will Third Parties Emrge in the 2014 USA midterm elections

[Frisivisia]

I'm guessing you have a source for this. Could I maybe sneak a peek?

I believe it's under the LP main page, platform, or issues on its website. I am on my phone so it's hard to search, copy, etc.

Unbiased as all hell.

[The Serbian Empire]

Our current system is designed in such a way as that unless a voice of reason gets 5% of the vote, they are drowned out. And even if they do get that 5%, that just means the Government has 4 years before the others get a chance to speak and 4 years to undermine them. The only way we'd get a decent chance at a third party is to do away with that 5% thing and have debates from at least the top 8. The Libertarians would tear the Republicans apart, the Socialists and Communists would tear the Democrats down, and the mix of all of them would probably give the citizenry pause for thought.

On a personal front though, I feel a vote for a republican or democrat is now a vote wasted and I will never vote for one again. The only wasted vote is for someone that does not represent you well enough to be worthy of your vote. Who cares if my guy loses? It is not like whoever wins is going to screw me over any less than the other guy who could have won. So in the end, I can at least say I voted with my mind and heart and take some comfort in that.

At this point, all votes are wasted unless one lives in Ohio or Florida.

[Regnum Dominae]

If the Libertarian Party wants to achieve anything remotely resembling national relevance, they are going to have to drop their uncompromising extremism as well as kick out the conspiracy theorists, paulites, paleocons, and anarchists.

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

Because 22 to 24 percent of Americans are socially liberal and economically conservative, and by basing their entire platform around pandering to the extremists and nutters mentioned above, they're alienating that 22 to 24 percent that might actually support them if they weren't batshit insane.

[Frisivisia]

Our current system is designed in such a way as that unless a voice of reason gets 5% of the vote, they are drowned out. And even if they do get that 5%, that just means the Government has 4 years before the others get a chance to speak and 4 years to undermine them. The only way we'd get a decent chance at a third party is to do away with that 5% thing and have debates from at least the top 8. The Libertarians would tear the Republicans apart, the Socialists and Communists would tear the Democrats down, and the mix of all of them would probably give the citizenry pause for thought.

On a personal front though, I feel a vote for a republican or democrat is now a vote wasted and I will never vote for one again. The only wasted vote is for someone that does not represent you well enough to be worthy of your vote. Who cares if my guy loses? It is not like whoever wins is going to screw me over any less than the other guy who could have won. So in the end, I can at least say I voted with my mind and heart and take some comfort in that.

At this point, all votes are wasted unless one lives in Ohio or Florida.

Although it sure is fun to step into the booth and insert yourself into the glory hole of freedom.

[Greater Miami Shores]

If the Libertarian Party wants to achieve anything remotely resembling national relevance, they are going to have to drop their uncompromising extremism as well as kick out the conspiracy theorists, paulites, paleocons, and anarchists.

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

lol, what I don't like about them is their anti pro USA, isolationist and friendly foreign policy with our declared enemies.

[Mike the Progressive]

So you think that we will just keep electing each side and continue to let them fuck things up?

As long as first past the post and gerrymandering exists, then yes.

It really isn't just that. The Republicans control the majority of governorships, and depending how the midterm election goes for the senate, they may even take control of that. Guess what? Both governor and senator are statewide elected positions. Meaning the GOP is far from dead. Understand that reality.

[The Serbian Empire]

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

Because 22 to 24 percent of Americans are socially liberal and economically conservative, and by basing their entire platform around pandering to the extremists and nutters mentioned above, they're alienating that 22 to 24 percent that might actually support them if they weren't batshit insane.

Even with 24% of the vote; all it does is lead the Democrats and Republicans to try to court those voters as 24% isn't enough to win outright.

[Frisivisia]

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

Because 22 to 24 percent of Americans are socially liberal and economically conservative, and by basing their entire platform around pandering to the extremists and nutters mentioned above, they're alienating that 22 to 24 percent that might actually support them if they weren't batshit insane.

In addition to the fact that everyone thinks they're economically conservative even though I'm sure they like their big government programs, one of your sources is hardly unbiased, the "free minds and free markets" one.

Either way, social liberals and economic conservatives fit right into the Democratic Party. We call them moderates and think they're kinda funny.

[Frisivisia]

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

lol, what I don't like about them is their anti pro USA, isolationist and friendly foreign policy with our declared enemies.

Agreed, I'm very much a liberal interventionist.

[Regnum Dominae]

They're already at 1% (not completely certain with that figure), why would you have them kick the meat of their party out?

lol, what I don't like about them is their anti pro USA, isolationist friendly foreign policy with our declared enemies.

Yeah, that too. Isolation is just fundamentally stupid in every way - as the world hegemon, we have the biggest, most powerful military in the world, with by far the best ability to project force globally, and as such we have something of a responsibility to the world; to suddenly pretend that that responsibility does not exist is simply stupid and counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want a bipolar system (bad), or Russia or China as the hegemon (even worse).

[Minarchist States]

I believe it's under the LP main page, platform, or issues on its website. I am on my phone so it's hard to search, copy, etc.

Unbiased as all hell.

You asked. It was a case in Michigan I believe where the judge even ruled it was not right to have a third box for the Libertarians.

[Frisivisia]

Unbiased as all hell.

You asked. It was a case in Michigan I believe where the judge even ruled it was not right to have a third box for the Libertarians.

Most likely from lack of support and to keep the ballot clean for people not wasting their votes.

[Mike the Progressive]

lol, what I don't like about them is their anti pro USA, isolationist friendly foreign policy with our declared enemies.

