2nd Amendment single-issue voter, so probably the Libertarians.
A few problems, alas: no matter how it’s configured, it can break down. You can end up with different results based on very small differences in people’s 2nd or 3rd choices – violating a principle called “independence on irrelevant alternatives.”
e.g., one can construct an hypothetical election between Bush, Gore, Perot, and Nader, where if Nader is eliminated first, Bush wins, but if Perot is eliminated first, Gore wins. Since both Nader and Perot will be eliminated, it shouldn’t matter which of them is eliminated first.
I agree that the principle is a good one. Some years ago, a friend of mine ran for Mayor, knowing he didn’t have a chance in hell of winning (ha!) but just wanted a chance to spout off, make his opinions known, and, upon losing, have a really great party (the beer and pizza kind of party.) Using an instant-runoff system, I could have voted for him as my first choice, and not have wasted my vote. Under the current system, I felt strategically obliged to vote for a candidate who had a chance to win.
Other. Whichever party emerges as the viable left-of-center party after the Great Shakeup of 2018. (The Democrats are and will be the “center” party, another new party will emerge as the “center-right”, and the Republicans are and will be the “far right”. Perhaps a fifth viable party will emerge as the “far left”, but I would still affiliate myself with the “center left” party.)
I read the Wiki on the WFP and still can’t understand precisely what they’re for, except that they are definitely for electoral rules that allow them to use other parties’ candidates to get them publicity and spots on the ballot.
Take it from me; if you double the number of parties will will simply double your frustration when you keep asking yourself “why isn’t there anything good for to vote for?”
Sincerely, A Guy Who Lives In A Country With More Than Two Viable Parties.
See here, then.
Canada, right? Think of the WFP – or the Vermont Progressive Party – as the nearest U.S. equivalent to the New Democrats.
. . . You know something we don’t?
So, what are the LibDems supposed to stand for? Are they LW? Center-left? Libertarian? Social-democratic? Green? What?
What if I don’t like any of the parties?
I am a blend of a whole bunch of bits of all the parties.
Maybe we eliminate the party system entirely, go to actually voting for who we want to win based upon their specific platforms, no electoral bullshit any more. Strip eth whole dog and pony show, make everybody show up for 4 question and answer sessions [1 each month counting down to November] first one they can stump along describing their personal platform. Next one they answer collected specific questions. Next one they answer any more questions to clarify their last half hour of questions, and a final half an hour to clarify anything. Then the vote happens. [they are not debating, they are just filmed speaking and answering questions. 1 hour at evening viewing time, say 8-9 pm is dedicated mon-fri to politics each month to provide the equal platform for everybody running. First place winner is president, second place is vice president. No more than 5 million to be spent for mailings, no phone calls, no door to door or mall sniping allowed, no newspaper or magazine or radio or tv ads. They can have a twitter account and a webpage. If they want to open an office staffed with volunteers, they have to manage to convince a location to donate the space, the electric company to donate electricity, phone company to donate phones. No paying for anything from campaign funds. If they want to spring out of their own pocket, they have to prove it doesn’t come from campaign funds.
Can you say that I am sick and tired of the political dog and pony show we have developed? It seriously cheese me off that I have to deal with inbox spam from both Obama and Romney, I get phone calls from both the jackasses, and I still intend to vote, and more and more I feel like writing in Bill the Cat, but I hate wasting a vote. :mad:
Hope springs eternal.
Under Charles Kennedy they were centre-left. Under Nick Clegg and the Orangebookers they took a lurch to the right, and when they entered the coalition they shifted further that way.
That’s the parliamentary party though, I still believe that the majority of members are centre-left and can’t wait to get rid of Clegg, Alexander and Laws.
Vince Cable used to be a politician I respected highly, particularly in the wakeof the economic crisis… Not so much anymore.
There is a very good chance that they will be wiped out in parliament in 2015, although whether the coalition makes it that far remains to be seen.
It isn’t at all comparable. You cant compare a miniscule fringe party, comprised mainly of its founders and their friends and family, to an actual political party that has held office.
