Questions for our American friends

[9876543210]

Nobody1,

Can't say as I know anything about either although I agree a lot with the Green Party (not familiar with SEP). Over the years I've mainly voted for third party candidates which is basically the same as throwing your vote away in the US.

One of our real problems in the US is that third parties don't have a chance. But should. For the most part, right now, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties in what they actually do. A million miles apart in what they say, but maybe a quarter inch in what they actually do. And, I believe, that both parties have conspired to make it almost impossible for any third parties to do much of anything. If you'll remember, Ross Perot (whom I voted for twice), was the last third party rep. to have much of a chance.

Will I vote for another third party candidate? Probably. And maybe even this year. But the only thing which may stop me is remembering that it was a third party candidate (Ralph Nader) that gave us GW Bush.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by GailFan

Watching American politics on TV, its strikes me that many Republicans loathe democracy, and wish the US was a one-party dictatorship. They seem to love the idea of voting and political parties and so forth, but the thought that somone other than a Republican could be president seems repugnant.

Is it just me?

Depends on which side of the fence you sit. There are Republicans who would like to see one-party rule, just as Democrats would like to see it. After Obama was elected some liberal Dems publicly stated that they wished Obama was a dictator so that he could just decree the changes he wanted and not worry about dissent. In some way he did this by using executive orders. This is not new, GWB issued on average approximately 36/year, and Obama issued on average approximately 35/year. Some of this can be explained by the ineffectiveness of Congress. But when the Dems had complete control of Congress, Obama still issued 74 orders. GWB never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Obama did have one until 2010.

Many people would probably disagree with me, but the closest the US has had to having a dictator would probably have been FDR, a Democrat. He had solid majorities in both houses of congress, but it took the supreme court to restrain him. The next one would probably be Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, because he arrested and imprisoned newspaper editors, suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and other rights all under the authority of the President during war.

The lust for sole power does not reside in only one political doctrine.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

that it was a third party candidate (Ralph Nader) that gave us GW Bush.

So , Did, Umm, Choice magazine have an article about the final chosen one

[9876543210]

Estreeter,

Originally Posted by Estreeter

So , Did, Umm, Choice magazine have an article about the final chosen one

Not sure what you're asking here but, as I remember, Bush "won" Florida in 2000 by around 570 votes. I don't remember how many votes Nader had that year in Florida but at least 10,000 would probably be accurate. Most of those Nader votes would have come from people that would have supported Gore. So, in effect, those who voted for Nader (like me) wound up giving the election to Bush who was able to keep it close.

But, of course, the Supreme Court had a lot to do with Bush "winning" that election.

All I'm really saying is that Nader sucked enough votes away from Gore to keep the election close. The Supreme Court did the rest.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Estreeter,

Not sure what you're asking here but,

Sorry, my pathetic attempt at humor...... I thought Ralph Nader started Choice magazine That consumer product advise Mag Maybe I was wro...... Slightly incorrect

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

...Maybe I was wro...... Slightly incorrect

You mean "perhaps this judgment was not blessed with my customary unimpeachable insight"

(ok, I googled it)

To our American friends: Why do Independents bother? - it must be very expensive, so who pays?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Out of curiosity. I would like to know your opinions on these two presidential candidates.

"Socialist Equality Party" has zero traction or relevance in the US.

Greens, on the other hand, might. They don't have any great traction today, but there are clearly folks who vote "Green".

In general, though, minor third party candidates don't matter in the US. The experience of 1992 --when a Ross Perot candidacy cost Bush (41) his re election against Clinton, and 2000, when Ralph Nader likely cost Al Gore the election against Bush (43), has left both conservatives and liberals chastened.

If you voted for Nader, and that helped elect Bush, you feel pretty awful about that. Here's what the head of the Sierra Club (major environmental organization) had to say about Nader

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.

Nader got 2.8 million votes, nearly all of which would have likely gone to Gore.

That's why 3rd party presidential candidates don't get more than a Youtube video today.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by awboy33

Many people would probably disagree with me, but the closest the US has had to having a dictator would probably have been FDR, a Democrat. He had solid majorities in both houses of congress, but it took the supreme court to restrain him. The next one would probably be Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, because he arrested and imprisoned newspaper editors, suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and other rights all under the authority of the President during war.

The lust for sole power does not reside in only one political doctrine.

I would once have entirely disagreed regarding FDR, awboy, but I'm not quite so sure now; in many ways he was an outstanding president, but I doubt if history would have been nearly so kind to him had there been no WW2. Though undeniably a great president, he was also untrustworthy, malicious and a rather nasty piece of work. He patently abused the powers of his office in petty and personal ways, getting the IRS to hassle people he disliked, imposing legal sanctions in support of his National Recovery Agency artificial price controls. He did not believe in free market economics. There were serious things wrong with FDR as a president. But if I had been an American citizen and eligible to vote in 1932, FDR would have my vote without hesitation; Herbert Hoover was less useful than a chocolate teapot, and FDR accepted that he had a duty to the millions of destitute people living rough in "Hoovervilles", to offer them a chance to work and rebuild their ruined dreams. FDR gave people hope and people must have hope, it is impossible to live without hope. But yes, FDR was power-hungry and did often over-reach.

Lincoln was in a different situation, fighting not merely a war, but also a civil war. In a civil war, what one side would consider freedom of speech will often appear to the other side as bare-faced treachery. I certainly recollect reading that Lincoln's man, John Dix, locked up well over 100 Maryland state legislators in May 1861 because they had convened in order to pass a motion of succession from the Union. Most of them stayed in clink until 1865. The Maryland state legisators who remained at liberty were the minority who had openly opposed succession. Quite pointedly, they passed a motion of loyalty and support to the Union but with an explicit statement that their state had a perfect right to succede from the Union any time it felt like it; they were pissed off about the high-handed action against their colleagues and wanted this fact to be on the record. I dare say neither Lincoln nor Dix lost any sleep on that score; they could afford to allow the Maryland senators to sound off.

[9876543210]

palo5,

Originally Posted by palo5

To our American friends: Why do Independents bother? - it must be very expensive, so who pays?

Again (my mind is really starting to go nowadays), I'm not quite sure what your asking here. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, the reason I bother voting goes back to something my dad said way back when. Something to the effect that if you don't vote you don't have any right to bitch!

And I do not understand about the expense. In the US there can be no expense (except maybe transportation to the poll) to vote. Any expense is supposed to be considered a "poll tax" and thus illegal.

For years after the Civil War many of the Southern states used to come up with all kinds of reasons to keep blacks from voting. Finally sometime in the 1960's (I believe) these practices were made illegal. Republicans have been doing their utmost for the last two years to bring those laws back but, so far, they've pretty much been beaten back. But the Republicans keep trying.

They've been putting up billboards in Milwaukee and Cleveland in mainly minority districts trying to intimidate minority voters. For the most part they've been forced to take them down but I'm sure they've intimidated a few people who won't vote.

[winebeavis]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

And I do not understand about the expense. In the US there can be no expense (except maybe transportation to the poll) to vote. Any expense is supposed to be considered a "poll tax" and thus illegal.

I think Palo meant that the expense is for an independent campaign. Sort of how Ross Perot dug into his own pocket to pay his. Didn't read it to mean that voters had to pony up if they wanted to vote for anyone else.