Why Third Parties Don't Win Elections
- Thread starter TheBluesMan
- Start date
- Status
You all blow me away with this kind of info. It can be pretty over whelming for "non-political" type people like me. I understand what most of you are saying, but what would you all propose we do? Personally, I end up being one of those people that vote between the lesser of two evils because I know my vote is wasted on a 3rd party, which stinks because I would love to see a 3rd party win.
I will say that I do my own research on the candidates, not dictated by media and try to make an educated decision, but that's all I do, for the most part, when it comes to politics. Actions speak louder than words. If someone has a track record of not doing what they say, they obviously won't follow through in office. So, I usually disregaurd almost everything that person says when they are running.
I do believe that people have an obligation to do their own research and vote accordingly, but how many people go in and just pull a lever based on their political orientation? It seems that political oriention has little bearing on decisions made in office anyway, don't you think?
I will say that I do my own research on the candidates, not dictated by media and try to make an educated decision, but that's all I do, for the most part, when it comes to politics. Actions speak louder than words. If someone has a track record of not doing what they say, they obviously won't follow through in office. So, I usually disregaurd almost everything that person says when they are running.
I do believe that people have an obligation to do their own research and vote accordingly, but how many people go in and just pull a lever based on their political orientation? It seems that political oriention has little bearing on decisions made in office anyway, don't you think?
"I end up being one of those people that vote between the lesser of two evils"
He who chooses the lesser of two evils chooses evil.
I can't believe the idiot who wrote that article didn't even mention the BCRA and campaign finance reform. EVERY study that has ever ben done shows that your chances of winning an election correlate directly to how much money you spend campaigning. In this country, we have made it so that third parties cannot raise money. A libertarian may know 10 people who will give him $50,000, but does not know 5000 people who each will give him $100. So instead, he gets the $100 from each of the 10 people, and ends up running his entire campaign with $15,000 and a station wagon. Nobody hears his message, because he can't afford to pay for any ads or coverage. And even if he could, there are federal laws against talking about our leaders within 30 days of their stealing another election.
We have legislated the third party out of American politics. What's left is one party with two heads that pretend to be different and at odds. But each year, government gets bigger, more expensive, and more of our natural rights are flushed down the toilet.
The system is a joke. It's a game, it's THEIR game, and the game is rigged. I no longer vote for any federal office. I refuse to pretend we have free and fair elections.
To hell with the rights of speech and the press. We need to prevent, and I quote, "corrpution, OR THE APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION."
And then Herr Bush, in his infininte grace and wisdom, signs BCRA into law while saying "I THINK THIS PROBABLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, BUT I WILL SIGN IT AND LET THE COURTS FIGURE IT OUT." Yes, Mr. Bush, that is the same Constitution you swore to uphold.
Would you like some fries with that tyranny?
He who chooses the lesser of two evils chooses evil.
I can't believe the idiot who wrote that article didn't even mention the BCRA and campaign finance reform. EVERY study that has ever ben done shows that your chances of winning an election correlate directly to how much money you spend campaigning. In this country, we have made it so that third parties cannot raise money. A libertarian may know 10 people who will give him $50,000, but does not know 5000 people who each will give him $100. So instead, he gets the $100 from each of the 10 people, and ends up running his entire campaign with $15,000 and a station wagon. Nobody hears his message, because he can't afford to pay for any ads or coverage. And even if he could, there are federal laws against talking about our leaders within 30 days of their stealing another election.
We have legislated the third party out of American politics. What's left is one party with two heads that pretend to be different and at odds. But each year, government gets bigger, more expensive, and more of our natural rights are flushed down the toilet.
The system is a joke. It's a game, it's THEIR game, and the game is rigged. I no longer vote for any federal office. I refuse to pretend we have free and fair elections.
To hell with the rights of speech and the press. We need to prevent, and I quote, "corrpution, OR THE APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION."
And then Herr Bush, in his infininte grace and wisdom, signs BCRA into law while saying "I THINK THIS PROBABLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, BUT I WILL SIGN IT AND LET THE COURTS FIGURE IT OUT." Yes, Mr. Bush, that is the same Constitution you swore to uphold.