A party changes as it gains influence and power. The NDP has won a number of provincial elections and has never implemented, or come even close to implementing, its full platform in any of those cases. If elected federally, as is now apparently possible, they will not do it then, either. They’re an actual political party with all the compromises and aspects of personality that influential, important public figures as party leaders have on the nature of a party. The VPP is nothing.
Even going by their platforms there are pretty huge differences, as well as aspects of the platforms that don’t really have a lot of relevance when you cross the border - support for universal health insurance, for instance, is not of any relative consequence in Canada, where that is a part of EVERY party’s platform.
I said nearest equivalent, i.e., nearer than anything else we’ve got in the field in this benighted country; and I meant ideologically, of course.
So? What do you think is the nearest U.S. equivalent to the NDP?
News to me. That is, I know they’re in Parliament already – in fact, they’re the Official Opposition – but you seem to be saying they might become the majority or plurality party next election (which would be, for the first time ever). When will that be?
I said ‘other’. The short version is that I’d be a swing voter.
Well and good, but a multiparty system fines that down to more than one kind and a limited number of kinds – e.g., would you swing between the WFP and the Greens, or between the WFP and the Democrats, or between the Republicans and the Libertarians, or between the Constitution Party and the Pubs, or between the Dems and the Pubs? Probably only one of those describes you – nobody would swing, e.g, between the Constitution Party and the WFP, nor between Constitution and Green, and probably not between Constitution and Libertarian.
Unless by “swing voter” you mean you’d go to bed with all at once . . .
The next election will probably be in 2015; it could theoretically be earlier or be put off until 2016, but it won’t be, barring some weird occurrence.
There is no particular reason the NDP COULDN’T win that election. They’re fairly well in place as the alternative to the Conservatives. The Liberal Party looks like it has a terminal illness.
I guess I’m somewhere in the middle of the Green Party and Working Families Party, with a pinch of technocracy thrown in, so I chose “Other.”
I don’t think politics can sustain itself much further without a serious branch of government, lead by serious scientists and engineers, spearheading progressive science and technology in the US as it seems to really be outpacing the agonizingly glacial movement of Congress, and the handwringing/head scratching of the Supreme Court (not to mention becoming a “durrrrr…” point among the general public).
Well, perhaps it can continue to sustain itself, but it’s just going to get more painful and ugly as we keep electing stupid people to put in charge and make decisions on these sorts of things that are affecting our lives, economy and progress on a daily basis, more and more.
Missed the edit window. Just wanted to add I strongly prefer capitalism over full-on socialism, which is why the WFP as the OP describes doesn’t seem like a great fit, all-in-all. Especially considering capitalism being very central to the backbone of not only our economy, but as a hallmark of the US since its inception. It ultimately seems more flexible and adaptable over socialist frameworks (as far as I can glean from other truly socialist economies/governments).
I’d likely be trying to work within the Democrats to move them a bit to the left, not nearly to actual Socialism but to be more interested in pushing social issues and restraining business power to a more effective degree without imagining unions are godly and perfect.
Your list of parties leaves out Moderate Progressive, is my view; it jumps straight from Center-Right (Democrats) to Socialist and near-Socialist (Working Families), with the Greens (Greens) out being Greens in Green-land where Science Is Evil and you can’t buy a decent loaf of bread without giving money to people who honestly believe chiropractic can cure the autism that the mercury in your last vaccine gave you.
However, I am far too pragmatic to think that, even in a multi-party system, trying to spin a Moderate Progressive party off the Democrats would actually do very much. Call me an entryist, but being able to debate within the halls of power is more conducive to actual debate than trying to shout down everyone else with sound bites in the general tumult outside.
So I’d be happy in a somewhat wonky splinter faction within the Democratic party, a lot like now.
No, you can always vote for different parties in different tickets; the party for which I usually vote locally doesn’t run at the highest levels, so at those levels I can’t even vote for them; there’s other parties which only run at the highest levels but which rarely if ever have a candidacy for local elections. This is all EU-wide.
In Spain, senate votes are “for the person”, not “for the party”, you can (and I have) pick candidates from several different parties in the same vote.
Sounds like a technocracy; ignoring for the moment how the technocrats would get and stay in power, there’s the fact that “experts” don’t have the best track record. In the 1920s, progressive science championed eugenics.