Yeah, that too. Isolation is just fundamentally stupid in every way - as the world hegemon, we have the biggest, most powerful military in the world, with by far the best ability to project force globally, and as such we have something of a responsibility to the world; to suddenly pretend that that responsibility does not exist is simply stupid and counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want a bipolar system (bad), or Russia or China as the hegemon (even worse).

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

[Frisivisia]

Yeah, that too. Isolation is just fundamentally stupid in every way - as the world hegemon, we have the biggest, most powerful military in the world, with by far the best ability to project force globally, and as such we have something of a responsibility to the world; to suddenly pretend that that responsibility does not exist is simply stupid and counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want a bipolar system (bad), or Russia or China as the hegemon (even worse).

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

I think it's more along the lines of, "Everything won't be hunky dory, but we don't care about other people, we take care of our own first and only. Fuckin' foreigners."

[The Serbian Empire]

Because 22 to 24 percent of Americans are socially liberal and economically conservative, and by basing their entire platform around pandering to the extremists and nutters mentioned above, they're alienating that 22 to 24 percent that might actually support them if they weren't batshit insane.

In addition to the fact that everyone thinks they're economically conservative even though I'm sure they like their big government programs, one of your sources is hardly unbiased, the "free minds and free markets" one.

Either way, social liberals and economic conservatives fit right into the Democratic Party. We call them moderates and think they're kinda funny.

Until you realize the Democrat Party isn't quite liberal enough on the Social Policies at this time least they lose some of those valuable voters in Ohio and can't win a national election. The politicians lag far behind the people voting for them.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Yeah, that too. Isolation is just fundamentally stupid in every way - as the world hegemon, we have the biggest, most powerful military in the world, with by far the best ability to project force globally, and as such we have something of a responsibility to the world; to suddenly pretend that that responsibility does not exist is simply stupid and counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want a bipolar system (bad), or Russia or China as the hegemon (even worse).

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

Agreed.

[Frisivisia]

In addition to the fact that everyone thinks they're economically conservative even though I'm sure they like their big government programs, one of your sources is hardly unbiased, the "free minds and free markets" one.

Either way, social liberals and economic conservatives fit right into the Democratic Party. We call them moderates and think they're kinda funny.

Until you realize the Democrat Party isn't quite liberal enough on the Social Policies at this time least they lose some of those valuable voters in Ohio and can't win a national election. The politicians lag far behind the people voting for them.

I'm not even sure how the statements fit together in this post, or what I'm supposed to draw from it.

[The Serbian Empire]

You asked. It was a case in Michigan I believe where the judge even ruled it was not right to have a third box for the Libertarians.

Most likely from lack of support and to keep the ballot clean for people not wasting their votes.

It was more out of Johnson have had put a feeler in the GOP primaries then withdrew to the Libertarian side. The main two parties don't want politicians putting out feelers then joining a different party when they see that the politician has no chance to win within the large party.

[Regnum Dominae]

Yeah, that too. Isolation is just fundamentally stupid in every way - as the world hegemon, we have the biggest, most powerful military in the world, with by far the best ability to project force globally, and as such we have something of a responsibility to the world; to suddenly pretend that that responsibility does not exist is simply stupid and counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want a bipolar system (bad), or Russia or China as the hegemon (even worse).

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

A unipolar system is still more stable than a bipolar system:

source (much more info and graphs here)

[Mike the Progressive]

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

Agreed.

I mean don't get me wrong the US could be more responsible and more consistent, I'd like us to do more work in getting Europe (NATO) on board and involved. But honestly that's my preference over a world where every region is competing against each other.

[Frisivisia]

Agreed.

I mean don't get me wrong the US could be more responsible and more consistent, I'd like us to do more work in getting Europe (NATO) on board and involved. But honestly that's my preference over a world where every region is competing against each other.

And that's why you vote Democrat, right? *audible wink*

[Regnum Dominae]

Bipolarity isn't something I'm as concerned about as I am multipolarity. This idea if we let every nation do what they want, everything will be hunky dory. It's literally how world wars began.

I think it's more along the lines of, "Everything won't be hunky dory, but we don't care about other people, we take care of our own first and only. Fuckin' foreigners."

Or even worse, "Americans are evil imperialists and North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, Belarus, and Syria are glorious people's democracies and the US is attempting to oppress their people through cultural imperialism and warmongering, AMERICA IS EVIL, DOKURITSU NIPPON 2017"

[Mike the Progressive]

I mean don't get me wrong the US could be more responsible and more consistent, I'd like us to do more work in getting Europe (NATO) on board and involved. But honestly that's my preference over a world where every region is competing against each other.

And that's why you vote Democrat, right? *audible wink*

Actually the GOP audience, along with the candidates, booing a gay soldier during the 2012 primaries and Santorum's what amounts to a "Guns and Bibles" speech is why I vote Democrat.

[The Serbian Empire]

Until you realize the Democrat Party isn't quite liberal enough on the Social Policies at this time least they lose some of those valuable voters in Ohio and can't win a national election. The politicians lag far behind the people voting for them.

I'm not even sure how the statements fit together in this post, or what I'm supposed to draw from it.

The Democrats have to be only mildly socially liberal otherwise they lose some winnable elections to those GOP neo-Conservatives. They can't lure the full extent of that 24% as the voters find that in some cases the GOP matches their economic views even better or that Libertarians are a more suitable party for their vote given both social and economic views and thus "waste" a vote. On the other side of the scale; the Democrats land plenty of people far to the economic left who merely vote Democrat to keep the GOP out of power.

[Frisivisia]

And that's why you vote Democrat, right? *audible wink*

Actually the GOP audience, along with the candidates, booing a gay soldier during the 2012 primaries and Santorum's what amounts to a "Guns and Bibles" speech is why I vote Democrat.

Yeah, that really creeped me out.