Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress?


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will be voting in a Battleground State (Wisconsin)

For the first time in two decades, the Republican Party has pandered to me with the Ryan VP choice. Now, it's pandering on the realm of being told that if I don't pick my nose in public, they'll let me kiss pig at the homecoming dance, but it's still pandering.

Pander harder, baby. Pander harder. I know you're making great concessions by letting me kiss a mammal, but I at least want to kiss a bipedal mammal. Can we upgrade to a rhesus monkey?

The reason for this is because of the TEA Party. I remember the TEA Party of November 2007, which was pretty clearly an astro-turf movement aimed at test-marking populism and fiscal conservatism as one mix. It more or less sputtered along until the crunch of 2008.

Then it went viral, and the people who were behind the astro-turfing couldn't control it. That's also the time when it started getting painted as a group of know-nothing rural white hicks who hold barbecues of coloreds every third Sunday, and consider Tom Akins to be a liberal tree hugging centrist who'll be replaced as soon as a more suitable candidate can run against him in the primaries...

Within the Republican establishment, they now have to pander to two extremist wings - the crazy-Libertarians and the whackjob religiousity nuts. This is going to fragment the GOP for at least two election cycles further.

The question is this: Which of those two fracture elements gets to raise the zombie elephant in its own image after the center dissolves? Ron Paul isn't running those Presidential campaigns for the frequent driver miles or because he has any chance of winning. He's running those Presidential campaigns because he wants the necromancer driving the rotting shambling corpse of the GOP to be a Libertarian.


Hitdice wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

C'mon, someone take my bet!

I mean, it's a pretty win-win situation for you guys. If Obama wins, I was going to hold you all responsible anyways, and if Romney wins, I disappear for four years!

I can't take your bet because I want you to win, Comrade!

I WANT people to hold Obama's feet to the fire for the last four years.

0 prosecutions of Wall Street execs for 2008-2009 and the bubble run-up that led to it! Woo! He's SUCH A SOCIALIST!

300 dead Mexicans from the ATF sending guns to Mexican drug lords with no accountability!

10% reduction in the labor force from the depths of the financial crisis and STILL has a higher unemployment rate!

For Scott Betts, what would Obama have to do (or not do) to get you to vote against him? What would Romney have to do to get you to vote for him?

INSB, but here's my point of view on it: I'd only cast my vote specifically against Obama if he was a worse choice (IMO, of course) than Romney; given Romney's performance during the 2008 republican primary, and the entirety of this race, I can't imagine that happening.

Ignore "elect-ability" for a moment. What specific policy proposals would Obama have to enact (or fail to oppose) to get you to say "No more."

Because if you can't think of *THAT*, you're voting on political party, not issues or candidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


Systems change over time from within. To change a system, you need to figure out how it works, get inside of it, gain influence, then you can effect change.

This is how the world works. Your vote for Gary Johnson is as effective as voting for Nadar.

See how influential he is now?

I agree that to change a system that you have to enter into it to change it. However, if you want to change it, the other thing you have to do is STOP championing the very things that you are trying to change.

I'm a small government guy, thats why I wont vote for someone who wants the government to tell people who can and cannot get married, I will not vote for someone who assassinates the very people he is supposed to lead, I will not vote for someone who believes that the decision to take the nation to war rests on their shoulders only. This disqualifies both Romney and Obama for me.


Democratic Voters:

You WILL NEED to switch to registering Republican in 2016.

Here's why:

About 80% of the time, the front-runner in a GOP primary season is the guy who took second last time around.

That held for McCain in 2008 (second in 2000), it held for Romney (second in 2008). It arguably would've held for Buchanan in 2000 (2nd in 1996) had he not pissed in everyone's cheerios and then been sent on a suicide mission to implode the Reform Party as penance.

YOUR MISSION, should you choose to accept it:

You MUST ensure that Santorum is the 2016 nominee. Then run ANYBODY sane and centrist as your candidate. I mean, hell, Comrade Ankelbiter is neither, but I'd vote for him over Santorum. Hell, if you can get another Bill Clinton on the ticket, it might be a 50 state sweep.

