ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:57:51 -0700, "Jim E" <YD651...@sea.edu> wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
>> Third party option is still born.
>> They have designed the finance regulations to preclude such a
>> possibility.

> Actually I would say it has to do more with the average American only
> being interested in their own selfish self-intrests then those of the
> country's.  But hey, that's me.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 18:52:06 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> Actually I would say it has to do more with the average American only
>> being interested in their own selfish self-intrests then those of the
>> country's.  But hey, that's me.

>Not really a problem.  I trust peoples' self interests far more than I do
>the altruisim that the "caring" show with other peoples' money.

>  The problem
>is showing people where their true self interests lie (as in, "if the
>govenrment can take and give to me, it can also take from me and give to
>someone else - thus I want to limit the taking as much as possible, lest I
>end up on the wrong side of it").

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:04:14 -0400, ZombyWoof <Zomby-W...@Zappa.net>
> wrote:

>> You mean like Perot handed the POTUS to Clinton?  Possibly, but I
>> think that activity is what created the "Contract with America" which
>> revitalized the Republican party.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason
>> they have since moved away from it.  Perhaps all Americans should sue
>> for breach of contract.

> I've always voted Republican more often than not, but these days I've
> grown to almost hate them.  Not for the things they stand for with
> which I disagree, but with their betrayal of the public trust in not
> fulfilling the government reform promises of the Contract.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 18:55:41 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> I've always voted Republican more often than not, but these days I've
>> grown to almost hate them.  Not for the things they stand for with
>> which I disagree, but with their betrayal of the public trust in not
>> fulfilling the government reform promises of the Contract.

>We need Newt back.  But I'm not sure he can afford to be found innocent of
>any more wrong-doing.  The last one hurt his wallet pretty badly (while
>Gingrich is well off from most standards, he's not as well off as people
>like Kerry, so when he was forced to pay for the investigation, in which he
>was cleared of misconduct, it wasn't something he just shrugged off).

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:44:21 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
>> Best example of this is Bush's amnesty for illegal invaders... er,
>> aliens. He's losing his base on this one - but they sure as hell
>> aren't going to vote anywhere else.  The libertarians will open the
>> borders wide, and the dems will give Mexico the southwest to appease
>> them.  All we can do is support the "Big Bus" wing of the republican
>> party.

> I'm not really aware of what the Libertarians stance on this issue one
> way or another.  From a conceptual standpoint my philosophies are
> usually pretty closely aligned with their stated Platform which to my
> knowledge doesn't have anything to say about immigration.

>>>> As I said, the best thing the republicans have going for them, this
>>>> election year, is that it's the democrats they're running against.

>>> Same thing could be said about the Democrats as well.  Pretty much
>>> lock, stock & barrel we have a whole bunch of politicos who are out
>>> of touch with the Heartbeat of America.  Every year we move closer &
>>> closer to the creation of a viable third party which I personally
>>> view

>> That would be a bit of a disaster, as well.  Any third party would
>> just split the votes of the party they're the most like, and end up
>> electing the party nobody likes.  Thus a strong Green Party only
>> helps Republicans, and a strong Libertarian Party only helps dems.

> You mean like Perot handed the POTUS to Clinton?  Possibly, but I

> think that activity is what created the "Contract with America" which
> revitalized the Republican party.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason
> they have since moved away from it.  Perhaps all Americans should sue
> for breach of contract.

>>> as a good thing.  Our current two party system has move to the far
>>> extremes on opposing ends of the political spectrum and we need a
>>> group that takes a more centrists view of the issues.  While I like

>> I think others may disagree.  I see the problem being that we have
>> two moderate parties, and nobody with balls.  Oh, sure, they talk a
>> partisan game, but the republicans will still pour taxpayers' money
>> down the drain just as fast as the democrats.  And the democrats
>> will be even quicker to war than the republicans (but the
>> republicans won't be talking about cutting and running when it's a
>> dem in the white house).

> I'm quite sure that opinions are as varied as the day is long.  I
> would say that we have two pandering parties, but that is my view.

> Other then this current misadventure in Iraq aside, I wonder what the
> Republicans would be pissing away money on.  I am quite sure that the
> Dems would love to be pouring money into the piss-hole that New
> Orleans as become to re-chocolate it.

>>> the overall theme of the Libertarian Party, the fact that they can
>>> only muster up loons to run for office currently does not make them
>>> a viable option in my opinion.

>>> Anyhow, the long & short of this is that large majority of the
>>> American people (IMHO) want some more choices then just the same
>>> old, same old.

>> But they're unwilling to make it happen.

