What Message Do You Want To Hear At The Democratic National Convention?

[nathanm]

I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

[Red Arrow]

I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

It is not an impossibility given your presumption of not throwing the election.  I will not specify any particular candidates though.

How about you?

[Hoss]

The difference is that the Tea Party faction has successfully primaried a large number of moderate Republican incumbents. There's been a small bit of that (2 or 3) on the Democrats' side, but the folks from Daily Kos have not had the widespread success the Tea Party has. There's little love lost between the "progressive" wing of the party and the leadership. There was some of the same in the Republican Party at the beginning of the Tea Party movement, but that didn't last very long. We have had Tea Party icons as VP choices on the Republican ticket two cycles in a row now.

It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

And that's one example (big example) of what I was trying to say about who holds the purse strings in another thread.

Moody's said it would create 1.9 million jobs

The Economic Policy institute said it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect 1.6 million already existing jobs

Goldman Sachs also said it would add 1.5 percent to the GDP.

The Republicans filibustered it.  One month after it was introduced.

[Red Arrow]

The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

Like most Americans, I will have to depend on my representatives in the House and Senate to protect me from sh!tburgers.  I have not read the act and distrust the administration's spin on what's in it.

[nathanm]

It is not an impossibility given your presumption of not throwing the election.  I will not specify any particular candidates though.

How about you?

I would love that option, although I don't know who I'd vote for this year. Sadly, I've been too focused on anti-Romney. I was curious because I want to gauge whether or not anyone would actually vote for a third party candidate if strategic voting wasn't a factor. I may have mentioned it before, but I'd like to see preference voting or IRV or a similar system rather than first past the post. Not much sense in putting forth the effort to get the necessary law passed if everyone else is reflexively and intractably against it, though.

[Red Arrow]

I would love that option, although I don't know who I'd vote for this year. Sadly, I've been too focused on anti-Romney. I was curious because I want to gauge whether or not anyone would actually vote for a third party candidate if strategic voting wasn't a factor. I may have mentioned it before, but I'd like to see preference voting or IRV or a similar system rather than first past the post. Not much sense in putting forth the effort to get the necessary law passed if everyone else is reflexively and intractably against it, though.

Ultimately, I cannot personally accept a mere plurality to elect a President.  At best, we would need a run-off election.  Wow, extending the election cycle even longer than it is presently.  Not cool.

[TulsaRufnex]

I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

[Red Arrow]

What viable alternative do you offer to the present system?

[nathanm]

Ultimately, I cannot personally accept a mere plurality to elect a President.  At best, we would need a run-off election.  Wow, extending the election cycle even longer than it is presently.  Not cool.

In instant runoff voting, a candidate must get a majority to win. The runoff is just done by asking voters to rank candidates in order of preference when they vote, but it otherwise works just like one or more runoff elections would now. There are others that are even better at pleasing the most people the most possible, but even IRV cracks the third party spoiler problem.

[Red Arrow]

In instant runoff voting, a candidate must get a majority to win. The runoff is just done by asking voters to rank candidates in order of preference when they vote, but it otherwise works just like one or more runoff elections would now.

Interesting but I would need to spend some time on it.  Hardcore Democrats would vote D, 3rd Party, R.  Hardcore Republicans would vote R, 3rd Party, D.  A really strong candidate could pull out a single election win but I don't really see that happening.

[nathanm]

Interesting but I would need to spend some time on it.  Hardcore Democrats would vote D, 3rd Party, R.  Hardcore Republicans would vote R, 3rd Party, D.  A really strong candidate could pull out a single election win but I don't really see that happening.

Sure, but people who want to vote for a third party as their first preference will because it won't almost inevitably lead to giving the election to their last choice. As I said, there are other alternative systems that do even better at representing the actual preferences of the electorate, but they are more complex in operation and don't really matter unless there are more than three or four potentially competitive candidates, but the voter input remains the same in any case.

[RecycleMichael]

I think we should use scratch-off tickets to pick our leaders. Or maybe tenth caller.

[erfalf]

I think we should use scratch-off tickets to pick our leaders. Or maybe tenth caller.

Here here! Who was it that said Congress would be better off if it were compiled of people randomly selected out of the phone book. Maybe we should do a draft for congress. Bills would certainly be a heck of a lot simpler.

Going back and reading a few of the threads this is usually how it goes:

Well, out guy is less crazy than your guy, or our guy is not as bad as your guy.

[erfalf]

And that's one example (big example) of what I was trying to say about who holds the purse strings in another thread.

Moody's said it would create 1.9 million jobs

The Economic Policy institute said it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect 1.6 million already existing jobs

Goldman Sachs also said it would add 1.5 percent to the GDP.

The Republicans filibustered it.  One month after it was introduced.

I believe the opposition is a tad more bipartisan than the support. Many Dems have voiced opposition to the original bill. They thought there were too many tax cuts (1/2 the bill was tax cuts). Heck, even Reid put it on the back burner initially. In addition, parts of the original bill were included in other legislation, that have passed.