CPAC 2014 (Page 4)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Al Gore would agree with this sentiment.  :)  Lost FL by 500 votes, Nader got 97k votes

Bush 41 as well.  Perot took almost 20% of the popular vote and cost him several solid Republican states.

There are many countries with multi party systems that support this assessment.  Australia and England don't seem to be doing better with more than two.

Josh (and others) I really hear what you're saying and I am sick of our broken system too, but I am not convinced that adding another party is going to be a step toward fixing it.

It has nothing to do with "adding" another party to the mix. It has nothing to do with the letter. Bottom line is that the Ds and Rs are only about the Ds and Rs and who is paying them. They are not for the people or the country.

And yes, a third party could become a major player, and that party too can be corrupted. People are still people.

The point of going third party is to take your money, support, and vote elsewhere. Nobody has to change if nothing changes. Why should either party change a thing, they have all the money and votes they need. It just does not matter to them. Take the votes away, and send their butts packing... maybe they start to care again.

The "L" isn't the answer, the answer is to stop plugging DBs into the system expecting it to change. Stop expecting partisan politics and Washington disfunction to change by electing partisan dysfunctional politicians. It's not complicated.

Yet we are talking national elections are we not?

I get what you are saying. I have gotten more involved in my city government. I am more interested in our state politics. And yes, the fight is keeping Ds out of the drivers seat. Yet state politicians, can't do anything without the party, and you can already see that clearly. The parties are absolutely in the fight for state seats, and that absolutely filters down to lower levels. At lower levels you do see people that want to get involved to change what they see in their realm of influence. I do think they have good motives... but you can do nothing without the political machine behind you, and that comes at a heavy price. You now work for the machine.

Idealistically... do we need a third party... no, we don't. There are two camps, one that wants more government, one that wants less. That is the fundamental difference and two parties is pretty much all that is needed. HOWEVER.... the party that wants less government, has become absolutely corrupted and no longer wants "less/limited".... they absolutely want more... just a different kind. They want more government military, corporate, and wall street welfare. They want government intervention, propping up, and rigging of the game to benefit what they want. They absolutely want BIG GOVERNMENT.

So.... the Ds... who cares? They really have not changed. Sure, they have gotten more socialist and maybe not all "liberals" agree with that. But fundamentally, they always want more government, it is just a matter of degree. And I am not opposed to social programs to help people... I'm just opposed to government subsistence programs designed for never ending use. 

But the Rs... that's the real problem. They have gone off the rails. We no longer have "two" parties... we have parties that both want big government. They just disagree on who they want to give money to. So that is what I want changed. That is what needs reform. And even to the point of it being the party of exclusion... it is such an easy claim to make because it is true. Who the heck had the bright idea that exclusion was a winning strategy... and who the heck had the brilliant idea that is what "I" wanted?

The Libertarian party is the only true viable option... that as we know right now isn't really viable. But on paper, it encompasses what a lot of people want. Social programs without social subsistence. Socially liberal fiscal conservative principles. Limited government.... and let's just discuss that elephant... limited government. We will never have the "limited government" our founding fathers wanted... nor do I even agree with that. We have, and always will have, a strong central federal government... but it most certainly is in dire need of limiting from where it is now. For no other reason other than we just can't afford it.

I do not have a problem with a strong military, and robust social aid programs to help people, as long as our budget is balanced and we are not deep in debt... that's all. And right now, the Libertarian party is the only one close to what I want. It is also the only one close that can garner a large percentage of moderates from both parties. We don't "need" a third party, but the Libertarian party is the only one close to the middle... even if it too has it's extremist nut jobs like the other two parties have. Either the Republican party pulls it's head out of it's a$$, or it needs to die. The Libertarian party is the only natural successor. So either the Republican party needs to reform back to it's libertarian roots... which it most certainly had... or the Libertarian party needs to change the game... I do not care which one happens. All I know is doing the same thing over expecting different results is ABSOLUTELY NOT working.

It is likely that it will take at least a few more rounds of national elections for the Libertarians to elect a President, and those "lost" votes will impact who does get elected.  It sounds like you're totally OK with that and that will be the possibly "painful" part of the process. 

The SC appointments are a big part of the equation for me and a large part of what complicates the issue.  Does that impact your decision at all?

