More than just Republican or Democrats

A view through the eyes of a child

from JoeUser Forums

I was driving my ten year old daughter to gymnastics practice this morning and turned on the radio.  The station I was listening to was having a discussion over last nights presidential debate.  After a minute or so of listening to them talk about John Kerry and George Bush my daughter asked me, "Dad, everyone is talking about Bush and Kerry running for president, but isn't there 3 people running for president? What's his name?"

I reminded her that the name of the third person she was referring to was Ralph Nader.  And then I also explained to her that in actuality there is really more like 6 to 7 people running for president.  She was surprised to learn this information and exclaimed, "But that's not fair! Why are we only hearing about Kerry and Bush when there are more people running?"  I couldn't help but agree with here.

I actually didn't learn how many people were running for president until 3 days ago when I was browsing Michigan's website trying to locate branch offices to get my drivers license renewed.  On the website I found a link to view the ballot for this years election and that is where I learned of the other candidates running for president.  I would be really surprised if anyone out there could name any other candidate other than the three I mentioned above without doing any research.

Anyway, our discussion continued and her next great statement she made was along the lines of "So if we do not like Bush or Kerry we might actually like one of the other people better, but how are we supposed to know about them if they only talk about Kerry and Bush?"   Wow, I was blown away by hearing this from a 10 year old.  Many people that I have talked to about this years election pretty much agree that they really do not like either Kerry or Bush and just really don't know which one to vote for.  The amazing thing is that we may have a better candidate to choose from but unfortunately most people do not realize that there are more than 2 or 3 choices. And for those of us who do know there are more choices do not know anything about them.

I believe our system needs some major reform because its really not fair that our system favors Republicans and Democrats.  I remember thinking to myself at the last presidential election that the ballots are unfair because you have the option to vote for All Republicans or All Democrats.  There is no similar option to vote for ALL Green Party, US Taxpayers, Libertarian, Natural Law or Independent candidates.  I don't believe that this option should exist at all.  And also, I don't think the ballots should list what party the candidate belongs to. That gives a candidate of a popular party an advantage over the other parties. Unfair!

After I shared some of these same opinions to my daughter she countered again by saying "Bush and Kerry should just be quiet now and the rest of the debates should only be for the other candidates that we have not heard from yet.  After all, its only fair." Wow again!  Looking back to when I first came of age to vote I remember hearing that there were laws in place that news stations had to give equal coverage to the candidates to make it fair.  Well, if those laws do exist then they are either not enforced or they are written to say that they must give equal coverage of Republican and Democratic candidates because it’s quite obvious that Kerry and Bush get 99% of the attention.

Now my last comment has to do with our country's Core Democratic Values which my daughter is currently learning in school.  One of these values is Truth, our government and citizens have a duty to be honest and trustworthy.  Do you see either or the main presidential candidates practicing this value.  I don't think so.  They put so much spin and take sound bites out of context that you cannot believe anything they are saying.  I'm just so fed up at all the unfairness and self righteousness that goes on with the elections.  And its so obvious that even my 10 year old daughter is easily spotting it.

I think I might go do some research on the other candidates and see if maybe there really is a better candidate out there than Bush or Kerry. And just for those who might want to do the same.  Here is a list of the candidates that are on the Michigan ballot:

 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
4 year term, Vote for 1 position
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney 		    Republican 
John F. Kerry
John Edwards 		    Democrat 
David Cobb
Patricia LaMarche 		    Green 
Michael Anthony Peroutka
Chuck Baldwin 		    US Taxpayers 
Michael Badnarik
Richard Campagna 		    Libertarian 
Walter Brown
Mary Alice Herbert 		    Natural Law 
Ralph Nader
Peter Miguel Camejo 		     

 

 -> The Janitor's Closet < -

politics
5,142 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I knew about Badnarik and Nader. I also knew there was a Green Party, but didn't know who the candidate was.

You make a valid point with the equal time argument. I wonder why none of the lesser known candidates have pursued it?

