i have yet to se a single "fact" in this entire thread, weather it be your post or mine, it's all opinion, so lets get past that right now.
second, you seem to have changed your stance. earlier in this thread you said "A conservative, liberal, and a I don?t care (the people that don?t vote at all)" which doesnt even acknowledge independents. this country is built on revolution, defiying the norm and thinking outside of the box. if you think that because someone votes outside of the usual rep. dem. race they wasted their vote, then you are denying basis of what this country stands for.
i would bet that after the pure stupidity of bush, and the masked socialism of obama, people will be looking alot harder for a fresh set of viewpoints, because the 'big 2' arent getting the job done. thats for sure.
Fact, 2000 independents got less the 3% of the votes. 2004 just 1%. It was so low in the last election I can't even find the numbers on it. That is why I say there is only 2 real parties. The supposed 3 doesn't matter. In the 2000 election when they voted the most there were lest then 400k votes for that party compared to 49-50 million for the 2 main parties.
i understand the numbers for independents are low, but that means nothing to weather their votes matter or count. keep in mind, i have never voted indpendent. i am not sitting here going to bat for a party. 400k votes are 400k people that care enought about their country to vote. just because their ideals don't line up with mainstream politics doesnt mean they dont matter. imo they are doing better then the other 60% of the country that didnt even bother voting.
__________________
"the path of greatest resistance reaps the greatest rewards"
-me
You'll have to show me what you mean. I know I haven't changed my stance.
there is nothing i can "show" you to solidiy what i am saying. i am not debating over specific politcal issues. i have no data. i have my opinion based on what i think is best for this country. if we must have these political parties, i think there should be far more than 2 or 3. i dont know what you want me to show you to make that make more sense.
__________________
"the path of greatest resistance reaps the greatest rewards"
-me
Fact, 2000 independents got less the 3% of the votes. 2004 just 1%. It was so low in the last election I can't even find the numbers on it. That is why I say there is only 2 real parties. The supposed 3 doesn't matter. In the 2000 election when they voted the most there were lest then 400k votes for that party compared to 49-50 million for the 2 main parties.
You manipulated the presentation of fact. Indeed, in the last few elections 3rd partys were overrun. What irks me is your statement," ...there is only 2 real parties. The supposed 3 doesn't matter. "
History proves you wrong. Please, research before blindly stating something so bluntly "ignorant", or whatever word you so proudly throw around.
Do some research on:
Liberty Party
Anti-Masonic Party
Free Soil Party
Bull Moose
American Independent Party
Liberty Party
Election year Result Nominees
President Vice President
1840 lost James G. Birney (New York) Thomas Earle (Pennsylvania)
1844 lost James G. Birney (New York) Thomas Morris (Ohio)
1848 withdrew John P. Hale (New Hampshire) Leicester King (Ohio)
1848 lost Gerrit Smith (New York) Charles C. Foote (Michigan)
1852 lost William Goodell (New York) S. M. Bell (Virginia)
Anti-Masonic Party
Candidates
William Wirt/Amos Ellmaker - 1832 election for President of the United States (lost)
John Quincy Adams - 1836 election for Governor of Massachusetts (lost)
Jonathan Blanchard - 1882 election for President of the United States (lost)
Free Soil Party
Presidential candidates
Year Presidential candidate Vice Presidential candidates Won/Lost
1848 Martin Van Buren Charles Francis Adams Lost
1852 John P. Hale George W. Julian Lost
Bull Moose
Representative James W. Bryan Washington 1913-15
Representative Walter M. Chandler New York 1913-19
Representative Ira Clifton Copley Illinois 1915-17 as a Progressive
Representative John Elston California 1915-17 as a Progressive, 1917-1921 as a Republican
Lieutenant Governor John Morton Eshleman California 1915-17
Representative Jacob Falconer Washington 1913-15
Representative William H. Hinebaugh Illinois 1913-15
Representative Willis J. Hulings Pennsylvania 1913-15
Governor Hiram Johnson California 1911–1917
Representative Melville Clyde Kelly Pennsylvania 1917-19 as a Progressive, 1919-1935 as a Republican
Representative William MacDonald Michigan 1913-15
Representative Whitmell Martin Louisiana 1915-19 as a Progressive, 1919-1929 as a Democrat
Senator Miles Poindexter Washington 1913-15
Representative William Stephens California 1913-17
Representative Henry Wilson Temple Pennsylvania 1913-15
Representative Roy Woodruff Michigan 1913-15
State Treasurer Homer D. Call New York 1914
Mayor Louis Will Syracuse, New York 1914-16
American Independent Party
Presidential candidates
1968 George C. Wallace/Curtis LeMay (lost)
1972 John G. Schmitz/Thomas J. Anderson (lost)
1976 Lester Maddox/William Dyke (lost)
1980 John Rarick/Eileen Shearer (lost)
1988 James Griffin/Charles Morsa (lost)
1992 Howard Phillips/Albion Knight, Jr. – U.S. Taxpayers Party (lost)
1996 Howard Phillips/Herb Titus – U.S. Taxpayers Party (lost)
2000 Howard Phillips/Curtis Frazier – Constitution Party (lost)
2004 Michael A. Peroutka/Chuck Baldwin – Constitution Party (lost)
2008 Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle – Constitution Party (disputed) (write-in candidate) (lost)
2008 Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough – America's Independent Party (disputed) (ballot candidate) (lost)
Ross Perot
Electoral history
United States presidential election, 1992
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) - 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (Inc.) - 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) - 19,743,821 (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes (lost)
Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord (L) - 290,087 (0.3%) and 0 electoral votes
United States presidential election, 1996
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) (Inc.) - 47,400,125 (49.2%) and 379 electoral votes (31 states and D.C. carried)
Bob Dole/Jack Kemp (R) - 39,198,755 (40.7%) and 159 electoral votes (19 states carried)
Ross Perot/Pat Choate (Ref.) - 8,085,402 (8.4%) and 0 electoral votes (lost)
Based upon this research, voting for this "Third" party is just throwing a vote away!