This will A) pretty much ensure 12 years in the White House for your party and B) with a strong candidate, might actually get the GOP to tell the preacher-speaking-in-tongues crowd "Look, we tried your culture warrior. Go away." (Yeah, not likely, but I can hope.)


As mentioned above: I'm voting in a battleground state (Wisconsin).

I'm a moderate-Republican turned Libertarian; I haven't changed. The Party has moved too far to the right of me.

If you want me to vote for your candidate in November, I'm willing to put it up for a bid. Warning: I'm a fiscal conservative. It won't be cheap.

What am I bid?

I am willing to photograph my ballot in November to prove my bona fides, and take 1/3 of the money up front and 2/3 when the photograph is submitted to the winning bidder.


AdAstraGames wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Barack Obama raised $778,642,962 during the Presidential campaign in 2008.

John McCain raised $383,913,834 during the same campaign.

In other words, Obama more than doubled McCain's fundraising efforts. That's because Obama had massive, unprecedented grassroots small-donor support. He had millions (plural) of individual donors. It is impossible to compete with that if you and your base are still mired in the fundraising strategies of yesteryear.

Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

Do your numbers count "Independent expenditures" or just the money raised directly by the candidates? That's what changed with Citizens United.


AdAstraGames wrote:

I will be voting in a Battleground State (Wisconsin)

For the first time in two decades, the Republican Party has pandered to me with the Ryan VP choice. Now, it's pandering on the realm of being told that if I don't pick my nose in public, they'll let me kiss pig at the homecoming dance, but it's still pandering.

Pander harder, baby. Pander harder. I know you're making great concessions by letting me kiss a mammal, but I at least want to kiss a bipedal mammal. Can we upgrade to a rhesus monkey?

The reason for this is because of the TEA Party. I remember the TEA Party of November 2007, which was pretty clearly an astro-turf movement aimed at test-marking populism and fiscal conservatism as one mix. It more or less sputtered along until the crunch of 2008.

Then it went viral, and the people who were behind the astro-turfing couldn't control it. That's also the time when it started getting painted as a group of know-nothing rural white hicks who hold barbecues of coloreds every third Sunday, and consider Tom Akins to be a liberal tree hugging centrist who'll be replaced as soon as a more suitable candidate can run against him in the primaries...

Within the Republican establishment, they now have to pander to two extremist wings - the crazy-Libertarians and the whackjob religiousity nuts. This is going to fragment the GOP for at least two election cycles further.

The question is this: Which of those two fracture elements gets to raise the zombie elephant in its own image after the center dissolves? Ron Paul isn't running those Presidential campaigns for the frequent driver miles or because he has any chance of winning. He's running those Presidential campaigns because he wants the necromancer driving the rotting shambling corpse of the GOP to be a Libertarian.

I don't expect we'll ever agree on anything, Citizen Games, but I must say, that's some extremely imagistic writing. Well done!

EDIT: Waitaminnit! I am completely sane! I thank you for your vote, though.


thejeff wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Barack Obama raised $778,642,962 during the Presidential campaign in 2008.

John McCain raised $383,913,834 during the same campaign.

In other words, Obama more than doubled McCain's fundraising efforts. That's because Obama had massive, unprecedented grassroots small-donor support. He had millions (plural) of individual donors. It is impossible to compete with that if you and your base are still mired in the fundraising strategies of yesteryear.

Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

Do your numbers count "Independent expenditures" or just the money raised directly by the candidates? That's what changed with Citizens United.

That includes everything - PACs, SuperPACs, joint funding by candidates and parties, direct fundraising by candidates.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


I don't expect we'll ever agree on anything, Citizen Games, but I must say, that's some extremely imagistic writing. Well done!

EDIT: Waitaminnit! I am completely sane! I thank you for your vote

Politically, nope. We'll never agree on much of anything. On the other hand, I'd probably pick up your Socialist newsletter, read it, disagree with it, and talk to you about the fundamental disconnection from reality it represents. While likely buying you a beer or two.

And I suspect that you'd do the same if I handed you a Libertarian party newsletter. Even to the point of buying me the beers.

We will both agree that the current mix of political candidates does not represent us, or a particularly healthy policy direction for this country, however.