Would you like some fries with that tyranny?
Mannlicher
New member
Tyme
I am not advocating any change. I like 'winner takes all'.
A vote not cast for a candidate in a Presidential election is a wasted vote. Losers do not make policy. Losers do not appoint the Supremes,(or any other level of Federal judge), and losers do not, in the long run, matter at all.
If you don't consider that a wasted vote, well, we seem to differ. Am I right? Are you right? Guess there is no answer that will satisfy all.
uhhh, v8, lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater...........
I am not advocating any change. I like 'winner takes all'.
A vote not cast for a candidate in a Presidential election is a wasted vote. Losers do not make policy. Losers do not appoint the Supremes,(or any other level of Federal judge), and losers do not, in the long run, matter at all.
If you don't consider that a wasted vote, well, we seem to differ. Am I right? Are you right? Guess there is no answer that will satisfy all.
uhhh, v8, lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater...........
There is no such thing as a 'wasted vote' in a Presidential election. One vote never has and never will make a difference in a presidential election.
I don't vote because I believe my vote will make a difference, or will or will not be 'wasted'. I vote because I'm an American, and that's what American's do. And I vote for who I would like to see as President, not the guy who is least bad who can win.
Third parties do not win because of the pablum the two parties feed the public about wanting to make America a better, safer, place, with less taxes.
We know both parties are lying out thier wazoo....the proof you ask? Look around today and see how many limbs have been pruned from the tree of personal rights.
This election I may be farting into the wind...but I plan to vote for Kinky Friedman for Gov of Texas. In the presidential election im going to vote libertarian or something again. My vote for the two main parties has accomplished squat in my estimate in the last decade or two. So it may mean squat again but at least I tried.
We know both parties are lying out thier wazoo....the proof you ask? Look around today and see how many limbs have been pruned from the tree of personal rights.
This election I may be farting into the wind...but I plan to vote for Kinky Friedman for Gov of Texas. In the presidential election im going to vote libertarian or something again. My vote for the two main parties has accomplished squat in my estimate in the last decade or two. So it may mean squat again but at least I tried.
"I vote because I'm an American, and that's what American's do."
Ok, American. The next election is between Satan and Hitler. Whom do you vote for?
You make a choice to vote, I make a choice to not vote. My choice is just as informed, responsible, and well thought out as yours. Do you disagree? If they made elections mandatory, would you still vote, because "that's what Americans do?" If they shot you for not voting for the proper candidate, would you vote for the proper candidate because "that's what Americans do?"
Ok, American. The next election is between Satan and Hitler. Whom do you vote for?
You make a choice to vote, I make a choice to not vote. My choice is just as informed, responsible, and well thought out as yours. Do you disagree? If they made elections mandatory, would you still vote, because "that's what Americans do?" If they shot you for not voting for the proper candidate, would you vote for the proper candidate because "that's what Americans do?"
Um, Satan. Duh.
But seriously, folks...
No. You are simply saying "None of the above". I have no problem with that. That is as American as apple pie, as far as I'm concerned.
.
As long as I could write someone in, or fill in "None of the above". I've cast plenty of ballots where I did not choose a candidate for a particular office. Never had a TOTALLY empty ballot (usually there is a sheriff candidate or a proposition or a recorder of wills position or something that I have no problem with), but one can cast a totally empty ballot if one wanted to, and that's similar to what you're doing.
I'm ready to die for the right cause, but martyrdom is overrated, especially in this example. I would have to say if someone is holding a gun to my head, I would feel no moral angst at pulling the lever for a major party candidate.
The reaason they don't win elections is because they waste the funds that could be used to put candidates in lesser offices on candidates for higher offices.
Every election season the Libertarian party hoists still more losers for president, congress, etc. when they should be supporting lesser candidates in local elections. They want to have it all in the classic "God grant me patience and I want it right now!" tantrum. They want a top down rather than bottom up win because the party is filled with those who want instant gratification.
The fact is that they need to win local and state offices and then work those people up through the system. They never get those candidates elected because they waste the money on sure losers which depletes the party coffers.
