from ever having a viable chance at representation.

The only way a third party can ever succeed, is if it takes the place of one of the current two parties.

it's been mathematically proven. i posted a link to the research a couple months ago.

4/26/2006 11:21:44 AM

Quote :

" "First Past the Post" voting system, as we have in America, necessarily precludes any third party from ever having a viable chance at representation. "

4/26/2006 12:05:56 PM

a different voting system would help tremendously


Approval Voting is a single-winner election system. The current system, plurality voting, presents a ballot listing the candidates for a given race and allows only one vote for one candidate. Approval Voting uses the same ballot format but allows a voter to approve any number of candidates, effectively allowing a vote for or against each candidate. Approval Voting is a simple reform that gets rid of the spoiler and lesser-of-two-evils problems and would result in a level playing field for all parties and candidates.

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a voting reform that asks the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. It is simple, common-sense reform that will greatly improve our democratic process.

IRV has many benefits including giving voters a wider range of choices, eliminating the spoiler factor with third-party candidates, saving taxpayer money, and decreasing negative campaigning.

Now, both of these have their pros and cons. I've seen alot of arguments about the problems with instant runoff voting, such as this one.

Monotonicity is perhaps the most fundamental criterion for election methods. Common sense tells us that good election methods should be monotonic. Methods that fail to comply are erratic.

A simple example will prove that IRV is non-monotonic.

That same site approves of "approval voting." Another option proposed by that site (which, by the way, is electionmethods.org) is condorcet voting. The main idea is that each race is conceptually broken down into separate pairwise races between each possible pairing of the candidates. Each ranked ballot is then interpreted as a vote in each of those one-on-one races. If candidate A is ranked above candidate B by a particular voter, that is interpreted as a vote for A over B. If one candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one races, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and a simple procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity.

http://www.electionmethods.org/index.htm

4/26/2006 12:16:41 PM

we need the reform party of '92 back

4/26/2006 12:38:33 PM

It's not a viable third party, is a third party that's more likely than not guaranteed to win that americans want. In other words, americans don't want to actually vote. If the majority of americans truely want a third party, and they all voted for a third party, then they would have a viable third party.

4/26/2006 12:46:49 PM

Reform Party of '92...wow...

I agree though, then their economic platform can take us back to the 1800s... 

4/26/2006 12:47:11 PM

ok, one edit

we need the reform party of '92+the new direction that jesse ventura promoted (global participation)

a balanced budget amendment would be good, dont you think? wouldnt you like to get back all that budget surplus money?

4/26/2006 12:49:36 PM

Quote :

"Poll:Majority of Americans want viable third party"

I'm still waiting for one viable party.

4/26/2006 1:09:51 PM

dont blame me

I'm voting for The Body

4/26/2006 1:13:11 PM

we need the reform party of '92 back

We need the Know-Nothing/American Party of the 1850s back.

Friggin Irish.

4/26/2006 1:18:10 PM

maybe im thinking more about jesse's rp politics

he called buchanan an idiot

4/26/2006 1:20:37 PM

Quote :

"Waluigi: a balanced budget amendment would be good, dont you think? wouldnt you like to get back all that budget surplus money?"

you actually think a balanced budget amendment would do that, that's cute  

4/26/2006 1:53:45 PM

no i dont, dumbass. im referring to the stated goals of that party.

-balanced budget amendment (and all that entails, i assume you know, being such a political talk badass)
-AS A SEPERATE PLAN (ill spell it out for you), any budget surplus money would be refunded to the taxpayers

4/26/2006 4:19:33 PM

being called a dumbass by someone touting a Balanced Budget Amendment doesn't exactly count for much...

4/26/2006 4:38:49 PM

ever noticed that 99% of what you post is done just to bait your opponents?

i mean, thats why you have protest warrior stuff in your gallery, right?

4/27/2006 9:05:11 AM

Here is a response to a question about immigration from Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for congress in Texas. See if you agree with his position or not...

