Gary Johnson is first third-party candidate since 1996 to gain ballot access in every state - Polidicks

[t]http://i.imgur.com/MnRYzCU.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/libertarian-partys-gary-johnson-to-appear-on-election-ballots-in-all-50-states-1473828567[/url] [quote]Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign said Tuesday that he will be on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, marking the first time in two decades a third-party presidential ticket has appeared on every state ballot. “With a majority of Americans wanting a choice other than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, today we now know for certain that on Election Day, every voter in America will have that alternative option,” Mr. Johnson said. No third-party presidential ticket has qualified for all 50 state ballots since 1996, when Libertarian Harry Browne and Reform Party candidate Ross Perot were on every state ballot. Mr. Browne nearly achieved universal ballot access again in 2000, but was stymied by an intraparty dispute where the Arizona Libertarian Party put a different candidate on the state’s ballot.[/quote] [quote]In addition to the Libertarian Party, voters in 44 states and Washington, D.C., are expected to see Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on the ballot. Voters in three other states will have the option to write Ms. Stein in—a new ballot-access record for the party. The Green Party qualified for 36 state ballots plus D.C. in 2012. The party’s previous best year for ballot access was 2000, when Ralph Nader appeared on 43 state ballots.[/quote]

if your on the ballot in all states, you should have a seat at the debating table

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51049587]*should* But there are forces at work to actively prevent third parties from ever becoming an actual threat to the big 2.[/QUOTE] Yeah like reality

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51049591]Yeah like reality[/QUOTE] literally circular logic

As I've said before, hate the policies of libertarian-ism, but he should be at the debate. Hell, I'd also like the obscure, weird third parties that nobody has ever heard of (even on the internet) to be there. That'd be gas.

I don't know anyone can call the political process in the USA 'democratic' when really you have the choice between two different parties. What a joke.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51049587]*should* But there are forces at work to actively prevent third parties from ever becoming an actual threat to the big 2.[/QUOTE] Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny is a great book on how the Democrats and Republicans are bestest of friends when it comes to keeping real choice out of elections.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;51049707]I don't know anyone can call the political process in the USA 'democratic' when really you have the choice between two different parties. What a joke.[/QUOTE] we have the choice of many different parties. You can't put them all onto the ballot or debates because there's tons of them. You can choose whoever you want, though

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51049685]No, it is first past the post + electoral college that make 3rd party votes equal zero[/QUOTE] If a third party got big enough, however, it can make it into the top two.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51049745]If a third party got big enough, however, it can make it into the top two.[/QUOTE] only when they amass enough power in several states to actually affect the electoral college

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51049744]we have the choice of many different parties. You can't put them all onto the ballot or debates because there's tons of them. You can choose whoever you want, though[/QUOTE] The US does have some pretty large democratic problems, they're inherent in the system, and claiming otherwise is just willful ignorance or being disingenuous. Not saying it'd be easy to change, but it seems weird to me that some people just go "this is fine".

Don't want him to win, but I want him at the debates. It'll keep people on their toes. And I want him to throw the people for a loop. I'm hoping after this cycle, people will at least be less fucking stupid before the next one so that we don't have any candidates like any of the ones we have now. And maybe it'll start a push for system wide election reforms to improve shit one day.

i think he should be on the debates just to showcase how terrible libertarianism actually is

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51049878]i think he should be on the debates just to showcase how terrible libertarianism actually is[/QUOTE] Sure, but he should also be there because a not-insignificant part of the population actually support him.

With Hillary officially dead and trump officially insane, Weld would have my vote if I was american.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51049903]I don't think many (if any) of his economic policies would pass congress. I do like, however, the fact that he essentially wants to keep our dick out of places that it doesn't belong.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure a few of them would gut social services and attempt to reduce government intervention while allowing infrastructure to crumble

According to Gallup and Pew Research, voters' top grievences are the economy, terrorism, government dissatisfaction, and foreign policy. With all these issues on this year's candidate's plate, I would be highly surprised if Johnson takes office and immediately begins changing over the government to a libertarian policy. He has bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51049792]only when they amass enough power in several states to actually affect the electoral college[/QUOTE] Which can't happen if they're not even allowed to debate other candidates.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51049803]The US does have some pretty large democratic problems, they're inherent in the system, and claiming otherwise is just willful ignorance or being disingenuous. Not saying it'd be easy to change, but it seems weird to me that some people just go "this is fine".[/QUOTE] Like what