Every election season the Libertarian party hoists still more losers for president, congress, etc. when they should be supporting lesser candidates in local elections. They want to have it all in the classic "God grant me patience and I want it right now!" tantrum. They want a top down rather than bottom up win because the party is filled with those who want instant gratification.
The fact is that they need to win local and state offices and then work those people up through the system. They never get those candidates elected because they waste the money on sure losers which depletes the party coffers.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
And that's enough of that, gentlemen. 
Kelly J - Here's my humble opinions on your suggestions.
(1) Abolish the party system and you abolish the right to peacably assemble. There's nothing inherently wrong with people of like mind working together.
(2) Don't vote for any incumbents and you'll lose a lot of good representatives. This is a sword that cuts both ways.
(3) Repeal congressional benefits - I don't see how this would have any effect on electing a third-party candidate.
(4) Abolish the IRS and establish a flat-tax. I agree with you here, but don't see how this has anything to do with electing a non-republicrat.
(5) Untouchable retirement accounts. This would remove the freedom of people to do what they want with their own money. Less freedom is a bad thing in my book. Nothing to do with electing a third party candidate.
(6) Price controls on insurance and prescriptions - Just doesn't work. Take a basic economics course and you'll understand why. Who's going to control it, the government?
(7) More government care of the elderly - Again, That's no solution and has nothing to do with electing a third party candidate.
(8) Affordable utilities - By way of the central planning board of the government? Worked great in Russia...
(9) Control costs of transportation - Again, looks like Big Government will be even more powerful.
(10) Recycle - Admirable, but pointless in this debate.
v8fbird's comments may have been rude, but they weren't an attack on you personally, just an attack of your position. Much of what you propose is yesterday's communist/socialist dogma.
How will anything you proposed give a third party candidate a better shot at national elective office?
Kelly J - Here's my humble opinions on your suggestions.
(1) Abolish the party system and you abolish the right to peacably assemble. There's nothing inherently wrong with people of like mind working together.
(2) Don't vote for any incumbents and you'll lose a lot of good representatives. This is a sword that cuts both ways.
(3) Repeal congressional benefits - I don't see how this would have any effect on electing a third-party candidate.
(4) Abolish the IRS and establish a flat-tax. I agree with you here, but don't see how this has anything to do with electing a non-republicrat.
(5) Untouchable retirement accounts. This would remove the freedom of people to do what they want with their own money. Less freedom is a bad thing in my book. Nothing to do with electing a third party candidate.
(6) Price controls on insurance and prescriptions - Just doesn't work. Take a basic economics course and you'll understand why. Who's going to control it, the government?
(7) More government care of the elderly - Again,
That's no solution and has nothing to do with electing a third party candidate.(8) Affordable utilities - By way of the central planning board of the government? Worked great in Russia...
(9) Control costs of transportation - Again, looks like Big Government will be even more powerful.
(10) Recycle - Admirable, but pointless in this debate.
v8fbird's comments may have been rude, but they weren't an attack on you personally, just an attack of your position. Much of what you propose is yesterday's communist/socialist dogma.
How will anything you proposed give a third party candidate a better shot at national elective office?
Kelly J,
Here’s the response I didn’t take the time to type before:
1) I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I don’t know how you just “abolish” the party system without legislating that people can’t form into groups. Which sort of goes along with what Bluesman said, the whole “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” I do agree, however, that it would be better if people didn’t just go to the polls to vote along party lines and then go play golf. Washington warned us against “factions,” or political parties in his farewell address. I just don’t know how you get away from them while still maintaining a free society. Most people like to belong to something, to have a sense of place. Political parties give that to them. And then there’s a few like me, who doesn’t like anyone. We don’t have fair elections. If we did, it would be entirely possible for a little guy to get elected even though there were two huge parties in his way. Parties can’t control a thing when you have freedom. Unfortunately, we don’t.
