3rd Party madness

[sandbagger]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - 3rd parties do more harm than good, particularly in national politics.

With Democrats finding votes in Minnesota and Alaska, the Senate filibuster may hang on the outcome of the Georgia runoff. Republican Chambliss fell 0.2% short of the 50% required by law. Chambliss failed to cross the 50 percent threshold and faces a Dec. 2 rematch with Democrat Jim Martin. Georgia's election results were certified Thursday and the final tallies show Chambliss falling just short, with 49.8 percent of the vote. Martin earned 46.8 percent and Libertarian Allen Buckley, also in the race, pulled 3.4 percent. That's right, the Libertarian is forcing the runoff, even though Chambliss leads the Democrat by 3%. The Libertarian will not be on the ballot. Obama has money in the bank and will throw millions of $$ - and hundreds of ACORN "volunteers" - at an election that should be over.

[Sponsored Links]

[cx]

Or one might say the the runoff was caused by 3.4 percent of the thinking public of Georgia (surely you'll concede they have that many?) who were tired of voting for the choice usually assigned them by the Pillage Party and the Plunder Party and chose to vote for a candidate from a party that thinks the Constitution is still an important part of our foundation.

The Third Party did not cause a runoff, the voters of that state did.

And proved that neither of the candidates of the two tired old assigned choices of party could even muster support from half of the sixty percent of the eligible voters who even registered. That speaks volumes about them both, and their party platforms, to me.



[I don't actually know the percent of registered voters in Georgia and am going by the national figures from some years ago]

[John Bridge]

Yup, yup, yup, I'm for a third party. Abe Lincoln was all for third parties. He was the first president elected from a brand new party that replaced the Whigs. It was called the Republican Party. ;)

[sandbagger]

The Third Party did not cause a runoff, the voters of that state did. correct, almost. The Libertarian voters of the state are responsible for the runoff.

bottom line is that a Dem or Repub will take office. You cannot absolve the Libertarian voters for their possible role in this outcome. Those "thinking" voters were obviously not thinking about the consequences of their actions and impact to the nation as a whole that could result from a filibuster-proof majority of loony lefty Democrats.

I think we are seeing the old phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" elevated to new heights. :nod:

[ddmoit]

Art, you presume that Libertarian voters have a significant preference among the candidates that they did not choose. Many of them don't.

Democracy sucks.

[sandbagger]

Please, John - the Republican Party was indeed a "new" party but it was never a 3rd party. The Whigs didn't exist - dissolved in about 1854 - when the Republicans nominated their first candidate for president in 1856. The new GOP picked up the pieces of the Whigs and brought together 3rd parties such as the Constitutional and Know-nothings.

nice try. ;)

[sandbagger]

you presume that Libertarian voters have a significant preference among the candidates that they did not choose. Many of them don't. You are missing the point, Dan. I didn't assume anything about their voting preferences. Look at the numbers again. These people didn't just "throw away" their votes, thanks to Georgia law. Democracy sucks."Democracy" doesn't declare a "do-over" when there is already a clear winner.

[bbcamp]

...there is already a clear winner.Which of the three won a majority of the votes cast?

[sandbagger]

Chambliss is up by 3% and nobody's arguing. See my opening post.

[cx]

The Libertarian voters of the state are responsible for the runoff. Actually your guy Chambliss is responsible for the runoff on accounta he couldn't convince even a majority of registered voters that he was the right guy for the position.

The Libertarian voters, many of whom were almost certainly Republicans, simply cast their ballots for the candidate they preferred. That's the way it's s'posta work in free elections. :)

[sandbagger]

cx - to Dan's point, in a Democracy the winner would have won and we'd be done.

And this is not a "republic" argument. We are in this dilemma because of the silly Georgia law (and they are not alone in this rule) AND a third-party vote total that creates a mathematical dilemma.

my premise - which I believe is quite obvious - is that there is real potential for unintended consequences that the Libertarian voters would never have wanted, especially if you are correct that they would lean Republican.

sorry, but I believe it is at least a little irresponsible to "vote for the candidate you prefer" without carefully considering the possible consequences - even the unintended variety.

[John Bridge]

I'm at a distinct disadvantage here. I speak off the top of my head. Maybe I'm a "Know Nothing" after all. :D

Lincoln was in fact a Whig before he became a Republican. He could have just as easily become a Democrat (as many former Whigs did). I think my intent here is to demonstrate that the two-party system is not sacrosanct. There is always room for new blood (and a new party). If Ross Perot hadn't gone berserk he might have actually pulled it off. :)

I think the two-party system is a disaster, and what amazes people like me is that you can actually find a significant difference between the two current parties. ;)

[ddmoit]

Art, democracy connotes majority rule - not the person with the most votes if they did not achieve a majority.