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51049744]we have the choice of many different parties. You can't put them all onto the ballot or debates because there's tons of them. You can choose whoever you want, though[/QUOTE] its bullshit though you can set a minimum % and then allow them to be on the ballots. FFS it's not that hard. Really, the US election system is ultra shitty.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;51050252]its bullshit though you can set a minimum % and then allow them to be on the ballots. FFS it's not that hard. Really, the US election system is ultra shitty.[/QUOTE] The ballots are determined by the states, not the federal government. Here are the ballot requirements in my state: [url]https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Virginia[/url] [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [url]https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Virginia[/url]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050221]Like what[/QUOTE] The two-party system as a whole? Voter apathy? Gerrymandering? I know you don't see these as issues because you don't care as long as the democratic party's is on top, but they're all symptoms or causes of a system that is bad at representing people's interests. You can say you don't care that Gary Johnson can't participate in any real capacity because he wouldn't win either way, but here in Denmark those 9% of your population would be represented by a party that would in many cases have the deciding vote when it comes to policies. Right now they aren't getting the representation they deserve. When people can't vote for people they feel represent them, or they feel that their vote won't make a difference because their state is either solidly blue or red, you end up with voter apathy and an embarrassingly low turnout.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050278]The ballots are determined by the states, not the federal government. Here are the ballot requirements in my state: [url]https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Virginia[/url] [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [url]https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Virginia[/url][/QUOTE] and that's why it's shitty. It should be unified at the national level.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51050302]The two-party system as a whole? Voter apathy? Gerrymandering? I know you don't see these as issues because you don't care as long as the democratic party's is on top, but they're all symptoms or causes of a system that is bad at representing people's interests. You can say you don't care that Gary Johnson can't participate in any real capacity because he wouldn't win either way, but here in Denmark those 9% of your population would be represented by a party that would in many cases have the deciding vote when it comes to policies. Right now they aren't getting the representation they deserve. When people can't vote for people they feel represent them, or they feel that their vote won't make a difference because their state is either solidly blue or red, you end up with voter apathy and an embarrassingly low turnout.[/QUOTE] Well I'll admit that gerrymandering is broken, but there's nothing preventing someone from voting for the candidate they want to vote for, or even not voting at all. I mean, a third party candidate is on all the ballots, so doesn't that sort of negate your point? If the parties are popular enough and follow all the rules, they'll get onto the ballot. In fact, when someone at my university (here in the Capitol of Virginia) asked me to sign the petition to get Johnson on the ballot, I signed it. This is just proof that the system works, and also personally makes me feel as if my vote mattered because I saw some return on it, via this article [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;51050369]and that's why it's shitty. It should be unified at the national level.[/QUOTE] That's just not how our government works. We designed our government to have a balance of power between the federal and state governments so neither has too much power. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] I mean, maybe it's just patriotism, but I like to think that our system works better than most. We've had one of the longest consistently running democracies in the world (where many other European countries just established theirs in the last 3 decades, with the help of the USA), we're the most powerful country in the world, enjoy long-lasting political stability, and a lot of other factors. I'm pretty lucky to have been born in the USA compared to a country like, say, Russia, or Thailand, where the former has blatantly rigged elections and a state-sanctioned cult of personality and the latter has a military coup every 4-6 years and re-writes its constitution constantly.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050386]Well I'll admit that gerrymandering is broken, but there's nothing preventing someone from voting for the candidate they want to vote for, or even not voting at all. I mean, a third party candidate is on all the ballots, so doesn't that sort of negate your point? If the parties are popular enough and follow all the rules, they'll get onto the ballot. In fact, when someone at my university (here in the Capitol of Virginia) asked me to sign the petition to get Johnson on the ballot, I signed it. This is just proof that the system works, and also personally makes me feel as if my vote mattered because I saw some return on it, via this article[/QUOTE] Being on the ballot is the election equivalent of a gold star in pre-school. As you yourself said, realistically third parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's not because people have always been satisfied with the two main parties (see this election and the hilariously high unfavourability ratings). FPTP encourages tactical voting which basically makes third party participation impossible. If I risked getting the Republicans in, I'd obviously vote for Clinton and the Democrats, but in isolation I probably wouldn't like the Democrats' policies very much. That is bad representation.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51050452]Being on the ballot is the election equivalent of a gold star in pre-school. As you yourself said, realistically third parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's not because people have always been satisfied with the two main parties (see this election and the hilariously high unfavourability ratings). FPTP encourages tactical voting which basically makes third party participation impossible. If I risked getting the Republicans in, I'd obviously vote for Clinton and the Democrats, but in isolation I probably wouldn't like the Democrats' policies very much. That is bad representation.[/QUOTE] Well, I'd prefer a party to have a clear 51% majority than to have, for example, a single right wing party garner 30% of the vote, while 5 left wing parties each get 14%. In this scenario, a unified left wing party would have won over the single conservative party, but the conservatives would have the plurality. Also, the two political parties tend to align pretty well with peoples' beliefs I think. If you're pro-choice, you're probably pro-gay marriage, and you're also probably for healthcare reform. liberal policies correlate with other liberal policies. In fact, Hillary Clinton represents the liberal agenda far more than Obama did. If people are unhappy with the candidate, there've been ways to reform the parties and the platform, such that the republican party went from being the party of lincoln (modern day liberal) to the party of reagan (modern day conservative), while the democratic party went from being a party chiefly concerned with preserving slavery to the party which passed the voting rights act and defended the franchise for black voters. Popular sentiment causes parties and their platforms to change with the will of people.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050545]Well, I'd prefer a party to have a clear 51% majority than to have, for example, a single right wing party garner 30% of the vote, while 5 left wing parties each get 14%. In this scenario, a unified left wing party would have won over the single conservative party, but the conservatives would have the plurality. Also, the two political parties tend to align pretty well with peoples' beliefs I think. If you're pro-choice, you're probably pro-gay marriage, and you're also probably for healthcare reform. liberal policies correlate with other liberal policies. In fact, Hillary Clinton represents the liberal agenda far more than Obama did. If people are unhappy with the candidate, there've been ways to reform the parties and the platform, such that the republican party went from being the party of lincoln (modern day liberal) to the party of reagan (modern day conservative), while the democratic party went from being a party chiefly concerned with preserving slavery to the party which passed the voting rights act and defended the franchise for black voters. Popular sentiment causes parties and their platforms to change with the will of people.[/QUOTE] In my ideal world, those five parties or a subset of them would then form a government, with the rest of them being support parties. This way five different parties that represent different people with different interests can then pass laws that they can agree on - with compromises where one party may get a concession in one area, but give some in another. Obviously this would require an upheaval of how the US political system works at a basic level, but it'd be better.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050545]Well, I'd prefer a party to have a clear 51% majority than to have, for example, a single right wing party garner 30% of the vote, while 5 left wing parties each get 14%. In this scenario, a unified left wing party would have won over the single conservative party, but the conservatives would have the plurality. [/QUOTE] This is precisely why First Past the Post is a hugely flawed system