2) I like the idea of someone making a personal decision to not vote for any incumbent. I am of the mindset that anyone who gets re-elected to any federal office has obviously done something wrong. Once you get in, you should exert so much effort throwing a wrench into the political machine, tacking ridiculous amendments onto bills, placing anonymous holds, filibustering (Senate), etc. Anything to stop things from getting done. Americans want Congress to “get things done quickly.” I think we’re all better off (and much more free) when they can’t get anything done at all. But, like Bluesman said, you’d lose a FEW good incumbents.
3) Former Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) told me about a time he tried to write a law to eliminate Congressional pensions. The office that writes the bills (can’t remember the name) actually told him, the CONGRESSMAN, that he was “not allowed to write bills.” Then the draft came back and it said “Congressman Stockman would like to eliminate his pension.” He called up, said “no, I said ALL pensions.” Next draft says “Congressman Stockman and his staff would like to eliminate their pensions.” He couldn’t even get that bill written. So I don’t see any foreseeable way of this happening. I don’t really know what it would do either, except making Congress slightly less desirable of a job.
4) A flat tax is fine with me. I am against the very principle of taxes to begin with. They are a violation of property rights, if the government can demand a portion of your earnings and steal it or shoot you if you don’t comply. We are fast approaching the tipping point in this country, at which more than 50% of people pay NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL. When the percentage gets to more than 50%, the majority can, as Rush Limbaugh (otherwise an idiot) says, “vote unto themselves from the largesse of the majority.” Meaning 51% can vote to decide how much to steal from the 49%. It’s sick. We are their slaves. Welcome to the shining beacon of liberty.
(Contd below)
Here’s the response I didn’t take the time to type before:
1) I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I don’t know how you just “abolish” the party system without legislating that people can’t form into groups. Which sort of goes along with what Bluesman said, the whole “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” I do agree, however, that it would be better if people didn’t just go to the polls to vote along party lines and then go play golf. Washington warned us against “factions,” or political parties in his farewell address. I just don’t know how you get away from them while still maintaining a free society. Most people like to belong to something, to have a sense of place. Political parties give that to them. And then there’s a few like me, who doesn’t like anyone. We don’t have fair elections. If we did, it would be entirely possible for a little guy to get elected even though there were two huge parties in his way. Parties can’t control a thing when you have freedom. Unfortunately, we don’t.
2) I like the idea of someone making a personal decision to not vote for any incumbent. I am of the mindset that anyone who gets re-elected to any federal office has obviously done something wrong. Once you get in, you should exert so much effort throwing a wrench into the political machine, tacking ridiculous amendments onto bills, placing anonymous holds, filibustering (Senate), etc. Anything to stop things from getting done. Americans want Congress to “get things done quickly.” I think we’re all better off (and much more free) when they can’t get anything done at all. But, like Bluesman said, you’d lose a FEW good incumbents.
3) Former Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) told me about a time he tried to write a law to eliminate Congressional pensions. The office that writes the bills (can’t remember the name) actually told him, the CONGRESSMAN, that he was “not allowed to write bills.” Then the draft came back and it said “Congressman Stockman would like to eliminate his pension.” He called up, said “no, I said ALL pensions.” Next draft says “Congressman Stockman and his staff would like to eliminate their pensions.” He couldn’t even get that bill written. So I don’t see any foreseeable way of this happening. I don’t really know what it would do either, except making Congress slightly less desirable of a job.
4) A flat tax is fine with me. I am against the very principle of taxes to begin with. They are a violation of property rights, if the government can demand a portion of your earnings and steal it or shoot you if you don’t comply. We are fast approaching the tipping point in this country, at which more than 50% of people pay NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL. When the percentage gets to more than 50%, the majority can, as Rush Limbaugh (otherwise an idiot) says, “vote unto themselves from the largesse of the majority.” Meaning 51% can vote to decide how much to steal from the 49%. It’s sick. We are their slaves. Welcome to the shining beacon of liberty.
(Contd below)
5) The government has neither the responsibility nor the right to force people to save. I spent a large portion of the last year working on Social Security. It’s a mess. The only BIGGER mess is what you proposed, and what Bush wants to do: create private accounts. The problem now is about $4.6 trillion, Bush wants to tack another $2.0 trillion onto that and calls it a “fix.” Let people keep their money, let them be responsible or irresponsible, and let them live with their mistakes or success.