When it comes to politics, sanity is overrated. (Full disclosure: I'm half of the design team for that shirt. I'd love to get it into print and shipped to customers for people to wear to their polling places, which means I need to hit 20 orders for it by October 15th.)


AdAstraGames wrote:

Democratic Voters:

You WILL NEED to switch to registering Republican in 2016.

Here's why:

About 80% of the time, the front-runner in a GOP primary season is the guy who took second last time around.

That held for McCain in 2008 (second in 2000), it held for Romney (second in 2008). It arguably would've held for Buchanan in 2000 (2nd in 1996) had he not pissed in everyone's cheerios and then been sent on a suicide mission to implode the Reform Party as penance.

YOUR MISSION, should you choose to accept it:

You MUST ensure that Santorum is the 2016 nominee. Then run ANYBODY sane and centrist as your candidate. I mean, hell, Comrade Ankelbiter is neither, but I'd vote for him over Santorum. Hell, if you can get another Bill Clinton on the ticket, it might be a 50 state sweep.

This will A) pretty much ensure 12 years in the White House for your party and B) with a strong candidate, might actually get the GOP to tell the preacher-speaking-in-tongues crowd "Look, we tried your culture warrior. Go away." (Yeah, not likely, but I can hope.)

Wisconsin has closed primaries, huh? Rhode Island does too, so my affiliation depends on which primary I want to vote in. And last time I forgot to disaffiliate while I was leaving the polling place, so now I'm stuck being a Democrat!

It's totally weird though. You'd think in a system where so much depends on the independent/undecided voters both parties would want to let those exact people have a larger input on the primary races, doesn't it?

Then again, laws and sausages, right?


Hitdice: The justification for closed primaries is, in fact, to counter exactly what I'm proposing.

Democratic primaries are usually open. There is also a very strong push by Republican at the street and precinct level to tell people to go vote in the Democratic primaries for the candidates that make Comrade Anklebiter look like Marie Antoinette ("The Poor? Let's put them into wood chippers so that we have a ready supply of offal to feed to the pigs.").


What?!? You underestimate me, Citizen Games!


TheWhiteknife wrote:
So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.

Vote for the major party candidate most closely aligned with your beliefs. If that's Romney, vote for Romney.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

no.


AdAstraGames wrote:
thejeff wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Barack Obama raised $778,642,962 during the Presidential campaign in 2008.

John McCain raised $383,913,834 during the same campaign.

In other words, Obama more than doubled McCain's fundraising efforts. That's because Obama had massive, unprecedented grassroots small-donor support. He had millions (plural) of individual donors. It is impossible to compete with that if you and your base are still mired in the fundraising strategies of yesteryear.

Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

Do your numbers count "Independent expenditures" or just the money raised directly by the candidates? That's what changed with Citizens United.
That includes everything - PACs, SuperPACs, joint funding by candidates and parties, direct fundraising by candidates.

That doesn't match what I'm seeing. I can't find a convenient summary on the FEC site, but the NYT shows Romney with a slight edge in overall cash, counting the Outside spending. I'm not sure how much of that is corporate funding, but since Obama has a lot more small donations, I suspect the edge goes even farther to Romney there. I'm considering any of the huge donors to the Super PACs as essentially corporate. It doesn't really matter if the donation is in the name of a hedge fund or the founder of the hedge fund.

I also suspect the difference in outside money will grow as it reflects spending not contributions. A lot of money will be thrown into ads in the last month or so.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Oh Im not. Im still going to vote Johnson. Because tax cuts arent my number one issue and both sides are against the things I consider most important. Namely civil rights and anti-interventionism. I just didnt get how people dont consider third party voting a valid form of protest.

It's not valid for two reasons:

1) It is a tiny, insignificant act of protest. You are not marching in the streets. You are not standing in front of a line of tanks. You are not engaging in civil disobedience. You are not drawing attention to the cause in any appreciable way. What you are doing is getting in line with everyone else in the country, walking into a voting booth, and putting a checkmark in a box that is different from the box most people are putting a checkmark in. No one will know what you've done. No one will really care, except in an analytical, statistical sense (in which your vote is really just a +1 to some big number). It is as much a "protest" as clicking "Like" on a Facebook page is.

