Should minor parties/independent candidates be banned from the ballot?

[KenH]

He has left himself an opening, and not matter how you want to call it it's his to take if he so desires.

Yep. I just received a mailing yesterday from the LP concerning Ron Paul as well as discussing the time and expense required to just try to get on the ballot next year due to the major parties having rigged the system in their favor.

 

[EdSutton]

Personally, I'd just like to know the thinking behind the one voter in this poll who thinks that independents and "minor Party" candidates should be banned.

I must conclude that this person is not a fan of either Joseph Lieberman or Bernie Sanders in the US Senate, currently, at least, or that he or she does (or doesn't) realize that these two "non-aligned" individuals (plus whomever is appointed to fill the seat of the now-retired Trent Lott (R-MS) have a greater porportional influence than might otherwise be expected, in a closely divided Senate.

The current 'party' alignment is 49 (D) - 48 (R). Given the recent illness and absences of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), and the Chief Presiding Officer of the US Vice President for the Senate, with the afore mentioned three seats, and you have a "five vote" "middle", so to speak, that can, in some instances, potentially change the whole outcome of a vote.

Ed

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think you're "free" at all.. You want to believe you're free. You want to believe that you don't care so much about politics, but your postings habits say very much otherwise.

If you were truely more interested in building churches than politics, your post count in threads would be more consistent in other categories.

Wow … Jaimie, a lot here in three different posts. I will hit the highlights starting with this. I post very little in other forums precisely because they do not build the church. I have found there is little value in the theological discussions here. It mostly amounts to little more than pooled ignorance about a lot of topics. The political threads, on the other hand, are a diversion from what I do. I think about politics very little outside of my time posting here, and I don’t even read most of these threads. It simply isn’t worth it. And it isn’t interesting.

So I hardly equate posting in certain fora with interest in building the church.

My comments about being more interested in building the church than in politics was quite clearly in reference to my life’s calling and my activities in my life. They were in response to those who suggest I should be out working to build a political party. If you hung around me for a week or so, you would very easily see that politics plays a very little role in my life. Those comments were not in reference to my posting habits here.

Why do they have to have a chance at winning to be a serious candidate?

Because if you can’t win you are not a serious contender. You might be serious, but your contention is not.

What was Huckabee polling at when this all started? Was he serious then, or has he just now become serious? What about McCain? When his campaign almost went up in smoke, did he lose his seriousness then? Has he gained it back?

Serious is measured by those who are electable. No one is electable a year out. You are really reaching here. As I have said, I would be delighted for there to be an electable third party candidate.

Your idea of a serious candidate is very limited.

And with good reason. Because people who cannot get elected are not serious candidates. Why do we need a bigger idea about that?

With that mindset, I can understand why you think like you do. It's sad really. You really need to get out of that box more.

If by “get out of the box” you mean sell the country down the river, I disagree. I see nothing sad about a desire to preserve this country. I don’t understand why you do.

He has mounted a campaign.

Not as a third party candidate. Perhaps you haven’t seen the news lately, but Paul is running for the nomination for one of the dastardly two parties.

As far as him running as a third party, he hasn't ruled it out.

He did previously rule it out, as I recall.

You just want to post that he's not running over and over again so if and when he does yo can claim he is "going back on his word" like all the other polticans. Nice try, but it won't work.

Actually I am not the one who said it. He said it. I don’t care whether he runs or not. If he wins the nomination as the Republican, I would likely vote for him, in spite of some of his policies. If he runs as a Libertarian Party nominee, and has a serious candidacy, I would consider voting for him depending on who wins the Republican nomination. So I would be glad for him to run. But he is the one who said he wouldn’t.

That is your opinion only. I feel there is a different way to break the system, and if it don't happen with Ron Paul in 08, it WILL happen with another candidate that isn't from that two party system. You will see...

I think it will happen, but it will be a long process. And throwing elections by voting for unelectable candidates is not a viable solution in any way that I can see. Imagine Ron Paul or someone like him winning the nomination and instead of fixing what’s wrong now, having to fix what would be wrong after years of a more liberal presidency. Imagine having to work against life time justices in the judicial system. I think we can do better than that. We work to preserve what we have while working to get better options in the future.

This is so elementary I am shocked it is even being debated.

I agree that it helps, but it's not needed. I have known many big, fat, ugly Pastors and they all can pull a group together, build a church and do amazing things! I, unlike you, don't limit people by their personality, looks or anything other than their skill. Again, you really need to get out of the boxed mentality more and believe in people.

First, churches are different than politics. Second, notice you commenting on big, fat ugly Pastors, not pastors with no personal abilities. Third, the ability to bring change to a nation in the political realm is far different than being the pastor of a church, no matter what size it is. So you need to make a valid comparison. This one is not.