6) Another thing I worked on this year was Medicare. You argue for nothing less than socialized medicine. No country can provide for EVERY medical need of EVERY citizen. It sounds crappy, but some people just have to get sick and die. If we provided everyone free care, we literally would spend MORE THAN 100% OF GDP...which is impossible. There are new types of prescriptions that are going to cost a million dollars a year, tailored to your DNA. How many million dollar bills do you think the country can afford? Medical care used to be cheap, nobody had insurance, and everyone could afford the cost. It was only after government stepped in that prices got to where they are today. Now people want MORE government, MORE laws, MORE intervention. Makes me want to run into a wall. The USSR and Canada (and some in Europe) have experimented with socialized medicine. The only thing is has done is make sick people FLEE and come to countries that still have the free market at work. If you want to ensure that MILLIONS of Americans will be without medical care, then you should keep trying to “make it affordable.” If you want Americans to have the best possible medical care, get government out of the business.
7) Care for the elderly. Stop having government steal 1/3 of people’s paychecks for their entire working lives and the elderly will be able to save enough to care for themselves. And see #6 above. Every country that has tried to care for the elderly has wound up with a messed up elderly population.
8) Government sponsored monopolies? Like cable service in my area? Nobody can compete, so the current monopoly has to provide nothing but a ****ty level of service. If you don’t like it, tough, you have no alternative.
Or are you talking price controls? Like saying that you can’t “gouge,” or charge more than $3 a gallon on gas? Do you know what happens then? Prices are too low, people aren’t given the message that they should not be consuming. When prices are where they should be, you can be assured that the commodity goes to the people who need it most, and can put it to best use. If you keep it unreasonably low, then people take road trips to florida because they don’t know that gas is scarce, and then truckers can’t deliver food to people in Maine because the Florida people used all the gas. All price controls do is turn shortages into scarcities and make sure NOBODY has the commodity. Remember the gas lines in the 70's (I don’t, born in 83, but you sure should)? That was price controls at work.
9) The only way to keep transportation “affordable” is to have government subsidize it. We kept postal stamps “affordable” for decades, and the postal service NEVER turned a profit till a few years ago. It ran BILLIONS of dollars of deficits for 150 years. The only way to keep a stamp cheap for YOU (at the store) is to make ME (with my taxes) pay for it. Does that sound like the society you want to live in? Government can’t just pass laws saying “things should be cheap” and make the world a better place. Economic realities are harsh, and price controls bring the harshest realities of all.
Environmentally safe. Blah. So the government should keep giving BILLION dollar subsidies to gas companies to develop ethanol and other “clean” fuels? I think it’s ethanol that today, with the most advanced and efficient ways we know, takes about 1.2 gallons of gas to produce enough ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gas. So it’s cleaner, yes, but you have to burn gas to get it, so it’s actually worse. Guess what. When the MARKET is ready to switch to cleaner fuels, it will do it on its own. It doesn’t need government to tell it when.
In the 80s’ or 90's, Congress mandated that, by 2015 or something, all fuel tankers had to have double hulls. People whined about it when the law was passed, because double hulls were a new thing and they were HUGELY expensive. If they had been forced to convert then (that’s usually the way laws are) many companies would have gone out of business. But guess what. EVERY SINGLE tanker with a U.S. flag had double hulls by the year 2005. Why? Not because oil companies gave a damn about the environment and wanted to be overachievers. Instead, because they were losing too much oil to leaks, and it was costing them money. At the same time, the cost of double-hulling ships came way down and it was cost-effective to do so in order to prevent leaks. The market corrected FOR ITSELF BY ITSELF, and the law passed by Congress was nothing more than incidental.