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51050986]In my ideal world, those five parties or a subset of them would then form a government, with the rest of them being support parties. This way five different parties that represent different people with different interests can then pass laws that they can agree on - with compromises where one party may get a concession in one area, but give some in another. Obviously this would require an upheaval of how the US political system works at a basic level, but it'd be better.[/QUOTE] You can't elect 5 presidents [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FeartheMango;51051172]This is precisely why First Past the Post is a hugely flawed system[/QUOTE] What? This isn't first past the post.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050545]Well, I'd prefer a party to have a clear 51% majority than to have, for example, a single right wing party garner 30% of the vote, while 5 left wing parties each get 14%. In this scenario, a unified left wing party would have won over the single conservative party, but the conservatives would have the plurality.[/QUOTE] A single party being able to win with just 30% is precisely the problem with FPTP, and is why FPTP systems move toward two-party systems. I feel like linking CGP Grey's video is redundant at this point and I assume you've seen it already, but [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]I'm gonna do it anyway[/URL], on the off chance you haven't. You wouldn't even have to tear down the whole system and go full Denmark to make the system better. You could simply give people a priority vote instead of a single vote. You could set Gary Johnson as your first priority, and once the votes have been counted and Gary is out, the votes will go on to the voters' second priority. This would completely remove the issue of wasting your vote by voting third party.