Quote :

"Interviewer: The hot button issue of the day, of course, has to do with immigration reform. Some Libertarians believe our borders should be entirely open. But there are, I believe, issues with national security and national sovereignty where illegal immigration is concerned, and I get myself in trouble with some Libertarians over that position. What's your own viewpoint on that? Badnarik: Most of these issues are confused based on language. You know, the people who are in charge of the debate are changing the wording around. And one of the first things that is evidence of that is the phrase "illegal immigration" which is almost like a "round square." Immigration means that you are coming to this country for the purpose of immigrating, becoming an American, learning the language, and going through a process the end result of which is becoming an American citizen. Illegal immigration means you've broken the law, you have not followed that path. And you can't follow the path and not follow the path at the same time. And so just the phrase illegal immigration is used to confuse the issue. My position is that it is impossible and undesirable to have completely open or completely closed borders. We can't do it. We can build a wall, but people will find their way over it, under it, or around it. We have laws right now, and those certainly haven't stopped anybody. And having completely open borders — which is how people understand it when you say that phrase — is also not desirable. On a personal level, you have a home and you have a front door with a lock on that home. You do not leave the front door open and allow anybody walking down the street to just come in and rifle through the refrigerator. And if you come downstairs in the morning and your living room or kitchen are filled with people you don't know, you don't allow them to sit there and continue eating your donuts while you try to figure out which ones are your friends! You kick everybody out, and you say, "Okay, we're going to do this the proper way. You knock on the door, and if I know you, then you're welcome to come in. And if I don't know you — you're selling encyclopedias — then I thank you very much, and send you on your way." If we are going to have any kind of a country at all, we have to be able to identify who our citizens are. The United States is the only country in the world that I'm aware of that identifies its citizens based on ideology. If you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the Bill of Rights and the general concept of private property, welcome! You're one of us, you're an American. And after SepteMB:er 11, we had commercials on TV that emphasized that point. They had all different people of different nationalities and different colors looking into the camera and saying, "I'm an American. I'm an American." And the idea was that, regardless of what we look like, we are all in this together, we are all Americans. Well, that is true. That's true in theory. That's what we're supposed to be. So if you come to the United States with the intention of moving here, living here permanently, learning English, spending money, working hard, and becoming an American citizen, I'm all in favor of that. And there needs to be a clear, definitive path of how to do that. However, if you're just going to cross the border illegally disregarding the laws that we have in place, and you're going to march in the large cities, and demand that we turn our property over to you, that is not being an American. That is currently a non-violent invasion. And that is not something that I or Libertarians support. This battle is going to be won when we accurately identify the language and identify who is an immigrant — someone who's coming here to join our constitutional republic — and who is an invader who's trying to bring their third world socialist government to our soil. And those are two different groups of people."

4/27/2006 11:26:59 AM

i think we had a very legit shot at this back when Ross Perot ran. his flip flopping made the task impossible.

4/27/2006 12:07:41 PM

^^The crazy starts in the second to last paragraph

4/27/2006 12:21:27 PM

Quote :

"and who is an invader who's trying to bring their third world socialist government to our soil."

what in the flipping fuck is he talking about?

didnt this guy run for president last time?

4/27/2006 12:25:48 PM

^
Well I think he's talking about people from a third world socialist country invading our country.

Does that bother you at all?

4/27/2006 8:07:07 PM

no.

what if they are coming here because they dont like socialism?

or maybe they do like socialism. would you want a little political test before letting someone in?

4/27/2006 8:16:28 PM

What's the difference between a third world socialist coming here and a third world fascist coming here?

4/27/2006 9:23:11 PM

THE DOMINO THEORY

DUH

but seriously, you think immigrants are trying to invade and impose socialist legislation? based on what?

[Edited on April 27, 2006 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2006 11:10:11 PM

while it is a nice idea, look at how many people were polled, 1,051 or somewhere along in there, this probably is not an entirely accurate representation of the american public.

4/28/2006 12:59:45 AM

Quote :

"The United States is the only country in the world that I'm aware of that identifies its citizens based on ideology. If you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the Bill of Rights and the general concept of private property, welcome! You're one of us, you're an American."

wtf planet is this guy from?

see, this is why libertarians are not only going to not ever win any national election, but they arent even going to ever move out of their parent's basement.

just keep on hanging out at the comic book store wearing your silly beret.

4/28/2006 1:29:54 AM

Quote :

"while it is a nice idea, look at how many people were polled, 1,051 or somewhere along in there, this probably is not an entirely accurate representation of the american public."

sigh

4/28/2006 8:41:58 AM

Quote :

"wtf planet is this guy from? "

What part of that quote is bothering you, joe? The part about how our country is set up not to identify people by race or religion, but by just being an American? Is it the part that we only want people coming here who will follow our laws?