2) It is potentially disastrously self-destructive, because you had an opportunity to vote for the candidate who could beat the major party candidate you disliked most, and you did not. See: Nader voters in Florida, 2000.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Because they are, for the most part, shills for the Democrats.

You don't know what a shill is, huh?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I still can't understand the demonization of Nader after the Republicans' Grand Theft Florida.

We demonized the Republicans, too, and far worse. We're just giving Nader voters their due, and reminding people to avoid making the same mistake again.


AdAstraGames wrote:

Hitdice: The justification for closed primaries is, in fact, to counter exactly what I'm proposing.

Democratic primaries are usually open. There is also a very strong push by Republican at the street and precinct level to tell people to go vote in the Democratic primaries for the candidates that make Comrade Anklebiter look like Marie Antoinette ("The Poor? Let's put them into wood chippers so that we have a ready supply of offal to feed to the pigs.").

Yeah, I get that; It's just funny (both ha-ha and the other kind) because the the only way your scenario has a real effect is by lessening the number of people selecting the candidate for their "real" party, and that would just result in a choice between incompetents.

...Hey, wait a minute!


Hitdice wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

Hitdice: The justification for closed primaries is, in fact, to counter exactly what I'm proposing.

Democratic primaries are usually open. There is also a very strong push by Republican at the street and precinct level to tell people to go vote in the Democratic primaries for the candidates that make Comrade Anklebiter look like Marie Antoinette ("The Poor? Let's put them into wood chippers so that we have a ready supply of offal to feed to the pigs.").

Yeah, I get that; It's just funny (both ha-ha and the other kind) because the the only way your scenario has a real effect is by lessening the number of people selecting the candidate for their "real" party, and that would just result in a choice between incompetents.

...Hey, wait a minute!

Did you really think I would discuss the full extent of my plan like some villain in the final reel of a Republic serial, when you actually had a chance to defeat it?

Even now, you only see the very outermost turns of the wheel, and but dimly perceive that there is a mechanism in play...


AdAstraGames wrote:
For Scott Betts, what would Obama have to do (or not do) to get you to vote against him?

He would have to have much less in the way of progressive accomplishments over the last four years, and his opponent would have to demonstrate both tremendous electability and a commitment to progressive-moderate values.

Quote:
What would Romney have to do to get you to vote for him?

Romney is unfortunately in a position where his vote is likely lost on me permanently because his credibility has been so badly damaged. In order to get my vote, he would first have to win office somewhere and demonstrate years of commitment to a coherent, progressive ideology, and then campaign on that same ideology in a Presidential election. He needs to reestablish credibility, and that takes years.


Scott Betts wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Oh Im not. Im still going to vote Johnson. Because tax cuts arent my number one issue and both sides are against the things I consider most important. Namely civil rights and anti-interventionism. I just didnt get how people dont consider third party voting a valid form of protest.

It's not valid for two reasons:

1) It is a tiny, insignificant act of protest. You are not marching in the streets. You are not standing in front of a line of tanks. You are not engaging in civil disobedience. You are not drawing attention to the cause in any appreciable way. What you are doing is getting in line with everyone else in the country, walking into a voting booth, and putting a checkmark in a box that is different from the box most people are putting a checkmark in. No one will know what you've done. No one will really care, except in an analytical, statistical sense (in which your vote is really just a +1 to some big number).

2) It is potentially disastrously self-destructive, because you had an opportunity to vote for the candidate who could beat the major party candidate you disliked most, and you did not. See: Nader voters in Florida, 2000.

Scott, surely you see that it's politically expedient for the two parties in power to undermine third parties. You don't honestly believe that the Supreme Court would have come to a different decision if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, do you?

Yes, I prefer to discuss elections from past races; I've had more time to cram for the final :P


AdAstraGames wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

Hitdice: The justification for closed primaries is, in fact, to counter exactly what I'm proposing.