Indeed, none have won...that was never my point. My argument was the words "doesn't matter", perhaps you missed the bold print in my post? My request was to research the parties...not post quantitative results.
ALL, every single one of these "meaningless" parties changed the course of history.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney ran as a 3rd party in 1800 causing John Adams to lose to Thomas Jefferson.
James Birney ran as a 3rd party in 1844 causing Henry Clay to lose to James Knox Polk
Theodore Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party in 1912 causing William Howard Taft to lose to Woodrow Wilson
George Wallace ran as a 3rd party in 1968 causing Hubert Humphrey to lose to Richard Nixon
Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party in 1992 causing George H. W. Bush to lose to Bill Clinton
I consider that changing the world...maybe I missed something.
Not sure how anyone can look at the results of 3rd party action and conclude that changing the outcome of an election "doesn't matter"
there is nothing i can "show" you to solidiy what i am saying. i am not debating over specific politcal issues. i have no data. i have my opinion based on what i think is best for this country. if we must have these political parties, i think there should be far more than 2 or 3. i dont know what you want me to show you to make that make more sense.
I can go with that. I feel the only reason there are only 2 main parties is because of the Electoral College. THAT is the single most problem with our voting process. That is where you are correct on the vote for the team. We can?t really vote for people that we like until that is done away with. But they would never do that.
You manipulated the presentation of fact. Indeed, in the last few elections 3rd partys were overrun. What irks me is your statement," ...there is only 2 real parties. The supposed 3 doesn't matter. "
History proves you wrong. Please, research before blindly stating something so bluntly "ignorant", or whatever word you so proudly throw around.
Do some research on:
Liberty Party
Anti-Masonic Party
Free Soil Party
Bull Moose
American Independent Party
Also, read about Ross Perot.
It?s funny, you have to put the word research in your statement to prove there are more then 2 parties. The parties you mention are so small that one would have to research to know they even exist. Hell, I can start my own party with a few hundred bucks and a couple of crazy people with nothing better to do. A chairman here, treasurer there, hold a party and charge 5 bucks for the cup to drink out of. I bet if I held it during a UT football game I could raise as much money on that day then 3 of those parties do in a year.
Ignorance is voting for or on something or someone that you know will have a losing out come. No matter how much you do nothing will come of it. Ralph Nader for example. How many times has he ran? How many times has he won? How much money was wasted on his travel? And how much growth has the independent party grown?
I?m not saying that individual peoples opinions do not matter, every persons opinion matters. But this country isn?t ran on individual beliefs. It?s ran on a majority vote. Ignorance is throwing money into something that is proven to be a failure over and over again. If these small parties grew every year (even if by 1%), if each year they won more and more seats then I nor anyone else could say they are meaningless. But they never do. In fact, by the voting numbers they have declined for the last 12 years.
By the way, ignorant wasn?t my word. I haven?t made one negative post to anyone in this entire website. But people like to use it so I figured I would too. The difference is when I use it I don?t direct it to any one individual person. Funny how that word makes these posts feel personal. I would suggest not using it if you don?t want others using it.
Again, proving the more than two parties wasn't the point, everyone knows there's been more than two parties. My own problem with your statements, only problem, was you said the 3rd party "doesn't matter". Yes, they are tiny, tiny little parties...size wasn't the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78BO
It’s funny, you have to put the word research in your statement to prove there are more then 2 parties. The parties you mention are so small that one would have to research to know they even exist. Hell, I can start my own party with a few hundred bucks and a couple of crazy people with nothing better to do. A chairman here, treasurer there, hold a party and charge 5 bucks for the cup to drink out of. I bet if I held it during a UT football game I could raise as much money on that day then 3 of those parties do in a year.
Haha, I saw "UT" and living in nashville thought University of TN? Good luck with that one bud...then realized Texas . Once again, had no problem with your arguments. There are flaws in every system. Those specific parties each had huge impact upon a certain election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkonyn
Indeed, none have won...that was never my point. My argument was the words "doesn't matter", perhaps you missed the bold print in my post? My request was to research the parties...not post quantitative results.
ALL, every single one of these "meaningless" parties changed the course of history.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney ran as a 3rd party in 1800 causing John Adams to lose to Thomas Jefferson.
James Birney ran as a 3rd party in 1844 causing Henry Clay to lose to James Knox Polk
Theodore Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party in 1912 causing William Howard Taft to lose to Woodrow Wilson
George Wallace ran as a 3rd party in 1968 causing Hubert Humphrey to lose to Richard Nixon
Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party in 1992 causing George H. W. Bush to lose to Bill Clinton
I consider that changing the world...maybe I missed something.
Not sure how anyone can look at the results of 3rd party action and conclude that changing the outcome of an election "doesn't matter"
That was all I was saying. They have played a rather large part in American history.
Oh, and I must have miss read, I thought you had been throwing around the ignorant word. My bad.
. Once again, had no problem with your arguments. There are flaws in every system. Those specific parties each had huge impact upon a certain election.
My bad.
Linear Mode
