Presidential Election: 2012

[Danoff]

Would be awesome if we could do something about that... but no, not realistically. Realistically if enough people waste their votes on third party candidates, the main two parties will have to take notice and try to appeal to those voters to bring them back to the two party system.

This is actually somewhat possible given that there aren't that many contested votes out there. Most people are either going to vote democrat no matter what, or republican no matter what. Only the "swing" votes matter for campaigning, and third party votes may be viewed as "swing" votes to a certain extent. Those are the votes that the main two parties focus on, and when taking your swing vote to a third party you have the added advantage of clearly demonstrating what the main two parties have to do to win your vote.

Is it the best system? No not by a long shot.

Another interesting feature of this is that you kinda have to be willing to bring your vote back into the two-party system to actually have power. You have to be a swing vote. If you're going to vote third party no matter what, you've effectively removed yourself from representation.

 

[Liquid]

Ryan was not much cop in the VP debate, I hear.

 

[Dennisch]

Realistically if enough people waste their votes on third party candidates,

Ron Paul could have pulled it of as an independent, seeing as the majority in here saw him as a good option against Obama.

 

[Joel]

Ron Paul could have pulled it of as an independent, seeing as the majority in here saw him as a good option against Obama.

I don't think this forum is a good barometer of broad public opinion. The opinions forum on this site (for whatever reason), seems to be more libertarian minded than I've encountered in my daily life. I think part of it has to with the internet. The internet as a whole seems to be more left-libertarian leaning than the general population.

Ron Paul would have done best as a Republican nominee than an independent, there's a lot of people who just vote Democrat or Republican no matter what.

 

[Dennisch]

I actually meant that if Paul would run as independent, he could take a lot of votes from both Donkey and Elephant. He would not win, but he could show that a lot of people want something else than the usual suspects.

 

[TVC]

Ron Paul could have pulled it of as an independent, seeing as the majority in here saw him as a good option against Obama.

I doubt that. He was never and is still not very popular.

 

[Liquid]

I doubt that. He was never and is still not very popular.

Don't let Keef read this.

 

[TVC]

Don't let Keef read this.

I didn't mean to offend anyone.

Though I don't really see how it would be offensive, at least I don't feel it is and I didn't mean it to be.

Here is actually something that is kind of relevant, though it's also from July so it's kind of old:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155537/Little-Support-Third-Party-Candidates-2012-Election.aspx

 

[Liquid]

Keef's a very ardent Ron Paul supporter, that's all.

 

[FoolKiller]

I doubt that. He was never and is still not very popular.

But he averaged 15% of Republican votes in the primary. If he performed as well as an independent or third party candidate in a general election plus pulling Democrat votes he would have a two-point affect:

1) The other two and the media absolutely have to notice. It would be enough to make some states, typically known for always going a certain way, nail biters and give the media enough buzz to talk about. It would certainly force the parties to refocus their message before the next election.

2) Break the required threshold for a party to receive federal funding in the next election. As independent this wouldn't matter but if he ran on an organized third party it would be huge. Even as an independent, the message would be delivered that it can be done.

But at the barest of minimums, if Ron Paul ran it would have an affect that would make Ross Perot seem like a minor hiccup.

But he isn't, so it doesn't matter.

 

[TVC]

But he averaged 15% of Republican votes in the primary. If he performed as well as an independent or third party candidate in a general election plus pulling Democrat votes he would have a two-point affect:

1) The other two and the media absolutely have to notice. It would be enough to make some states, typically known for always going a certain way, nail biters and give the media enough buzz to talk about. It would certainly force the parties to refocus their message before the next election.

2) Break the required threshold for a party to receive federal funding in the next election. As independent this wouldn't matter but if he ran on an organized third party it would be huge. Even as an independent, the message would be delivered that it can be done.

But at the barest of minimums, if Ron Paul ran it would have an affect that would make Ross Perot seem like a minor hiccup.