Democratic primaries are usually open. There is also a very strong push by Republican at the street and precinct level to tell people to go vote in the Democratic primaries for the candidates that make Comrade Anklebiter look like Marie Antoinette ("The Poor? Let's put them into wood chippers so that we have a ready supply of offal to feed to the pigs.").

Yeah, I get that; It's just funny (both ha-ha and the other kind) because the the only way your scenario has a real effect is by lessening the number of people selecting the candidate for their "real" party, and that would just result in a choice between incompetents.

...Hey, wait a minute!

Did you really think I would discuss the full extent of my plan like some villain in the final reel of a Republic serial, when you actually had a chance to defeat it?

Even now, you only see the very outermost turns of the wheel, and but dimly perceive that there is a mechanism in play...

As long as my school-boy heroics still have a place in your new world, we'll do fine with each other. /wink


thejeff wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
thejeff wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Barack Obama raised $778,642,962 during the Presidential campaign in 2008.

John McCain raised $383,913,834 during the same campaign.

In other words, Obama more than doubled McCain's fundraising efforts. That's because Obama had massive, unprecedented grassroots small-donor support. He had millions (plural) of individual donors. It is impossible to compete with that if you and your base are still mired in the fundraising strategies of yesteryear.

Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

Do your numbers count "Independent expenditures" or just the money raised directly by the candidates? That's what changed with Citizens United.
That includes everything - PACs, SuperPACs, joint funding by candidates and parties, direct fundraising by candidates.
That doesn't match what I'm seeing. I can't find a convenient summary on the FEC site, but the NYT shows Romney with a slight edge in overall cash, counting the Outside spending. I'm not sure how much of that is corporate funding, but since Obama has a lot...

You do realize that hes quoting numbers from 2008, right?


AdAstraGames wrote:

Obama outraised McCain about 1.6:1 in corporate donations in 2008. (Source: Federal Election Commission). It was close to 2:1 from money from Wall Street.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

This isn't just about restricting corporate donations. This is about ensuring that the wealthiest Americans are not able to have a grossly disproportionate impact on the tone of the race simply by writing a check to what is essentially a political party's independent ad agency. It's also about ensuring that political donations are disclosed so that Americans know who is paying for what they see on TV.

Corporate donations are not inherently bad; there are a lot of legitimate reasons for corporations to contribute to Presidential campaigns. Unrestricted corporate and wealthy individual donations are bad, and this is what the Democratic party is fighting against.

Quote:
Every Democrat who voted for Kerry in the primaries is responsible for George W. Bush winning 2004.

Are you expecting that people will disagree with you? That is essentially accurate. One of the foremost responsibilities of a political party is to responsibly nominate a candidate who both represents their interests and is highly electable. The Democrats failed in the latter metric in 2004.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


2) It is potentially disastrously self-destructive, because you had an opportunity to vote for the candidate who could beat the major party candidate you disliked most, and you did not. See: Nader voters in Florida, 2000.

And you fail to realize that there exist people who dislike them both. Why would I vote for someone I dislike? Because you say its the American way? I reject that.


AdAstraGames wrote:

Democratic Voters:

You WILL NEED to switch to registering Republican in 2016.

Here's why:

About 80% of the time, the front-runner in a GOP primary season is the guy who took second last time around.

That held for McCain in 2008 (second in 2000), it held for Romney (second in 2008). It arguably would've held for Buchanan in 2000 (2nd in 1996) had he not pissed in everyone's cheerios and then been sent on a suicide mission to implode the Reform Party as penance.

YOUR MISSION, should you choose to accept it:

You MUST ensure that Santorum is the 2016 nominee. Then run ANYBODY sane and centrist as your candidate. I mean, hell, Comrade Ankelbiter is neither, but I'd vote for him over Santorum. Hell, if you can get another Bill Clinton on the ticket, it might be a 50 state sweep.

This will A) pretty much ensure 12 years in the White House for your party and B) with a strong candidate, might actually get the GOP to tell the preacher-speaking-in-tongues crowd "Look, we tried your culture warrior. Go away." (Yeah, not likely, but I can hope.)

