Dem or Rep

[Der Amerikaner]

Are you a Democrat or Republican ( US residents only)

[NaderiaBonita]

Democrat here (... even though I can't vote yet).

[Der Amerikaner]

I see. I cant vote either

[fungusSHROOM]

i may or may not be able to vote (ooh the mystery) but as long as the electoral college my vote is meaningless if i vote differently than the majority. i abolish the winner-take-all setup.

[incka]

Damn, I didn't see the US only thing...

I voted Democrat. I can't stand republican policies and the parties religious afflications...

[Rain]

I find it interesting that, even in a simple poll on a non-political forum, you only allow for the possibility of two choices here.

As a Canadian, I'm not voting in this poll, but I'm constantly fascinated by the fact that people cannot break out of a two-party mindset. We are not much better here, of course.

A while back, Nader ran for the Green Party. It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) that the party would have been able to receive funding for future campaigns if they had garnered only a small percentage of the vote (I can't recall the percentage), but they failed to do so.

Everyone said "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." I was saying "A vote for Nader is a vote for a viable third option in the future." The third option didn't pan out and Bush got in anyway.

Just some food for thought.

[oceanflower]

The unfortunate reality is that although we Americans say we have more than two parties, we don't. There's so much money from special interestgroups going into the two main parties, that it's virtually impossible for the little guy without powerful financial backing to have any possibility of being recognized as legitimate, let alone be elected.

[fungusSHROOM]

the problem with elections these days is that during campaigning the candidates are more interested in fighting between the republican-democrat split. i think the focus should be on the policies NOT the parties.

[oceanflower]

Exactly! One is always hard-pressed to know what the policies are of either candidate.

[incka]

lil_capricorn_gurl@hotmail.com (http://member.php?u=1065#) CAPRICORN GIRL YOU HAVE WON THE CONTEST! PM ME.

I noticed you were viewing this thread so I posted here as I can't figure out how to PM you.

[Der Amerikaner]

well the thing is that the party belives in one central thing, usually, so people tend to vote for the party. But, you guys are right it is about the issues.

[Morty]

I'm with Ralph Nader all the way! He's been running for president since 1992, and is quoted for such brilliant statements as "America is a two-party dictatorship".

A real political genius that Nader is.

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/img/assets/5797/nader.jpg

[mazarane]

I'm with Ralph Nader all the way! He's been running for president since 1992, and is quoted for such brilliant statements as "America is a two-party dictatorship".

A real political genius that Nader is.

probably one of the funniest articles http://www.theonion.com/election2004/ has ever published:



Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On Bush, Kerry
WASHINGTON, DC—Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers.
3 November 2004


mind you, I can't help thinking that all his votes were diverted to the right.....

I didn't vote as I'm not American

[incka]

That is so funny :D

[crazythorn]

hahahahaha. :o :p ;) :D :D

[DARKanima]

like i've said before, this election can be summed up in two words, "slim pickin's"...

[KandicePlain]

democrat. hardcore.

[Morty]

democrat. hardcore.
That's some real depressing literature you write...

[KandicePlain]

That's some real depressing literature you write...

Depressing? Damn. Sorry. I write whats in my head to help others who have been there.. etc. I dont exactly find it depressing.

[postmortem]

I've always leaned more towards the Democrat side of me, but I share beliefs with both parties, but all in all I'm just a liberal. And right now out of both parties there's no great lead for me... I hope there's going to be some good competition in 08' or I'll do what I did this past election... Stay home. :\

[Jain]

What are the actual policy differences between democrats and republicans? I'm ashamed to say I still have no idea! I'm politically-challenged. Politics have never been of any interest to me, but lately I've been getting into it a bit. (I'm 18, so I haven't had a chance to vote yet.)

[H. Caulfeild]

essentially it's a matter of conservatism and liberalism (democrats being more liberal and republicans being more conservative). the way i would put it would be democrats would have a citizen pay more taxes so that the goverment can create more gov't programs to help the citizen. republicans would encourage cutting taxes to encourage private spending, thus creating a higher dependence on capitalism than socialism. it's not that way for all democrats and republicans but it is a commonly accepted stereotype.