Merely deriding those who want more liberty and smaller gov't is hardly much of an intellectual argument.

Quote :

"you think immigrants are trying to invade and impose socialist legislation?"

Well first, they are not immigrants, they are gate-crashing invaders. As for supporting the Mexican gov't, let's see how the "No Gringo" protest goes on Monday.

4/28/2006 9:59:31 AM

people already have unrealistic expectations for that

id think a person who is so high on liberty would be a little more lenient on immigrant.

4/28/2006 10:53:32 AM

I agree with you there. I think we should be letting in more quality immigrants of all countries. But wouldn't you agree that a country must control its immigration? Wide open borders are no better than completely closed borders.

4/28/2006 11:23:59 AM

he is upset that this

Quote :

"The United States is the only country in the world that I'm aware of that identifies its citizens based on ideology. "

is just blatantly wrong.
thanks for trying though.

Quote :

"they are gate-crashing invaders."

o rly? do you interview them as they cross the border? you are the worst libertarian ever.

4/28/2006 4:15:24 PM

Quote :

"Wide open borders are no better than completely closed borders."

I don't see how. The two situations are fundamentally different.

4/28/2006 4:42:04 PM

Quote :

"The two situations are fundamentally different."

True, but that doesn't change the thought that neither situation is desirable.

Quote :

"do you interview them as they cross the border? "

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

4/28/2006 10:50:55 PM

what proof do you have they are socialists?

4/28/2006 10:56:24 PM

Oh, OK.
No I didn't say they were all socialists (Badnarik said that). What I meant is that the people crossing our borders illegally are gate-crashing invaders. They just happen to come from a fairly socialist country.

4/28/2006 11:07:46 PM

I would just like to point out,

as I have in the past, I think,

that if somebody is willing to risk their life to escape a socialist country

so that they can illegally gain entry to a capitalistic country

maybe they aren't that keen on socialism?

4/28/2006 11:10:12 PM

Quote :

"maybe they aren't that keen on socialism?"

Probably so, but they're still illegal. Perhaps they should be asking for political asylum from their socialist oppressors.

4/28/2006 11:21:35 PM

Quote :

"gate-crashing invaders"

sigh again

Quote :

"Perhaps they should be asking for political asylum from their socialist oppressors."

do you have any idea about the number of political asylum cases we admit every year? do you have any idea about that process?

4/28/2006 11:28:09 PM

Quote :

"They just happen to come from a fairly socialist country"

Yes, spooky kinda covered it a bit. However, it also bears mentioning that Mexico is not as socialist as it once was. For example, Mexico is nowadays being classified as a middle income country, no longer a low income country because it's per capita PPP is now greater than 1/4th that of the U.S. (to be a high income country a nation must have a per capita PPP greater than 1/2 that of the U.S., such as France)

Mexico's economy has grown substantially, particularly the export sectors which sell to the U.S. It is largely a dark mirror of the U.S. economy with far deeper troughs (2001 was a negative growth rate for the whole year) and far taller spikes (2000 GDP growth was 7.1%).

As such, in a few decades Mexico's average standard of living will be comparable to most European countries. All in thanks to substantially liberalization of Mexico's economy over the last few decades. The public sector as a percentage of GDP has been continually falling. So, all in all, I don't think Mexican's on average are Socialists nowadays. They have learned their lessons from history, a feat that many Americans have not been able to do.

[Edited on April 28, 2006 at 11:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/28/2006 11:29:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't think Mexican's on average are Socialists nowadays. "

all brown/yellow people are communist

didnt you get the memo?

4/28/2006 11:37:23 PM

Appears for the most part that we're either going to an ultraconservative theocracy if the Christian fundamentalists get their way, or...we're going to have to make a third party that is more on the socialist side. I think the Democratic party will be dead in about 20 years.

It doesn't make any sense why we only two parties, anyway.

4/29/2006 1:31:10 PM

if a change in party policies is gonna happen it will probably be stuff like:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901030.html

4/29/2006 8:23:33 PM

the nature of a relatively stable political system is seen in a dual party format....

all you have to do is look at other countries with more than 2 dominant (90%+) parties to see that having a 3rd just increases the amount of bickering on the hill....

it is about time for one of the parties to shift.... and actually it seems like both of them are headed that way with the Democrats needing one the most...

5/4/2006 3:29:31 AM