[cx]

my premise - which I believe is quite obvious - is that there is real potential for unintended consequences that the Libertarian voters would never have wanted, especially if you are correct that they would lean Republican.Again, Art, the runoff was not a consequence, intended nor unintended, of the Libertarian vote. It was a direct consequence of your party's candidate failing to persuade a sufficient number of voters that he was the best candidate in the race. It's really that simple. You can blame a lot of other things if it makes y'all feel better, but that's just the fact of it.

You wanna win elections, you gotta get the votes. You wanna get the votes, you gotta have the right message. And, in the case of your Party, the right candidate. In Georgia y'all apparently didn't have either. And that runoff ain't gonna be an easy ride even without the "spoilers," as y'all like to see them.

[sandbagger]

well, cx, we have a bit of a contradiction, it would seem. If your premise on preference is true; ieThe Libertarian voters, many of whom were almost certainly Republicans,then you have to wonder how they would have voted if they had known that their vote for the Libertarian was going to have the effect of giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. I believe that realization would change the game entirely. Remember, we only needed for 0.2% of them to realize that maybe it wasn't a good time for a protest vote. democracy connotes majority rule - not the person with the most votes if they did not achieve a majority.you raise an interesting point, Dan. So I did a little searching and and came up with an unequivocal - it depends. There is definitely not a consensus that "democracy" implies a majority that is defined as 50% + 1. Sometimes "majority" really means "plurality." In parliamentary rules (a form of democracy) the most votes wins once you have a quorum. Our Congress works this way. And there's another one that takes a very strict view that is based not on the votes cast, but on the total possible votes (ie, registered voters). We actually had an initiative this year that tried to make this the rule to raise taxes. (it failed). The simple fact is that the vast majority of our states use the "plurality" rule. I think the two-party system is a disaster, so do Liberals, but I don't think you'd like their "fix." Seriously, we see this a lot, but not much in the way of solutions. Our system is hardly perfect (we did just elect an unqualified ultra-Liberal, after all) but I don't see anything I'd substitute. :shrug:

[koihito]

this is not a "republic" argument

Ultimately, how can it not be? Isn't the point of this kind of law that a strait democracy (simple majority rule) is a brutal form of government with no degree of concern or protection for the minority? Madison in The Federalist points out that there ... is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust...

Thats why we are a representative republic isn't it?

[Dave Taylor]

:scratch: even draws me to comment in a thread of this ilk but..... I do wonder something that perhaps.... a slow (rainy here) day brings out.

Mebee’ y'all kin' shine some light here.

What I wonder is....

Just how the US of A's two party system..... and mebee' how it is currently administered, handled, used, negotiated, whetevered‘..... contributes to the voter turnout this country enjoys..... as in....

I want none-o-the above so why bother.... or same-ol' same-ol' so why bother, or six one half dozen the other so.... why bother.... or some other reasons I have not thought of so.... why bother.

I keep a-hearin' that a little competition is a good thing but...... :scratch:

[jvcstone]

Out of curiosity Art,would you be this upset with Georgia's election rules if the shoe was on the other foot?? I don't think you'd be any thing but in favor of the run off if the Democrat had the 3point lead over the Republican but was just short of the 50% mark because a third party had managed to win a few percentage points of the vote.

If the premise holds that "most" of the Libertarian voters are in fact republicans, than Chambliss will win the run off. If he doesn't, it just might be because he is a low life who has lost the respect of a lot of Georgia voters because of his campaign 6 years ago.

JVC

[sandbagger]

John, your point is well taken, but I really am trying to press the point that you can't ignore the potential consequences - often unintended - of those "protest" votes. I've been pretty consistent in these discussions that I think voting for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning is a bad idea. This is not a debate about the goodness of our two-party system, either - it is what it is.

Frankly, I could just as easily have used Florida 2000, and maybe I should for both similarity and contrast. While Gore lost Florida by some 537 votes, far more focus is placed on hanging chads than the simple fact that there were seven 3rd-party candidates, all of whom got more than 537 votes. Nader alone pulled 97,421 votes. Honestly, folks, does anyone believe that you couldn't find 600 Nader voters who'd have voted for Gore if they knew absolutely that their Nader vote would put Bush in the White House?

The contrast with the Chambliss race in Georgia is that Bush did not need Dan's strict definition of "majority" to take Florida's electoral votes. If the premise holds that "most" of the Libertarian voters are in fact republicans, than Chambliss will win the run off.All things being equal the 2nd time around, I'd agree completely. FAct is, if the Libertarian voters just stayed home - and nothing else changed - it would push Chambliss above 50%. But that is not the case and never is. And to make matters worse the Chambliss race will be more about outsiders pouring money (and ACORN volunteers) into Georgie than just a "normal" state Senate race. And while Obama probably won't appear, expect to see a ton of his leftover cash. This is the problem with do-overs like this - NOTHING is the same. :shake: I predict Chambliss will lose by at least 5 points. :cry:

and no, I don't blame 3rd parties. I blame stupid laws and uninformed voters. :bang: