WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Politics

What is your Political view?

  • Republican

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Democrat

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • Independent

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Green

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Socialist

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Ralph Nader!!

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Total voters
    25
2,489
332
327
#4
eh, like i've said before, political parties are bad because they turn people against one another.
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#7
political parties are bad in my opinion. i am an independent. because of the way the electoral college works it is nearly impossible for more than two candidates to have a serious running. when ross perot ran i think he got something like 20% of the popular vote, but got almost no electoral votes (i forgot the amount he got). in the election of 1968 wallace didnt get as many votes, but he got no electoral votes. it is unproportioned and nearly impossible for a third party candidate to get in the running. it has always worked like this. in early american history when there were more than one parties typically the third party would just serve to take votes from one of the parties letting the other party win.

because of this i do not like the political party system and in terms of which candidate for any election i support i am an independent. my political views are somewaht different though.
 

I Hate The FCC

Homo est Deus
3,559
2
0
#8
There is no need for the Electoral College. We needed it in the 1800's, because we had no mass media. Now we do. So we should geht rid of it. :thumbsup:
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#9
I Hate The FCC said:
There is no need for the Electoral College. We needed it in the 1800's, because we had no mass media. Now we do. So we should geht rid of it. :thumbsup:
i agree with you 100%, but id like to see it gotten rid of. it would too risky a move for a politician. boith parties like it. because if someone like ross perot comes in he can screw over the other party, and if you beat someone by 1% in a state you get a whole lot. it benefits the major parties which are basically the only parties with enough power to do anything about it. it wont get done in other words.
 
4,149
1
0
#10
I'm extremely liberal. I'll vote on either side of the fence, though. It depends on what the candidate's platform is and what their background is like.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#11
I Hate The FCC said:
There is no need for the Electoral College. We needed it in the 1800's, because we had no mass media. Now we do. So we should get rid of it. :thumbsup:
I agree 100%.

We don't live in times where we lack national media venues anymore, nor is our population spread out so sparsely that we need electors to speak for our citizens. We, as a country, are far more educated about politics today, and it's really sad to see our continued use of such an antiquated and restrictive system.

Slight derail...

How can you claim a democracy, when only two parties are truly recognized? Remember when Badnarik (Libertarian) and Cobb (Green) were arrested for trying to debate on the "Stage of Freedom" alongside Kerry and Bush? :rolleyes:

Yay democracy, right? :rolleyes:

And it wasn't the first time that's happened; Nathan Barton (Libertarian governal candidate) was arrested for the same thing in 2002.

So, tell me, how do we as a nation support democracy when we only allow two parties to debate publicly on an even field?
 

Dave666

Pot-Head
565
0
0
#12
I vote Nadar because he wants to legalize pot, but if he wasn't there I'm 100% republican.
 

I Hate The FCC

Homo est Deus
3,559
2
0
#15
junglizm said:
How can you claim a democracy, when only two parties are truly recognized? Remember when Badnarik (Libertarian) and Cobb (Green) were arrested for trying to debate on the "Stage of Freedom" alongside Kerry and Bush? :rolleyes:

Yay democracy, right? :rolleyes:

And it wasn't the first time that's happened; Nathan Barton (Libertarian governal candidate) was arrested for the same thing in 2002.

So, tell me, how do we as a nation support democracy when we only allow two parties to debate publicly on an even field?
I never said our country was perfect. It's flawed. It would also be impossible to have all the parties's candidates speak. There are millions of political parties. Sadly enough, many Americans wouldn't have the attention span for the time it would take for all of the candidates to speak. :happysad: It would take days. It'll never happen Jung. Democracy doesn't work as well as it's supposed to. :happysad:
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#16
I Hate The FCC said:
I never said our country was perfect. It's flawed.
I know, I wasn't directing that at you though; it was just a general statement.
I Hate The FCC said:
It would also be impossible to have all the parties's candidates speak. There are millions of political parties. Sadly enough, many Americans wouldn't have the attention span for the time it would take for all of the candidates to speak. :happysad: It would take days. It'll never happen Jung. Democracy doesn't work as well as it's supposed to. :happysad:
Well, if they're going to televise the debates of the main party leaders, it's only fair. There usually aren't that many parties or candidates, and the debates could be spread out over time.

I feel that a lot of people don't know what the third parities stand for, mostly because they never get to hear them speak. With as many people who voted for "the lesser evil" simple because they didn't like what either party had to offer, I think third parties need more exposure. Voters might be able to make a vote for a candidate who better represents their values. That is what voting is about, anyway.


I didn't, nor will I ever vote for the better of the two bad choices.
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#17
junglizm said:
I didn't, nor will I ever vote for the better of the two bad choices.
they aren't always bad choices though. great men have become great president in those two parties. and great men have not become president who are in a lesser party.
 

I Hate The FCC

Homo est Deus
3,559
2
0
#18
Junglizm said:
Well, if they're going to televise the debates of the main party leaders, it's only fair. There usually aren't that many parties or candidates, and the debates could be spread out over time.
It's okay if the Communists and Nazis don't geht to speak, but not okay if the Libertarians don't? If they geht to speak, all parties geht to speak.
I feel that a lot of people don't know what the third parities stand for, mostly because they never get to hear them speak. With as many people who voted for "the lesser evil" simple because they didn't like what either party had to offer, I think third parties need more exposure. Voters might be able to make a vote for a candidate who better represents their values. That is what voting is about, anyway.
I agree 100% with you. Everyone needs a chance to speak.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#19
WizardlyFriend said:
they aren't always bad choices though. great men have become great president in those two parties. and great men have not become president who are in a lesser party.
I'm wasn't saying that those parties are bad choices, that would be a silly generalization. I meant that both Bush and Kerry were bad choices.
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#20
junglizm said:
I'm wasn't saying that those parties are bad choices, that would be a silly generalization. I meant that both Bush and Kerry were bad choices.
gotcha, it was a more general statement though so i assumed it was a generalization.