Unfortunately, the Democratic party tends to have problems with acting in dishonest or ethically-ambiguous ways during campaign season. We're much more hesitant, as a party, to engage in that sort of shady sabotage than the Republican party is.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:


Obama is still massively out-raising Romney in the current election cycle. That's because Obama has managed to reactivate his donors from the previous cycle, and still has that same massive grassroots support.

Obama is outraising Romney about 1.25:1 in corporate donations in 2012. They're about tied for Wall Street money. If Santorum or Ron Paul had won the nomination, we'd have a massive Wall Street cash influx to Obama.

And while Obama does have a lot of small voter support, it's barely a third of the money (34%) that he's using. For Romney, it's about 18%.

Woohoo! Obama uses a SMALLER majority of corporate funding to run his campaign! WE ARE SAVED!

Do your numbers count "Independent expenditures" or just the money raised directly by the candidates? That's what changed with Citizens United.
That includes everything - PACs, SuperPACs, joint funding by candidates and parties, direct fundraising by candidates. That doesn't match what I'm seeing. I can't find a convenient summary on the FEC site, but the NYT shows Romney with a slight edge in overall cash, counting the Outside spending. I'm not sure how much of that is corporate funding, but since ObamaYou do realize that hes quoting numbers from 2008, right?

And 2012. The only totals quoted were from 2008, but percentages from 2012 were given. That's what I'm questioning.


Hitdice wrote:
Scott, surely you see that it's politically expedient for the two parties in power to undermine third parties.

Actually, no.

See, the two major parties don't really have to do anything to undermine third parties. The first-past-the-post election system combined with the fickle loyalties and short political memories of the average voter means that third party candidates are rarely - if ever, at this point - viable candidates.

Given that, political parties have come to view third party candidates as tools that can be leveraged to win the election. For instance, an incredibly strong Green Party candidate can be assumed to draw its voter pool from the left - a segment that would never vote for a Republican candidate, but can be assumed to vote with varying degrees of reliability for Democratic candidates. The stronger the Green Party candidate is, the weaker the Democratic party candidate is, because every vote the Green Party candidate gains is coming from the Democratic candidate's base.

Divide-and-conquer is as reliable a macro strategy as it's ever been.

Quote:
You don't honestly believe that the Supreme Court would have come to a different decision if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, do you?

I believe that if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, the Supreme Court would never have had to make a decision at all.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
no.

Okay.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


2) It is potentially disastrously self-destructive, because you had an opportunity to vote for the candidate who could beat the major party candidate you disliked most, and you did not. See: Nader voters in Florida, 2000.

And you fail to realize that there exist people who dislike them both.

Why would you say this? I fully realize this. What I don't accept is the idea that there are lots of people out there for whom choosing either Romney or Obama is equally bad. That's nonsense, repeated most often by those with much less political awareness than they think they have.

Quote:
Why would I vote for someone I dislike?

Because it's better to have a President you dislike a little than a President you dislike a lot.

Quote:
Because you say its the American way?

No, because it's practical politics.


Scott Betts wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.
Vote for the major party candidate most closely aligned with your beliefs. If that's Romney, vote for Romney.

[facepalm]

I mean, I respect the consistency of your logic, I guess, but it's hard to take your Nader-voters caused Bush position seriously when you're saying right-wing independents should vote for Romney.


Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Because they are, for the most part, shills for the Democrats.
You don't know what a shill is, huh?

I thought I did...

Shill

I wasn't aware of many of the connotations of the word, no, but:

"a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty."

You were what? An Obama campaign manager in 2008 or something?


Were I put in charge...

We'd use Alternative Voting ballots (where you list first, second, third, Nth rankings on ballots).

We'd make being on the national ballot a single signature count. Call it 5 million signatures.

If you're on the national ballot, you're invited to the presidential debates. Presidential debates would be run by NPR, with questions submitted by citizens via Reddit and filtered for similarity.

Entities that cannot legally cast a ballot cannot fund a candidate. They can buy their own political campaign ads endorsing a candidate, but this has to have their logo on the ad.

Every candidate that accepts this endorsement has to wear their logo on their person during campaign speeches. If our candidates are going to get into office by endorsements for corporations, I want them to look like NASCAR drivers. Companies are encouraged to make their logos blink, shimmy and project holograms, but not make noise.