> Or unable too.  Most Americans (IMHO) simply cannot see past their own
> selfish self-interests and simply vote for the guy that panders to
> them the best.  We've been smack square in the "What your country can
> do for you mode" for decades now.  I highly doubt we'll ever develop
> any type of national goals or unity again.

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 19:03:21 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
> <snip>
>>>> I think others may disagree.  I see the problem being that we have
>>>> two moderate parties, and nobody with balls.  Oh, sure, they talk a
>>>> partisan game, but the republicans will still pour taxpayers' money
>>>> down the drain just as fast as the democrats.  And the democrats
>>>> will be even quicker to war than the republicans (but the
>>>> republicans won't be talking about cutting and running when it's a
>>>> dem in the white house).

>>> I'm quite sure that opinions are as varied as the day is long.  I
>>> would say that we have two pandering parties, but that is my view.

>> The problem is that they're pandering to the middle.  Just what we
>> need - pandering ot the undedicated, uninformed, convictionless
>> masses.  Survival of the spineless.

> Well I don't really see pandering to either Gays, or Religious Zealots
> pandering to the middle.  About the only thing the middle gets is the
> tax burden.

>>> Other then this current misadventure in Iraq aside, I wonder what
>>> the Republicans would be pissing away money on.  I am quite sure
>>> that the Dems would love to be pouring money into the piss-hole
>>> that New
>>> Orleans as become to re-chocolate it.

>> Let's see... the republicans created the park service, the EPA, and
>> this perscription drug benefit fiasco.  I'm sure they would find
>> -something- to waste your money on.  That's why I work like a
>> pack-mule all day long... so that Joe Shit can be paid to sit on his
>> fat ass and do nothing all day.

> You think you are the only one?  Hell it takes my entire monthly
> Military Retirement check to meet the tax-burden of my post employment
> bi-weekly check.

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:44:21 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:

>> That would be a bit of a disaster, as well.  Any third party would
>> just split the votes of the party they're the most like, and end up
>> electing the party nobody likes.  Thus a strong Green Party only
>> helps Republicans, and a strong Libertarian Party only helps dems.

> Not written in stone.  What makes multiparty rule work is that various
> parties work together on issues in common.  Greens might vote with
> Democrats on environmental issues (I have no idea why you think Greens
> would be good for the anti EPA GOP) while voting with the Republicans

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 19:07:46 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:
>Simple.  Because if the Greens get enough of the votes to be viable, neither
>the greens -nor- the dems will be elected.  Their seat will go to a
>republican that didn't represent the views of the majority of that distict
>or state.  You're going to find that the number of would-be-greens that
>settle for the dems vastly, vastly outnumber the number of would-be-greens
>that settle for republicans.

>You're right in your reasoning of how things would go with a strong three or
>four party division in the legislature.  The problem is, such as scenario is
>impossible under the current election system.  And any other election
>systems would have to be undertaken with the utmost of caution, since they
>are even more succeptable to fraud than what we have now.

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 19:07:46 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:

>> Simple.  Because if the Greens get enough of the votes to be viable,
>> neither the greens -nor- the dems will be elected.  Their seat will
>> go to a republican that didn't represent the views of the majority
>> of that distict or state.  You're going to find that the number of
>> would-be-greens that settle for the dems vastly, vastly outnumber
>> the number of would-be-greens that settle for republicans.

>> You're right in your reasoning of how things would go with a strong
>> three or four party division in the legislature.  The problem is,
>> such as scenario is impossible under the current election system.
>> And any other election systems would have to be undertaken with the
>> utmost of caution, since they are even more succeptable to fraud
>> than what we have now.

> I don't think it's impossible and I don't think it's as simple as some
> third party rising up and taking votes from one existing party thus
> giving the second main party control.  At the beginning of any
> significant shift towards any third parties, there will be a need for
> a popular shift away from third party politics.

> To be successful, a third party would have to focus on local offices
> and the activities of those representatives would have be transparent
> and widely promoted.

> A third party hoping to grow into a significant political force might
> do so by officially ignoring the "hot button" issues that have so
> sharply polarized and confused the electorate.

> A successful third party must be able to successfully communicate "I
> told you so" to the public when their efforts on a platform fail and
> result in disaster.  They must also step up to admit their error and
> solicit public input when their successes do the same.

> Above all, any third party that expects to gain credibility must
> espouse and practice integrity, honesty and accountability in all
> government and private activities of their lives.  I'd rather vote for
> a candidate who admits without pressure that he inhaled than one who
> denies having done so until the pictures are posted in the newspaper.

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:36:06 -0400, "sanjian" <mille...@vt.edu> wrote:
>All that is true, and sounds good.  However, you still haven't explained how
>they avoid splitting the votes.  Any broad ideological stance that is
>represented by more than one viable option automatically weakens its
>electorial power.