GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by fable
My concerns prompt me in the other direction. As long as the system is flawed beyond hope, and the process is limited to passing off leadership between two groups of millionaire lawyers and industrialists whose only idea is to get reelected

What about the minor parties, they have gained some influence in our system. Whilst not enough to challenge for a leadership role, they can and do affect the many policies that the major parties try to put in place.

There used to be a time, where you were assumed to be throwing your vote away by voting for a minor party but thats all changed know.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I remember going to one local election when I lived in Florida that was filled with candidates who I believed were either corrupt, idiots or only running for office to get a sinecure job. I wrote "Bill the Cat" in every for every race. Did my individual vote make a difference? No, not in a region of the state controlled by Democrats (it has been since the end of Reconstruction).

Our local system is very similar to that, to the point where its not uncommon to see an Independent sometimes take charge of a local region.

Originally posted by Tamerlane
What about the minor parties, they have gained some influence in our system. Whilst not enough to challenge for a leadership role, they can and do affect the many policies that the major parties try to put in place. .

That sort of thing has happened here, but not at the local level. The two major parties are entrenched as the only long-term parties throughout the country; when a third party comes on to the scene, it is often through the force of a personality rather than an ideology or party (ie-Reform Party, now independent, governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota).

While no third party will ever take the presidency as long as the electoral college and the 5% threshold for federal matching funds exist, in 1992 we saw Ross Perot split the Republican vote and get Bill Clinton elected president and in 2000 Ralph Nader split the Democratic vote in Florida and Dubya enabling the Supreme Court to deliver Dubya into office.

In both cases, I don't think people were really voting for either Perot or Nader; instead I think they were showing their unhappiness with the current system and were casting a "disenfranchised" vote.

In the Phils...

Originally posted by HighLordDave

In both cases, I don't think people were really voting for either Perot or Nader; instead I think they were showing their unhappiness with the current system and were casting a "disenfranchised" vote.

...we would normally term them as "nuisance candidates"...

...oh, let me correct that, THE front-running traditional politicians (tra-pos) will call them nuisance candidates...

BTW, a trapo in Filipino means rag, that piece of cloth that one uses to wipe out dirt and grime.

Re: In the Phils...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...we would normally term them as "nuisance candidates"...

To kind of get this discussion back on track, I love that in the United States, a "nuisance" or a "throw-away" candidate can actually get elected.

Jesse Ventura was a nuisance candidate, as was Howard Stern (who probably could have gotten elected) until he pulled himself out of the New York governor's race because he didn't want to disclose his earnings or financial information a couple of years ago. Both Bill Clinton and Dubya started life as "throw-away" candidates, but somehow each got elected.

Doesn't a party require a certain amount of funding (is that the 5% your referring to) to be in contention for Presidential running.

We used to have respectable thrid parties, howver a lot has changed on our political level. One high profile third party leader, changed party alliegences in the hope of becoming our first female PM. Three years later and she's now retired amidst a field of controversy. And the person who replaced her didn't do a good job either by agreeing to put in place a Goods and Services tax. So I guess we do cast 'disenfranchised' votes after all.

@ Mah its nice to see that everyone everywhere rate politicians lower then lawyers and used car salesmen.

The big american basher that i am....

....the one thing i truly love about the american people, is their simple acceptance. No matter who or what you are, there is a point where the american people will accept you and give you a helping. An example that comes to mind, was when a very poor family gave birth to 8 twins or whatever you call 8 kids at one time. Local stores as well as others, gave free supplies for a year or people just came up and donated stuff, as the poor family couldnt do it on its own. When i go the US i know i can relax, because it is a very accepting society.

Oh yeah vivid videos as well

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Doesn't a party require a certain amount of funding (is that the 5% your referring to) to be in contention for Presidential running.

Not necessarily. Anyone can run for president. Steve Forbes did it as an independent in 1996 without getting 5% of the vote in the previous election (1992). The 5% threshold is for matching funds. Basically, if your party gets 5% of the vote in one election, it becomes available for federal matching election funds which were set up in the wake of Watergate obstensibly to remove corruption from the election process.

If you accept matching funds, there is a spending cap because the government will only match a certain amount of money, and you are not allowed to spend more than the cap. Of course there are various ways around this, such as "informational" party ads not promoting a specific candidate, but many third parties find this to be an insurmountable obstacle because it means getting 5% of the vote at least once with no financial assistance.

Neither Perot nor Forbes used federal matching funds because they're both rich beyond belief and financed their own campaigns.

Re: The big american basher that i am....

Originally posted by CM
Oh yeah vivid videos as well

LMAO Only the important things, eh?

I must admit that the US has a lot good points, the fact that i have never been there yet know as much if not more about their culture than some of the countries residents is a good/interesting thing in my opinion.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Neither Perot nor Forbes used federal matching funds because they're both rich beyond belief and financed their own campaigns.

Just like the New York mayor, Bloomberg, his name I think. Must draw out the Tall Poppy Syndrome amongst the voters, when a person is viewed as buying his way into Office.

As for an Independent getting into the White House (regardless of how slim the chances may be), where does that lead the criteria for selecting, the Vice President and advisors etc.

If you accept matching funds, there is a spending cap because the government will only match a certain amount of money, and you are not allowed to spend more than the cap.

So how does "soft money", not sure if thats the term fit, into it. I'm talking about the charity functions that the parties use to garner up money to run their campaigns. I'm more or less thinking along the lines of the huge sums recieved from CEO's and celebrities alike.

*And to think I'm learning something on my holidays*

I could think of something worse...

Originally posted by Tamerlane

@ Mah its nice to see that everyone everywhere rate politicians lower then lawyers and used car salesmen.

...like a lawyer-trapo and a car salesman turned trapo.

Re: Re: The big american basher that i am....

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


LMAO Only the important things, eh?

I must admit that the US has a lot good points, the fact that i have never been there yet know as much if not more about their culture than some of the countries residents is a good/interesting thing in my opinion.

Always the most important things
If you havent been to the US you are missing something.
It is truly a melting pot, people from all walks of life meet hang around and are friends. It is a open, free and friendly society, with high moral values (even if the govt doesnt follow suit). People are accepting of many things and will adapt to others.

Originally posted by Tamerlane
As for an Independent getting into the White House (regardless of how slim the chances may be), where does that lead the criteria for selecting, the Vice President and advisors etc.

Under the terms of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which provided for a presidential "ticket", the presidential candidate names a vice-presidential candidate before the election and the two are elected in tandem. All of the candidates have people of the ticket for veep, but they're generally too obscure and unimportant to remember. The one I do recall was Vice-Admiral (USN, ret.) James "Who am I? Why am I here?" Stockdale, who was Perot's running mate in 1992. The presidential advisors, at least at the cabinet level, must be confirmed by the Senate although some people operate out of Congressional oversight (the White House Chief of Staff, for instance) and serve at the pleasure of the President.

So how does "soft money", not sure if thats the term fit, into it. I'm talking about the charity functions that the parties use to garner up money to run their campaigns. I'm more or less thinking along the lines of the huge sums recieved from CEO's and celebrities alike.

Although the government matches funds, the parties and candidates have to raise the funds first. I'm not sure what the distinction between "soft" money and "hard" money is, but there is a difference in how the two are reported and what the cap is for each, both in terms of spending and how much an individual donor can give. In the wake of Watergate, several supposed safeguards were put in place to ensure a modicum of transparency and disclosure in the political election system. You might want to check with the Federal Election Commission for more information on how the system works, but it's likely to be filled with legalese and goverment bureaucracy-speak, so you might want to visit this website, too; I don't know who maintains it, but it seems to be reasonably apolitcal and informed.

*And to think I'm learning something on my holidays*

You'd better quit while you're ahead.

Well thanks for clearing those things up HLD

Originally posted by HighLordDave
You'd better quit while you're ahead.

Will do, must keep some room left in storage to gather information from those lengthy and sleep inducing lectures.

Problems.... PROBLEMS.....

Alright I recently (last election) have lost faith in what I will call the "poor party" or other known as the green party. While I did vote nader, I didn't do it to spite other parties... I did it because I liked his policies.

And then like a sudden rash I had an itch I couldnt scratch... a thought... a sudden rush of knowledge.

When you got nothing to loose, it doesnt matter what you say. I started thinking hardcore about nader... he had all these radical views and such that I like... but then I thought. What if the green party ever ranked as high as the repubemocrats. Well then I truly believe it would be the Greerepubemocrats. Sucks but we'll until we can get a push for weasel... its lesser of two evils.

thug

p.s. I love the system. Its just like my family, good to me but needs some changes. Constantly.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
In both cases, I don't think people were really voting for either Perot or Nader; instead I think they were showing their unhappiness with the current system and were casting a "disenfranchised" vote.

I will admit to voting for Perot. Young and dumb....really no other excuse. I had little faith in Bush senior, and I will not vote democrat unless I know the person (The sherrif here where I live being one I did vote for.) So I voted for the man I figured at the time might get the economy moving.