But he isn't, so it doesn't matter.

In the primary he managed to get about 10% of votes and won 4 states but didn't receive the most votes in any states. He won Maine and Minnesota which are likely going to lean towards the democratic candidate. Louisiana is likely going to be republican. Iowa might vote for either candidate.

If he was running for president his results would probably be closer to John B. Anderson in 1980 and at best one of the earlier third party candidates (winning a few states but only having around 10% of the popular vote). It's more likely that he would not win any states but he may have had an impact on a few (that doesn't mean he would have changed anything).

I've heard this second point before. I don't know if it would really matter. In 1968 George Wallace received 13% of the popular vote and won 5 states but the party he ran for hasn't been very successful. (though this may have been before public funding for political parties went into place, which appears to be around 1973?) Same goes for Ross Perot's Reform Party which received over 8% of the vote in 1996 and nearly 19% of the vote in 1992 but hasn't really been successful since then.

I don't really think it would be huge deal if he went above the 5% threshold. It would help but I highly doubt it would change the course of any future election.

And even if he received 10% of the vote as an independent it wouldn't really matter next election. There have been plenty of times when an independent candidate has received a relatively respectable amount of the vote but it hasn't really made independents any more likely to win in future elections.

Sure it would add some a little uncertainty to the election but I doubt he would have a very big impact on the results, if any. Paul simply is not very popular, and likely will never be very popular.

Like you said, it doesn't really matter since he's not running.

 

[orimarc]

The internet as a whole seems to be more left-libertarian leaning than the general population.

Maybe because it's user base is largely composed of people between the ages of 10 and 35?

 

[Quackjack]

Maybe because it's user base is largely composed of people between the ages of 10 and 35?

Funny: I'm a libertarian democrat. 15 years old btw.

 

[Sam48]

Maybe because it's user base is largely composed of people between the ages of 10 and 35?

But would you not say that libertarianism seems to be growing among all people regardless of age? I'm beginning to think that it may be.

Funny: I'm a libertarian democrat. 15 years old btw.

I consider the term "libertarian" to be a way of differentiating yourself from left or right. Therefore, to say you're a "libertarian democrat" is an oxymoron in my opinion.

 

[Joel]

I think it seems to be growing more among younger people. A lot of boomers I meet are steadfast with one party (usually either Conservative or Liberal in Canada, and of course the Dems/Repubs in the US).

 

[FoolKiller]

In the primary he managed to get about 10% of votes and won 4 states but didn't receive the most votes in any states. He won Maine and Minnesota which are likely going to lean towards the democratic candidate. Louisiana is likely going to be republican. Iowa might vote for either candidate.

If he was running for president his results would probably be closer to John B. Anderson in 1980 and at best one of the earlier third party candidates (winning a few states but only having around 10% of the popular vote). It's more likely that he would not win any states but he may have had an impact on a few (that doesn't mean he would have changed anything).

I've heard this second point before. I don't know if it would really matter. In 1968 George Wallace received 13% of the popular vote and won 5 states but the party he ran for hasn't been very successful. (though this may have been before public funding for political parties went into place, which appears to be around 1973?) Same goes for Ross Perot's Reform Party which received over 8% of the vote in 1996 and nearly 19% of the vote in 1992 but hasn't really been successful since then.

I don't really think it would be huge deal if he went above the 5% threshold. It would help but I highly doubt it would change the course of any future election.

And even if he received 10% of the vote as an independent it wouldn't really matter next election. There have been plenty of times when an independent candidate has received a relatively respectable amount of the vote but it hasn't really made independents any more likely to win in future elections.

Sure it would add some a little uncertainty to the election but I doubt he would have a very big impact on the results, if any. Paul simply is not very popular, and likely will never be very popular.