You said twice that I should “get out of the box.” Here’s the reality. There are some boxes that are wise to be in. Getting outside of the box is not always a virtue. In this case, your recommendations are to sell the country out for a paltry gain. I think 200+ years of our history should give us a higher aim. We should not be settling for an approach that says, “Let’s just throw away our vote and hope we can gain some ground.” Our country deserves better; our kids deserve better.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Huh? There are several people running for the LP nomination.

All the more support for what I have said. If they currently running, then they cannot be taken seriously. They are nowhere to be found. How can you pretend to be wanting to change the system when you have candidates who are unknown? And how can you not see a problem with that?

And yes, the DP and RP are not running a candidate. The candidates are running for the nomination of the party.

Again, it just reminds me of how vastly different our approaches are. I cannot stomach the idea of selling this country out in the way that your approach would lead to doing as it currently stands. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who cannot win. I can't vote for an election 20 years or 8 or even 4. We have to vote for this election. And we have to make sure there is a country to be preserved so that your party will have a country to run in whenever it does get viable.

Thanks to people like me, you might have a chance.

 

[KenH]

1) And how can you not see a problem with that?

2) I cannot stomach the idea of selling this country out in the way that your approach would lead to doing as it currently stands.

1) Because I am not trapped in my thinking by the two party paradigm.

2) I am not selling out my country by voting for the person that I want as the next president. You place so many hoops for a candidate to jump through before you will consider him/her "viable" that you effectively rule out, in practical terms, ever voting for minor party/independent candidate unless they spring full grown like Athena from Zeus' head.

Fine, PL. Keep on voting for the same old, same old. That's all you will ever get is the same old, same old.

I have enjoyed this conversation with you. May you and yours have a happy and prosperous New Year.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Because I am not trapped in my thinking by the two party paradigm.

Glad you are with me on this.

2) I am not selling out my country by voting for the person that I want as the next president. You place so many hoops for a candidate to jump through before you will consider him/her "viable" that you effectively rule out, in practical terms, ever voting for minor party/independent candidate unless they spring full grown like Athena from Zeus' head.

IMO, you are selling out the country by voting for someone who cannot be elected, rather than choosing the best out of what is available. As I have said before, you are acting like someone who would turn down $100 because it is not $1000. I find no usefulness in that. You work for the best, and then you take what you can get.

You, incidentally, agree with this approach on abortion (by arguing rightly that we should at least overturn Roe even though it is not a full solution). I am saying that approach should apply other places as well.

Fine, PL. Keep on voting for the same old, same old. That's all you will ever get is the same old, same old.

Not if you keep working to build another option. But if you keep working for the future while throwing away the present, we will have worse than the same old same old. Regardless of how popular it is to say, the Dems and Repubs are not the same.

I have enjoyed this conversation with you. May you and yours have a happy and prosperous New Year.

And same to you.

 

[just-want-peace]

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some folk will go to just to keep from saying, "I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point! Please clarify."!

This thread is one of the most asinine I have ever read and I continue now to scan it just to see how far afield one will go to avoid saying "I'm wrong", or "I don't understand your point" or some such.

Rather it seems to be the "chic" thing to read into another's post, something not stated, or even (IMNSHO) implied, and proceed to chew the poster alive!

Really wonderful Christian witness folks, & I'm sure He is very pleased with the love thus shown!!!

Now y'all can take your shots at me for calling your hand(s) on this travesty!!!

And those of you who simply cannot abide not having "the last word", have no fear, as I have no intentions of joining you in this (or any other) on-going pride-driven diatribes!

MARANATHA!!!!

 

[billwald]

Your country was "sold out" at least as far back as Lincoln. Maybe at the constitutional convention.

 

[EdSutton]

Your country was "sold out" at least as far back as Lincoln. Maybe at the constitutional convention.

Just outta' curiosity, out from under what rock did this particular conspiracy theory crawl??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

FTR, as to minor parties, I believe that the late 20 year congressman from New York once received the nomination of the Democrat Party, the Liberal Party, and the Republican Party, simultaneously, on more than one occasion. He had 'significant' opposition only from a candidate of the Conservative Party. (I am drawing on not the best memory from 25-30 years ago, you realize, here.)

And I seem to recall one NY district where the winning candidate received the nomination of both the Democrat and Republican parties. This one did have opposition candidates from both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.

And I believe, if my memory is not completely failing me, that someone else in NY, although I don't remember that name either, received the nomination of the Conservative Party, the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party simultaneously, as well. His only 'real' opposition came from a candidate of the Liberal party.

Like to hazard a guess as to what two or three Congressmen received some 90% of the votes cast in their districts, in those years??

Ed