With some people calling for abolishing the Electoral College, one apparent benefit would be a greater chance for someone other than a Democrat or Republican to be elected President. If we keep having these elections where one wins the popular vote and the other wins by Electoral College, that movement may gain some ground.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good article. I agree that the voting system should change. We have excessive party sprit lately.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
People tend to forget there are more parties than dems and repubs. Good Article!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #1 By: pictoratus - 10/9/2004 10:15:02 AM
If we keep having these elections where one wins the popular vote and the other wins by Electoral College, that movement may gain some ground.


If you are refering to the 2000 elections. GW won by both popular and electorial votes. Don't have to believe me, check here: Link

You been listening to them Democrats too much.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I knew about the 3, plus Badnarik, but I suspect there are more than just these 7. Most of the 3rd party candidates do not make it on all 50 states' ballots, and that is a real shame. Someone, and I appologize for forgetting who, stated that their should be a national way to get on all the ballots, that does not include umpteen million signatures, and 50 hoops to jump through. I agree.

I once signed a petition so that a socialist could get on the ballot in my state. I did not vote for him, but I feel strongly that anyone who wants to run, and is qualified (based upon the constitution, not subjective qualifications), should be allowed to be on all Ballots.

Some say that Perot cost Bush 41 the election in 92. I dont buy that, and I dont buy that Nader cost Gore. In each case, they beat themselves. The Perot/Nader vote was just people who did not like the top 2, and stated that. T-Man, your have a very wise daughter! Mine are a lot older, but I would encourage that girl. We may be voting for her someday!
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If you are refering to the 2000 elections. GW won by both popular and electorial votes. Don't have to believe me, check here:


drmiler
You might take another look at the page you supplied a link to. On the popular vote, it shows:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

On the Electoral College vote:

Bush: 271
Gore: 266
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you so much for this article! I wrote one with a similar context about the prevelance of two 'major parties' here. I hope that one day your daughter decides to go into politics, because if she's so sharp at ten years old, when she is old enough to run for some office, she'll make a real difference somewhere.

-- B
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
The Electoral College works and should not be replaced, instead a single six year term should be given to the office of President, so that way each election it is somebody new, and the news cannot pull the red state / blue state crap.

A straight popular vote could easily be corrupted so someone wins, plus it gives the big states (you can even narrow it down further, like LA can cancel out entire smaller states) all the power over the little states. When the system for such an office is 's/he who gets the most states wins'!

Than all funding should be brought down to the level of the third parties and there should be equal airtime for each party. After all C-SPAN exists than Government could enforce it so that the networks, through the FCC, show all candidates if they want to show candidates.

Though we are talking about third parties with some footing here(Greens, Constitution, Libertarian , etc.) not a write-in like Da Vid or a Prison Inmate like Peltier, etc.

- GX
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Also, everyone wants to feel that their vote counted..and while it does no matter who you vote for, when was the last time an independant was president?


Gideon pointed this out, the last third party President was in 1860, the man was named Abraham Lincoln.

More parties in power would equal less corruption, and the two parties could not keep blaming each other.

- GX
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
ISTR that after the 2000 election, Scientific American (or was it Discovery?) ran an article about the problems with the electoral college and other forms of polling. The conclusion was that there really isn't a perfect way to vote--every method of polling has its own set of problems that can lead to seemingly unfair outcomes.

Oh, and for a laugh, here's one of those whack-a-mole-style games with a political theme: www.whackthevote.com. The thing I found especially funny is that no matter what you do, Nader can't win.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
The thing I found especially funny is that no matter what you do, Nader can't win


Well he is only on the ballot in 37 states while the LP candidate Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states.

- GX
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
David Cobb!!!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh and by the way, good article. Excellent actually! Very well timed too. i wonder if any news station will actually invite all the candidates.
????
Fox, CNN?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #6 By: pictoratus - 10/9/2004 12:29:15 PM
If you are refering to the 2000 elections. GW won by both popular and electorial votes. Don't have to believe me, check here:


drmiler
You might take another look at the page you supplied a link to. On the popular vote, it shows:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

On the Electoral College vote:

Bush: 271
Gore: 266


Your right. I read it wrong!
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Oh and by the way, good article. Excellent actually! Very well timed too. i wonder if any news station will actually invite all the candidates.
????
Fox, CNN?