10) Recycling. Do you think, like many, that we’re “running out of land to throw our trash away?” Do you also think we need to have population control because there’s “too many people?” Drive cross country, you’ll see we still have a FEW places to put people and trash. Recycling may be a noble goal, but it fast turns to despotic tyranny when the GOVERNMENT tells people they MUST recycle. I have lived in northern VA at different times over the years, and I have always NOT recycled when I was told to. I felt I was fighting the system. I also thought it was hard, and that it didn’t make much of a difference. It is hard, and it doesn’t make much of a difference. Most trash men just throw your recycled stuff in with the other garbage. I guess government needs to pass a law against them? Eventually, I moved to an area that doesn’t require recycling. Now I throw aluminum cans in their own bag. Not because someone told me to, but because I don’t mind and decided I wanted to. Government didn’t have to tell me. I did it all by myself. So get out their and campaign, and ask people to recycle. Tell them why it’s good and why they should. But don’t you DARE ask government to force people to recycle. Someday they will decide that it’s more environmentally friendly to turn your dead body into feed for cows than to let your family bury you.
My comment was a cheap shot, and it was rude. I apologize. My problem is that I find a lot of people share your beliefs, and it’s hard to argue with everyone. I can’t spend half an hour writing 3 pages of notes to each person, so I just lash out with sarcasm and humor. But you did sound a little bit like Engles and Marx.
A lot of people hold similar views, and its’ precisely because we DO have a 2 party system and the things you proposed are the message of those two parties. An ideology that would result in true freedom is hard to come by. I hoped I wasn’t entirely rude in this post, and that I made some sense. I suggest you check out www.lewrockwell.com. They have a daily newsletter, and there’s no better place for free-market and anti-government thinking. And they all REALLY LIKE GUNS.
6) Another thing I worked on this year was Medicare. You argue for nothing less than socialized medicine. No country can provide for EVERY medical need of EVERY citizen. It sounds crappy, but some people just have to get sick and die. If we provided everyone free care, we literally would spend MORE THAN 100% OF GDP...which is impossible. There are new types of prescriptions that are going to cost a million dollars a year, tailored to your DNA. How many million dollar bills do you think the country can afford? Medical care used to be cheap, nobody had insurance, and everyone could afford the cost. It was only after government stepped in that prices got to where they are today. Now people want MORE government, MORE laws, MORE intervention. Makes me want to run into a wall. The USSR and Canada (and some in Europe) have experimented with socialized medicine. The only thing is has done is make sick people FLEE and come to countries that still have the free market at work. If you want to ensure that MILLIONS of Americans will be without medical care, then you should keep trying to “make it affordable.” If you want Americans to have the best possible medical care, get government out of the business.
7) Care for the elderly. Stop having government steal 1/3 of people’s paychecks for their entire working lives and the elderly will be able to save enough to care for themselves. And see #6 above. Every country that has tried to care for the elderly has wound up with a messed up elderly population.
8) Government sponsored monopolies? Like cable service in my area? Nobody can compete, so the current monopoly has to provide nothing but a ****ty level of service. If you don’t like it, tough, you have no alternative.
Or are you talking price controls? Like saying that you can’t “gouge,” or charge more than $3 a gallon on gas? Do you know what happens then? Prices are too low, people aren’t given the message that they should not be consuming. When prices are where they should be, you can be assured that the commodity goes to the people who need it most, and can put it to best use. If you keep it unreasonably low, then people take road trips to florida because they don’t know that gas is scarce, and then truckers can’t deliver food to people in Maine because the Florida people used all the gas. All price controls do is turn shortages into scarcities and make sure NOBODY has the commodity. Remember the gas lines in the 70's (I don’t, born in 83, but you sure should)? That was price controls at work.
9) The only way to keep transportation “affordable” is to have government subsidize it. We kept postal stamps “affordable” for decades, and the postal service NEVER turned a profit till a few years ago. It ran BILLIONS of dollars of deficits for 150 years. The only way to keep a stamp cheap for YOU (at the store) is to make ME (with my taxes) pay for it. Does that sound like the society you want to live in? Government can’t just pass laws saying “things should be cheap” and make the world a better place. Economic realities are harsh, and price controls bring the harshest realities of all.
Environmentally safe. Blah. So the government should keep giving BILLION dollar subsidies to gas companies to develop ethanol and other “clean” fuels? I think it’s ethanol that today, with the most advanced and efficient ways we know, takes about 1.2 gallons of gas to produce enough ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gas. So it’s cleaner, yes, but you have to burn gas to get it, so it’s actually worse. Guess what. When the MARKET is ready to switch to cleaner fuels, it will do it on its own. It doesn’t need government to tell it when.