Every time a candidate speaks, their endorsers logo has to be on a "stock ticker" display at the bottom of the screen.

All voter-eligible citizen contributions must be made and logged through a publicly searchable database. When a contribution exceeds $200, half of the amount over $200 is used to buy back a Treasury Bill and render it non-redeemable. When the US Government has no national debt, that requirement on campaign financing will go away.


Scott Betts wrote:
I believe that if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, the Supreme Court would never have had to make a decision at all.

Some article I read was saying that exit-polls of Nader voters in Florida in 2000 were, like, 25% former Clinton voters, 25% former Dole voters and 50% former Perot voters. (I'll go find the article, if you like, but this thread has been pretty citation free.) So I don't even know if that is true.


AdAstraGames wrote:

Every time a candidate speaks, their endorsers logo has to be on a "stock ticker" display at the bottom of the screen.

I take it back. It didn't take long at all to find something upon which we agreed.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
So basically, you and Scott Betts are telling the libertarians that we should STFU and vote for Romney? I mean, Im not going to do it, but that just seems strange.
Vote for the major party candidate most closely aligned with your beliefs. If that's Romney, vote for Romney.

[facepalm]

I mean, I respect the consistency of your logic, I guess, but it's hard to take your Nader-voters caused Bush position seriously when you're saying right-wing independents should vote for Romney.

EDIT: Wow, I misread that post. Carry on.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Because they are, for the most part, shills for the Democrats.
You don't know what a shill is, huh?

I thought I did...

Shill

I wasn't aware of many of the connotations of the word, no, but:

"a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty."

You were what? An Obama campaign manager in 2008 or something?

An organizer, yes, and I've never tried to hide that. I've even mentioned it a couple times, along with making it very clear that I am personally partisan but my arguments on political theory should hold true for both sides of the spectrum.


Scott Betts wrote:
An organizer, yes, and I've never tried to hide that. I've even mentioned it a couple times,

Uh, yeah, that's how I know.


AdAstraGames wrote:

Were I put in charge...

We'd use Alternative Voting ballots (where you list first, second, third, Nth rankings on ballots).

We'd make being on the national ballot a single signature count. Call it 5 million signatures.

If you're on the national ballot, you're invited to the presidential debates. Presidential debates would be run by NPR, with questions submitted by citizens via Reddit and filtered for similarity.

Entities that cannot legally cast a ballot cannot fund a candidate. They can buy their own political campaign ads endorsing a candidate, but this has to have their logo on the ad.

Every candidate that accepts this endorsement has to wear their logo on their person during campaign speeches. If our candidates are going to get into office by endorsements for corporations, I want them to look like NASCAR drivers. Companies are encouraged to make their logos blink, shimmy and project holograms, but not make noise.

Every time a candidate speaks, their endorsers logo has to be on a "stock ticker" display at the bottom of the screen.

All voter-eligible citizen contributions must be made and logged through a publicly searchable database. When a contribution exceeds $200, half of the amount over $200 is used to buy back a Treasury Bill and render it non-redeemable. When the US Government has no national debt, that requirement on campaign financing will go away.

You have my vote for Emperor of Humanity.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
An organizer, yes, and I've never tried to hide that. I've even mentioned it a couple times,
Uh, yeah, that's how I know.

Then why the accusations of shilling?

Also, mind you, I'm not working with the Democratic party in any way this cycle, and I was never paid for any of the work I did in 2008. I did the work because I believed in it, not because I was getting something out of it on the side.


And if neither candidate supports your interests, and you're choosing between one power-consolidating statist crony capitalist and a crony capitalist who wants the chance to consolidate more power for the state?

Obama's Progressive values include extrajudicial killings. To quote the Gotye Parody the Obama That I Used To Know:

"Nobel Peace Prize Winners Shouldn't Have To Have A Kill List."

I've got no problems with Solyndra - I'd rather blow half a billion on failed energy startups than on a lot of other things we spend money on, such as nationally mandated standardized testing.

I'm a Moderate-Republican-turned-Libertarian; I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian Fundamentalist. There is a place for state-investment in founding new industries.