Based on the Democrat, Republican & Libertarian platforms, assuming they would be representative of their parties which one would you prefer Switch?

fwiw, in answer to your question I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate at this point with the possible exception if Ted Cruz is running,,,,,,,,, he has such a cool name. :)

I think Josh is spot on, the Republican Party and the Dem's are both more concerned about their status than what's good for the nation. I think if a person believes that it is crazy to vote for either one of them. 

 Excellent post.

It is likely that it will take at least a few more rounds of national elections for the Libertarians to elect a President, and those "lost" votes will impact who does get elected.  It sounds like you're totally OK with that and that will be the possibly "painful" part of the process. 

The SC appointments are a big part of the equation for me and a large part of what complicates the issue.  Does that impact your decision at all?

Well same thing really... we are voting from fear, instead of voting for what is right. SC appointments do not walk lock step with why they were appointed. IMHO, just about every single SC decision should be a 5-4 vote. If it is any clearer than that... 7-2... it should have never made it to the SC to begin with.

But just because a POTUS appoints a SC justice, does not automatically mean partisan decision making. I think that is a bit of a boogeyman issue... that some how voting D will get the 2A struck down... or by voting R, R v W will be overturned. SCOTUS just can't "overturn" judgments. They first need a case and then it's very hard. It has been done a couple times... but 99% of the time precedent is refined, not overturned. Not to mention you absolutely will have a split court the same way the country and electorate are split...one with a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and one with a more conservative one... indeed why should it have any different?

Listen... [steps up on soap box].... many good men and women through out our history gave their lives for a better country. The ultimate sacrifice they never lived to see come to fruition. The signers of the Declaration knew they were signing their death warrant. Many of them lost everything due to it.... and you are asking me if I choose to stand for popular thinking or honor and integrity? 

Do I really need to answer that? I will honor the sacrifice of those that came before me by using my inalienable right to vote my conscience and let bloggers say what they want of me. Voting my conscience is not a waste, nor is doing what you feel is right for the country. 

Well same thing really... we are voting from fear, instead of voting for what is right. SC appointments do not walk lock step with why they were appointed. IMHO, just about every single SC decision should be a 5-4 vote. If it is any clearer than that... 7-2... it should have never made it to the SC to begin with.

But just because a POTUS appoints a SC justice, does not automatically mean partisan decision making. I think that is a bit of a boogeyman issue... that some how voting D will get the 2A struck down... or by voting R, R v W will be overturned. SCOTUS just can't "overturn" judgments. They first need a case and then it's very hard. It has been done a couple times... but 99% of the time precedent is refined, not overturned. Not to mention you absolutely will have a split court the same way the country and electorate are split...one with a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and one with a more conservative one... indeed why should it have any different?

Listen... [steps up on soap box].... many good men and women through out our history gave their lives for a better country. The ultimate sacrifice they never lived to see come to fruition. The signers of the Declaration knew they were signing their death warrant. Many of them lost everything due to it.... and you are asking me if I choose to stand for popular thinking or honor and integrity? 

Do I really need to answer that? I will honor the sacrifice of those that came before me by using my inalienable right to vote my conscience and let bloggers say what they want of me. Voting my conscience is not a waste, nor is doing what you feel is right for the country. 

I wouldn't have a chance.... the closet is full.

Well same thing really... we are voting from fear, instead of voting for what is right. SC appointments do not walk lock step with why they were appointed. IMHO, just about every single SC decision should be a 5-4 vote. If it is any clearer than that... 7-2... it should have never made it to the SC to begin with.

But just because a POTUS appoints a SC justice, does not automatically mean partisan decision making. I think that is a bit of a boogeyman issue... that some how voting D will get the 2A struck down... or by voting R, R v W will be overturned. SCOTUS just can't "overturn" judgments. They first need a case and then it's very hard. It has been done a couple times... but 99% of the time precedent is refined, not overturned. Not to mention you absolutely will have a split court the same way the country and electorate are split...one with a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and one with a more conservative one... indeed why should it have any different?

Listen... [steps up on soap box].... many good men and women through out our history gave their lives for a better country. The ultimate sacrifice they never lived to see come to fruition. The signers of the Declaration knew they were signing their death warrant. Many of them lost everything due to it.... and you are asking me if I choose to stand for popular thinking or honor and integrity? 

Do I really need to answer that? I will honor the sacrifice of those that came before me by using my inalienable right to vote my conscience and let bloggers say what they want of me. Voting my conscience is not a waste, nor is doing what you feel is right for the country.