[nature scene]

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I vote according to my principles. Anyway, in order to win an election, the major parties (although I'd love to see a third party really get involved, I conede it's improbable.) need to reach out to the independents and undecided voters. Recently, the two parties have been hunkering down in their respective camps. This leaves those people who have no strong party ties ignored.
Yet, these votes are the ones that swing close elections. I think one of the best strategies the Democrats could use to gain some power in upcoming elections and possibly win in '08 is to become the party of restrained government. Instead of hopping along for the ride that Bush and the Republicans created by expanding the executive even further, Democrats should resolve to constrain those powers once again. Checks and balances and accountability are fading fast, we need a party that will fight for those things.

[!@#$%!]

uau. i opened this thread looking to be bored (kinda like i did with the "communist" thread, with a couple of exceptions)... but that is an interesting idea actually. funny, yes ,the party of "small government" has become big brother in a very short time. good goddamn point you make, i hope they hear you at the convention.

actually try posting this again here-- you might actually get heard by somebody:

http://blogforamerica.com/

that's howard dean's blog. go & present them with your libertarian twist. they might like it.

[Inhuman]

That's why I dislike the U.S government myself. It doesn't allow you to have many parties, and you choose the one that suits what you stand for the most, as oppose to having a single party that's left wing, and one that's right wing. Canada has a pretty good political structure, we have NDP, Green, Liberals, Conservatives, communist, marijuana, (old) rhino, Bloc Quebecquois, and a few others. It gives more of a selection.

[ricechex]

it would be nice to have more choices, def. but i hope everyone does vote despite being dissapointed with the choices. i know a couple people that are anti (R) and anti (D) that didn't vote at all. that really annoys b/c change cannot happen overnight. i personally see it as having to be practical and push for change slowly, b/c there is no way on earth the U.S is gonna move from the radical right of today to a utopian fantasy land.

[static-harmony]

Originally Posted by Inhuman

That's why I dislike the U.S government myself. It doesn't allow you to have many parties, and you choose the one that suits what you stand for the most, as oppose to having a single party that's left wing, and one that's right wing. Canada has a pretty good political structure, we have NDP, Green, Liberals, Conservatives, communist, marijuana, (old) rhino, Bloc Quebecquois, and a few others. It gives more of a selection.

America does allow you to have different parties, but people don't like change. Thus the only left are Democrats or Republicans.

[Inhuman]

Originally Posted by static-harmony

America does allow you to have different parties, but people don't like change. Thus the only left are Democrats or Republicans.

Yeah, I heard they have smaller parties, but they're nowhere near as close to the rep's and democrats as the smaller canadian parties are with the libs and conservatives. Do the smaller parties still exist in the US do you know?

[!@#$%!]

the small parties in the u.s. are ridiculous because they try to win presidential elections rather than build a solid constituent base-- say winning municipal elections, state elections, some seats in congress, etc.

of course they are doomed from the start by this strategy, but they manage to fuck thinks up like the 2000 "victory" of stupidass bush over cardboardman gore which was blamed on ralph nader running as a candidate for the green party.

anyway etc.

[Savage Clone]

If the Dems had put forth a more compelling and engaging candidate, the negligible 2% Nader vote would have been, well, negligible.

[!@#$%!]

gore was a fucking no-balls tin man

 

+

 

=

 

[LifeDistortion]

The Democratic party discourages anyone with more left-wing leaning ideas to vote for any left wing sided party other then thier own. (I.E. The Green Party). Instead of blaming thier own faults and mistakes for why they lost the 2000 election they go and blame Ralph Nader. Nader is/was a spokesman for the Green Party and he's been the driving force in trying to make the Green Party a genuine alternative to voting Democrate or Republican. I think the Democratic party will continue to make mistakes, for one they need to win southern states, and no Democratic president from the North (I.E. Kerry) has ever won an election. Another thing I found rather silly is that every Democrate that runs has to be a moderate liberal, they say the same thing about Republicans having to be a moderate conserative but I don't think GWB is a moderate conservative. The Democrates are too focused on trying to steal votes from the Republican party that they don't focus on liberal voters. They are weak on any liberal ideas, (gay rights in particular). So they turn thier back on the ones who should be supporting them, and they can't steal any voters away from the Republican party.

[nature scene]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

uau. i opened this thread looking to be bored (kinda like i did with the "communist" thread, with a couple of exceptions)... but that is an interesting idea actually. funny, yes ,the party of "small government" has become big brother in a very short time. good goddamn point you make, i hope they hear you at the convention.

actually try posting this again here-- you might actually get heard by somebody:

http://blogforamerica.com/

that's howard dean's blog. go & present them with your libertarian twist. they might like it.

Thanks. I posted it over there, maybe someone else will find it interesting.

[static-harmony]

The Dems are pussies, just because they don't stand up to the governing party, and letting themselves be lead by these idiots.

[Cantankerous]

Originally Posted by Inhuman

That's why I dislike the U.S government myself. It doesn't allow you to have many parties, and you choose the one that suits what you stand for the most, as oppose to having a single party that's left wing, and one that's right wing. Canada has a pretty good political structure, we have NDP, Green, Liberals, Conservatives, communist, marijuana, (old) rhino, Bloc Quebecquois, and a few others. It gives more of a selection.

you can always write someone in.

[cryptowonderdruginvogue]

*yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*

[jon boy]

from what i saw people were being lambasted in america for voting for a third party. it seems so stupid that you either have to be republican or democrat and if you want a third option your considered some kind of liberal dickwad.

[nature scene]

You guys have it wrong. There are plenty of third parties in America, but like !@#$%! said, they have the wrong strategy. The money spent on third party presidential candidacies could be used much more effectively to start building a local base of third party government. They seem to want to start from the top down.
There is a mentality that voting third party is futile, and it is -- but only for the presidency. The issue here is that the president has become the "government" to everyone. Congress and local governments don't seem to matter as much as who the president is. Shake ups of the political structure have occured a number of times in America's short history. The time is ripe for it to happen again. Third parties could win some seats and gain some momentum if they would place their focus on something besides the presidency.
Third parties have a institutional disadvantage with the electoral college. It doesn't matter the total number of votes they get, all that matters is if their presidential candidate whole states. It's time to rethink strategies.

[Savage Clone]

It's also time to get rid of the freaking electoral college system.