In the 80s’ or 90's, Congress mandated that, by 2015 or something, all fuel tankers had to have double hulls. People whined about it when the law was passed, because double hulls were a new thing and they were HUGELY expensive. If they had been forced to convert then (that’s usually the way laws are) many companies would have gone out of business. But guess what. EVERY SINGLE tanker with a U.S. flag had double hulls by the year 2005. Why? Not because oil companies gave a damn about the environment and wanted to be overachievers. Instead, because they were losing too much oil to leaks, and it was costing them money. At the same time, the cost of double-hulling ships came way down and it was cost-effective to do so in order to prevent leaks. The market corrected FOR ITSELF BY ITSELF, and the law passed by Congress was nothing more than incidental.
10) Recycling. Do you think, like many, that we’re “running out of land to throw our trash away?” Do you also think we need to have population control because there’s “too many people?” Drive cross country, you’ll see we still have a FEW places to put people and trash. Recycling may be a noble goal, but it fast turns to despotic tyranny when the GOVERNMENT tells people they MUST recycle. I have lived in northern VA at different times over the years, and I have always NOT recycled when I was told to. I felt I was fighting the system. I also thought it was hard, and that it didn’t make much of a difference. It is hard, and it doesn’t make much of a difference. Most trash men just throw your recycled stuff in with the other garbage. I guess government needs to pass a law against them? Eventually, I moved to an area that doesn’t require recycling. Now I throw aluminum cans in their own bag. Not because someone told me to, but because I don’t mind and decided I wanted to. Government didn’t have to tell me. I did it all by myself. So get out their and campaign, and ask people to recycle. Tell them why it’s good and why they should. But don’t you DARE ask government to force people to recycle. Someday they will decide that it’s more environmentally friendly to turn your dead body into feed for cows than to let your family bury you.
My comment was a cheap shot, and it was rude. I apologize. My problem is that I find a lot of people share your beliefs, and it’s hard to argue with everyone. I can’t spend half an hour writing 3 pages of notes to each person, so I just lash out with sarcasm and humor. But you did sound a little bit like Engles and Marx.
A lot of people hold similar views, and its’ precisely because we DO have a 2 party system and the things you proposed are the message of those two parties. An ideology that would result in true freedom is hard to come by. I hoped I wasn’t entirely rude in this post, and that I made some sense. I suggest you check out www.lewrockwell.com. They have a daily newsletter, and there’s no better place for free-market and anti-government thinking. And they all REALLY LIKE GUNS.
Not very well. I've read Federal court decisions that were more coherent.
vf8bird,
1. Change the voting system. One Congressperson would still be elected per congressional district, two senators per state, and one Presidential/VP ticket. The _method_ of picking them, though, must allow people to vote preferentially for multiple candidates, so they can vote for the candidate they really want, while still ranking the "lesser of two evils" above the "greater of two evils." The party system may remain to provide financing, but the major two parties will no longer have a game-theoretic stranglehold on elections.
2. It's unnecessary to refuse to vote for incumbents when you can indicate them as secondary/tertiary/... preferences. The key is allowing people to vote for multiple candidates on a ranked ballot.
3. Sounds like the Rep's problem. He should have had his staffers write the bill.
vf8bird,
1. Change the voting system. One Congressperson would still be elected per congressional district, two senators per state, and one Presidential/VP ticket. The _method_ of picking them, though, must allow people to vote preferentially for multiple candidates, so they can vote for the candidate they really want, while still ranking the "lesser of two evils" above the "greater of two evils." The party system may remain to provide financing, but the major two parties will no longer have a game-theoretic stranglehold on elections.
2. It's unnecessary to refuse to vote for incumbents when you can indicate them as secondary/tertiary/... preferences. The key is allowing people to vote for multiple candidates on a ranked ballot.
3. Sounds like the Rep's problem. He should have had his staffers write the bill.
- Status