As a Libertarian, Obama is my second choice, so I don't have a qualm about voting my conscience. Though if someone truly wants me to vote another way, I wasn't being sarcastic about opening it up for bidding.

Without Obama, we wouldn't have four competing space launch companies. My best argument for voting for Obama is that four more years might be enough to let those industries grow to the point where being frozen out by Congress from any NASA contracts won't kill them...


AdAstraGames wrote:
And if neither candidate supports your interests, and you're choosing between one power-consolidating statist crony capitalist and a crony capitalist who wants the chance to consolidate more power for the state?

There are a lot of issues that are largely binary, or for which the decision is more one of direction rather than one-time policy. Again, I encourage you to actually compare records and platforms. Yes, Obama has done things you disagree with, but he's probably also done things that you have agreed with. You need to size up the candidates and make the call on which you like the most, or at least dislike the least (I'm using "you" generally here; obviously you've already done the above).


Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
An organizer, yes, and I've never tried to hide that. I've even mentioned it a couple times,
Uh, yeah, that's how I know.

Then why the accusations of shilling?

Also, mind you, I'm not working with the Democratic party in any way this cycle, and I was never paid for any of the work I did in 2008. I did the work because I believed in it, not because I was getting something out of it on the side.

Ah, even after reading the dictionary entry, I didn't get the duplicitous angle. My apologies.


Something else that I found interesting reading all these different articles about US presidential elections:

Despite its awesome state motto of "Live Free or Die" and its reputation as a libertarian backwater, my home state of New Hampshire (best state in the union) went to the Democrats in every election between 1992 and 2008 except in 2000 when they went for Bush.

People really don't like Al Gore.


AdAstraGames wrote:

Entities that cannot legally cast a ballot cannot fund a candidate. They can buy their own political campaign ads endorsing a candidate, but this has to have their logo on the ad.

Every candidate that accepts this endorsement has to wear their logo on their person during campaign speeches. If our candidates are going to get into office by endorsements for corporations, I want them to look like NASCAR drivers. Companies are encouraged to make their logos blink, shimmy and project holograms, but not make noise.

Every time a candidate speaks, their endorsers logo has to be on a "stock ticker" display at the bottom of the screen.

So what defines "accepts this endorsement"? Can a candidate stop independent groups from running ads for them? That's a free speech issue.

If not, why not just reject all the endorsements let the ads run and not wear any logos?
If they have to accept the endorsements, all sorts of pariah groups will support the candidate they dislike. "NAMBLA for Romney!"

Not that it really matters since the entities won't be recognizable brands, they'll be entities created strictly for campaign purposes, with names like "Real Americans for Apple Pie and Mom".

The logo thing is a cute idea, but completely unworkable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:
"Nobel Peace Prize Winners Shouldn't Have To Have A Kill List."

Blame the Nobel people for this, Obama was awarded the Peace Prize as a rebuke to Bush. But considering that past winners have included Arafat and Kissinger, the Nobel Prize for Peace was a joke already.


Grey Lensman wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
"Nobel Peace Prize Winners Shouldn't Have To Have A Kill List."
Blame the Nobel people for this, Obama was awarded the Peace Prize as a rebuke to Bush. But considering that past winners have included Arafat and Kissinger, the Nobel Prize for Peace was a joke already.

It's also meant as a very public attempt to influence the recipient and try to remind them that peace is important. It isn't just a prize for past accomplishments. It's a chance for the committee, past recipients and others invited to try and bend the ear of that years recipient.

Arafat's award was an attempt to give him international standing, to both bolster his position with Israel and at home, under the idea that maybe something could happen if people took him more seriously.

You are free to disagree with the effectiveness of their methods, but your simplistic analysis reflects on something else more than it does the award.


Irontruth wrote:
You are free to disagree with the effectiveness of their methods, but your simplistic analysis reflects on something else more than it does the award.

It wasn't until Obama won it that I lost faith in the prize. Not being George W. Bush is an admirable trait, but I do not consider it worthy of a Nobel. And this is coming from someone who voted for Obama, and against Bush both times.


Yup, and that's a short-sighted and overly simplistic analysis of why they gave it to him.

251 to 300 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.