[ArthurDent]

A couple of thoughts from an outsider:

1. I am a big opposer to the 2 party setup (Not that it's my problem, but still...) - While it's true that each party represents a "mainstream" direction (liberal/Conservative), there's no way I could chose between them. Both liberal and Conservative are good in different areas. This is too much of a default vote (If I was to make it) as I'd have to find the one that vaguely tended to represent me better. In the pluralist election method (Like in Israel for example) the chances are better that you vote for someone who truely represents you (Assuming that the candidates are reasonably honest... Which is not the case currently...).
2. It seems to me, being an outsider, that the whole elections are really up to two entities: The elected president and the majority in Congress. You could have a great President but an oposite majority in the congress... That kind of limits the presidents ability to live up to his/her potential. If I remember correctly, that was the case for Clinton and that is the case with GWB (Correct me if I'm wrong), from respective points of view.

I would consider myself a combination of liberal and conservative. Therefore, my answer would have been - Nither... I would vote for the best candidate at a given time, regardless of his/her party.

[H. Caulfeild]

A couple of thoughts from an outsider:

1. I am a big opposer to the 2 party setup (Not that it's my problem, but still...) - While it's true that each party represents a "mainstream" direction (liberal/Conservative), there's no way I could chose between them. Both liberal and Conservative are good in different areas. This is too much of a default vote (If I was to make it) as I'd have to find the one that vaguely tended to represent me better. In the pluralist election method (Like in Israel for example) the chances are better that you vote for someone who truely represents you (Assuming that the candidates are reasonably honest... Which is not the case currently...).
2. It seems to me, being an outsider, that the whole elections are really up to two entities: The elected president and the majority in Congress. You could have a great President but an oposite majority in the congress... That kind of limits the presidents ability to live up to his/her potential. If I remember correctly, that was the case for Clinton and that is the case with GWB (Correct me if I'm wrong), from respective points of view.

I would consider myself a combination of liberal and conservative. Therefore, my answer would have been - Nither... I would vote for the best candidate at a given time, regardless of his/her party.
I agree with you about the 2 party setup, it is discouraging because any third party candidate doesn't really have a chance, whether it be libertarian, green party, or otherwise.
And when you say that congress limits the president's potential, that's one of the reasons that it's there.
What is the "pluralist election method"?

[ArthurDent]

And when you say that congress limits the president's potential, that's one of the reasons that it's there.
What is the "pluralist election method"?

I didn't mean that the president should do whatever he/she wants, in case you understood it that way. I mean that it seems like whenever there's a democrat in the white house, the majority in congress is republican and vica versa. That makes the president's work so much more difficult, because a lot of times, the congress will oppose him/her on a political basis more than practical. I am all for active opposition, this is the essence of Democracy, but it should not be automatic.

Regarding your question, I'm not sure I used the correct term. What I mean is that in Israel (as well as other countries), there is no limit on how many parties can participate (They should just pass a voting % that is a threshold). On average, we have 2 big (electoral size) parties, two medium sized parties and at least 5 or 6 other relatively small ones. The winner of the elections will then be given the opportunity to assemble a coalition. I think that is a better solution as you have a better chance to vote for someone who represents you and even if the party you vote for is not the biggest one, it can be the one who balances things out, thus having a good pull on the policies.

It's far from perfect (as any other method), but I think it's the closest to real democracy we can deal with.

[H. Caulfeild]

gotcha, thanks...

[Lizzie]

I am a strong republican.

Why did you only include those two parties? There are several more. :)

[oceanflower]

I am a strong republican.

Why did you only include those two parties? There are several more. :)

That's true. I'll add "other" to the list.

[Hietanen]

The way I see it, its a dirty game on either side, like say

Fear and loathing on campaign trail

[Bliss]

I live in a democratic state and I am registered as a democrat. Honestly, at this point I am not sure if I fall into either any catagory anymore, the stance of either party is so blurred and undefined lately. In my opinion, few candidates clearly state what they do or do not want to accomplish while in office, thus making it impossible for me to decide. This I suppose would put me in the "other" category.

[aristocles]

The two party system is of course frustrating at times. But I think one of its benefits is that it moderates politics. While the goverment in this system is less likely to do great things (hence the frustration...) it also is less likely to do really horrible things; it is more difficult for wackos to get into power in congress or white house (vs some european countries that allot seats in proportion to the percentage of the vote that party received). And after looking at goverments the last century or two, all I ask from my government is that it doesnt kill me...