Like you said, it doesn't really matter since he's not running.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to test it and see. But keep in mind that Paul has a decades long devout following that understand it is a long road of change unlike Perot or the other candidates, he has a close ideaological successor in Rand Paul, and the Libertarian Party has been growing steadily in recent years to the point that only the most purposefully ignorant don't at least know it exists and it is gaining celebrity supporters (Penn Jillett doesn't shut up about Johnson) and has its own think tank and publications, as well as a large annual rally in Vegas every year.

Times are changing more now than ever before. Candidates like Perot were non-threatening enough to add him to the debates. Neither party will step on the same stage as a Libertarian.

 

[TVC]

Unfortunately, we won't be able to test it and see. But keep in mind that Paul has a decades long devout following that understand it is a long road of change unlike Perot or the other candidates, he has a close ideaological successor in Rand Paul, and the Libertarian Party has been growing steadily in recent years to the point that only the most purposefully ignorant don't at least know it exists and it is gaining celebrity supporters (Penn Jillett doesn't shut up about Johnson) and has its own think tank and publications, as well as a large annual rally in Vegas every year.

Times are changing more now than ever before. Candidates like Perot were non-threatening enough to add him to the debates. Neither party will step on the same stage as a Libertarian.

I never considered that but it is a good point.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Obama sounded ticked when he discussed National Security...

That said, way to rebound from the first debate. I guess it's a Chicago thing. Do terribly first half, come back swinging second half.

 

[Zenith]

I would pay attention to these debates more if the candidates would just do what we all know they want to do and engage in a bare-knuckle fist fight.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I think every international incident involving politics should be settled via the two leaders of each political sect fighting each other in a UFC chartered fight. Sponsored by the U.N.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think every international incident involving politics should be settled via the two leaders of each political sect fighting each other in a UFC chartered fight. Sponsored by the U.N.

This is why I endorse Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, five time Super Smackdown Champion, for president.

 

[JacksHerer]

OMG this thread evolving to brawn rather than Brains - seems the american way.

Anyone see RomneyWorld?
http://rt.com/programs/crosstalk/

 

[Crash]

Exciting times! The Washington Voter's Pamphlet arrived today and ballots have been sent out to voters across the state.


I'm really tempted to write in Ron Paul for the presidency...

 

[Slash]

...And as usual my Dad raged at Obama...

 

[livemusic]

There will be a live streamed debate with the third-party candidates:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...rty-debate-moderator-20121017,0,5390151.story

 

[sumbrownkid]

...And as usual my Dad raged at Obama...

Everyone loves to. It's the new fad.👍

 

[Joel]

Everyone loves to. It's the new fad.👍

I dunno, the fad to me seems to ignore everything wrong with Obama under the guise of "he's better than Romney".

 

[Joey D]

I dunno, the fad to me seems to ignore everything wrong with Obama under the guise of "he's better than Romney".

Obama is better than Romney, but that's like saying you like Nickleback more than Creed. In the end they both suck fairly hard.

 

[Joel]

Obama is better than Romney, but that's like saying you like Nickleback more than Creed. In the end they both suck fairly hard.

That's what I mean. People criticize Romney for being a typical politician, and Obama gets a free pass. It amazes me how few people understand the whole NDAA, PATRIOT Act, UAV drones in Pakistan, Guantanamo still open, and aggressive posturing towards Iran storyline with respect to Obama. It's like he gets a free pass for stuff that would get Bush called a warhawk/power hungry. I don't get it.

The Nickleback/Creed comparison is a very good one. It's the same sort of reaction here in Canada too, everyone up here makes facebook statuses about Obama and says that Romney is "scary". As if there's any sort of important distinction between the two. The other thing that bothers me is that crticizing Obama immediately makes people assume I'm a Romney supporter, which is the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[Bye Ya]

Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower

Additionally:

From Americans for the Arts' Arts & Economic Prosperity Report: "Arts & Culture generated $22.3 billion in revenue to local, state, and federal governments in 2010—a yield well beyond their collective $4 billion in arts allocations."