A few weeks ago C-SPAN invited all the candidates, but only Walter Brown and Michael Badnarik came.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Just this week they had Badnarik, Cobb, Nader, Brown in a debate (Bush and Kerry declined), it will be broadcasted on CSPAN Sunday at 6:30 EST and 9:30 EST.

I will update when I have more of a confirmation, but I saw the ad on CSPAN.

- GX
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you would be surpirsed to find out there are 20+ parties running. Included among these is a party called the Fascist Party. Go figure.
Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Don't forget how much money the Dems and Reps have to throw at the election. Air time costs money..you can have an equal share, if you can afford it.

Granted the other parties do not have as much money to throw at advertising to get more air time but all the news stations generally only give coverage to the Republicans and Democrats.  And that really doesn't have anything to do with how much each party has in the bank.  And I shouldn't just point a finger at TV news stations when the problem is widespread to all forms of media.

For the most part I think the electorial college is a good system (it could use some tweaking) and wouldn't recommend that we go with popular vote.  But its really not right that Democrats and Republican get an unfair advantage over the other parties.  Who knows, maybe one day my daughter will be the one to reform the voting system!

Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top
When I heard about the variety of candidates that had ran for the Governor's seat in California....I thought only in California.... http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All here's a list of all the candidates running for president

Sorry about the crappy link can't seem to make it any better
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
by allowing more than 2 candidates you increase the chance a hitler gets elected. even if 80 percent of the population is against him, 10 other moderate candidates can sufficiently divide the vote and let the next adolf stalin waltz into office. i'll take mediocrity over horrific despot any day.

a lot of the time, any third party in the us that gains ground has its ideas stolen by both parties, then fades off, on occassion replacing one of the two main ones.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
For the most part I think the electorial college is a good system (it could use some tweaking) and wouldn't recommend that we go with popular vote. But its really not right that Democrats and Republican get an unfair advantage over the other parties. Who knows, maybe one day my daughter will be the one to reform the voting system!


David Cobb of the Greens suggested changing the voting ballot system to IRV (Instant Run-off Voting).

by allowing more than 2 candidates you increase the chance a hitler gets elected. even if 80 percent of the population is against him, 10 other moderate candidates can sufficiently divide the vote and let the next adolf stalin waltz into office. i'll take mediocrity over horrific despot any day.


Hitler was very liberal and Stalin was very conservative, ha ha bet you did not know that!

Though if you are buying into that two party myth, much like they did in World War 2 in Germany, two parties led to Hitler being in power!
So if anything with two parties you have more of a chance to get a Hitler in office than with a Multiple party system.

Seriously though America would not allow nor does it allow now the American Nazi Party to field a candidate for President or any public office that I know of. You are an arse to make such an invalid point that in turns makes your argument nothing more than an empty delusional defense of your major party favorite.

- GX
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
When I heard about the variety of candidates that had ran for the Governor's seat in California....I thought only in California.... http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All here's a list of all the candidates running for president

Sorry about the crappy link can't seem to make it any better


Here is the link below made clickable.

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All
Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top
by allowing more than 2 candidates you increase the chance a hitler gets elected.


or a Ghandi.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
I am all for the mutli-party systerm. There's just one thing that has to happen first: ballots have to allow for voting for more than person.
Let's say I was voting out of a list of 4 candidates. I'd put down my first preferance, then my second and then my third. The person who gets least first votes will be knocked out and then whoever voted for him/her will get their second priority cast. And so on and so forth. This is like a runnoff rolled into one vote. This would allow an individual to, say, vote for Nader knowing that he will not harm Kerry's chances unless there is a real chance that Nader is elected. If you don't agree with the math, think about it for a second. You'll see it makes sense.