The Grand Old Party has a chance to win the Senate next year - Polidicks

Non-Party is the way to go. Besides, It is technically easier to run non-party anyway.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41489794]It seems pretty likely, in my eyes. That's the general pattern of US politics. With our deeply flawed bipartisan system, the pendulum just keeps swinging. The inevitable shortcomings, disappointments, or outright failures that occur during one party's rule will cause the swing voters to look at the other side for answers.[/QUOTE] As this administration has demonstrated, the minority party has an enormous incentive to refuse to fix anything or do anything that actually helps the country. In a couple of years we'll have to sit through a billion dollars worth of campaign ads blasting the Democrats for not fixing any of the problems that Republicans blocked the solutions to.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;41492217]Non-Party is the way to go. Besides, It is technically easier to run non-party anyway.[/QUOTE] It sure is if you have shitloads of money to pull out of your arse

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oNfVQ-7M-VQ/THFTY65XDgI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ohnlB1ZUoXo/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg[/img]

Where's the t-rex?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491569]there have been times when third-parties have been successful. teddy roosevelt, part of the progressive "bull moose" party, was able to win presidency. it's not impossible, although our electoral system makes it quite unlikely. there is hope for change in the political system, but it will require an incredible shift in attitude regarding the way politics should be done. idk if encouraging people to vote for a third party is enough.[/QUOTE] That was a different time, back then a third party did have a chance to compete, although it was unlikely. Today the news only covers the 2 main parties and completely ignores the rest, and most people are too lazy to care about any others. Everyone else is either loyal to their party or so uninformed they'd vote in a democrat so the republicans don't take their guns.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41495154]That was a different time, back then a third party did have a chance to compete, although it was unlikely. Today the news only covers the 2 main parties and completely ignores the rest, and most people are too lazy to care about any others. Everyone else is either loyal to their party or so uninformed they'd vote in a democrat so the republicans don't take their guns.[/QUOTE] Kickstarter a new political party.

to anyone who was writing about hurr swing voters determine everything : no wrong they don't, parties win or lose if they can get their main demographic to haul their asses out and vote for them

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41489100]There are third parties. The best thing people can do is try to get rid of the idea that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote" (because there is no such thing as a wasted vote, even if it's blank)[/QUOTE] Third parties are politically unattainable in our current voting system. I'll tell you why. Say that a certain district is 60% liberal and 40% conservative - 30% Green, 30% Democrat, and 40% Republican. In our current system, the Republican party wins, because they have the "majority" of the votes. Third parties take votes away from the party most similar to its interests by splitting the voter base, we call this the "spoiler effect" because third-party voters strategically vote R or D based who they [I]don't[/I] want in office, rather than the ones that they [I]do[/I]. GCP Grey explains it better than I could: [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] We need a proportional voting system, but that isn't going to happen, because the current voting system is what keeps politicians cozy and in power.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41495154]That was a different time, back then a third party did have a chance to compete, although it was unlikely. Today the news only covers the 2 main parties and completely ignores the rest, and most people are too lazy to care about any others. Everyone else is either loyal to their party or so uninformed they'd vote in a democrat so the republicans don't take their guns.[/QUOTE] if it was possible to condition people into the current state of political hopelessness they are in now, it's possible to get them out of it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41491569]there have been times when third-parties have been successful. teddy roosevelt, part of the progressive "bull moose" party, was able to win presidency. it's not impossible, although our electoral system makes it quite unlikely. there is hope for change in the political system, but it will require an incredible shift in attitude regarding the way politics should be done. idk if encouraging people to vote for a third party is enough.[/QUOTE] Teddy Roosevelt wasn't part of the "Bull Moose" party when he was elected president, he was a Republican. He didn't run the Bull Moose party until 1912 and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912]he lost that election to Woodrow Wilson[/url] (although he did take a few states and actually overtook Taft, the Republican candidate, in both the popular and electoral vote the end).

[QUOTE=joes33431;41498190]Third parties are politically unattainable in our current voting system. I'll tell you why. Say that a certain district is 60% liberal and 40% conservative - 30% Green, 30% Democrat, and 40% Republican. In our current system, the Republican party wins, because they have the "majority" of the votes. Third parties take votes away from the party most similar to its interests by splitting the voter base, we call this the "spoiler effect" because third-party voters strategically vote R or D based who they [I]don't[/I] want in office, rather than the ones that they [I]do[/I]. GCP Grey explains it better than I could: [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] We need a proportional voting system, but that isn't going to happen, because the current voting system is what keeps politicians cozy and in power.[/QUOTE] A PR system wouldn't help America when it has only 3 mass political parties. It'd just result in more Deadlock.

[QUOTE=The mouse;41498667]A PR system would'nt help America when it has only 3 mass political parties. It'd just result in more Deadlock.[/QUOTE] There's quite a few large political parties. You have the Dems and Reps, obviously, but you also have the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Constitutionalists (far, FAR right party). Not to mention other smaller parties would possibly flourish, like far-left and center-left parties that have little voice now, and become more major if the voting system would be more accommodating to them. Besides, the deadlock is caused more by how so very few Democrats and Republicans are willing to pass party borders to vote on their own conscience and instead are standing rigid on party lines. Since nobody is willing to traverse the border, there is no movement. The voting system, for as many problems as it causes, does not contribute as much to the deadlock as that does.

Guess I better start getting my passport together then. Canada seems nice this time of year.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41496427]to anyone who was writing about hurr swing voters determine everything : no wrong they don't, parties win or lose if they can get their main demographic to haul their asses out and vote for them[/QUOTE] Yes, but these only tend to be influential in actual swing areas. Safe seats can exist for endless decades, and gerrymandering tends to aid when demographic change occurs. If you are in a "safe" area, is the politician really going to waste extra time on pandering to that district, or is he going to aim for the people whose loyalties aren't so obvious?

[quote]The Republicans have the economics nailed down[/quote] This has been laughably false ever since Reagan was in office.

Seeing as the democrats are the lesser of two evils, unless the public is completely fucking retarded I don't see the republicans winning anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Angus725;41494637][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oNfVQ-7M-VQ/THFTY65XDgI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ohnlB1ZUoXo/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] These would be so much better if they didn't label every single piece like we're all idiots

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;41502254]This has been laughably false ever since Reagan was in office.[/QUOTE] No, they do have it nailed down. How else do you think they managed to rip every last dollar out of us and put it in their own pockets? That can't have been caused by incompetence.

[QUOTE=joes33431;41498190]Third parties are politically unattainable in our current voting system. I'll tell you why. Say that a certain district is 60% liberal and 40% conservative - 30% Green, 30% Democrat, and 40% Republican. In our current system, the Republican party wins, because they have the "majority" of the votes. Third parties take votes away from the party most similar to its interests by splitting the voter base, we call this the "spoiler effect" because third-party voters strategically vote R or D based who they [I]don't[/I] want in office, rather than the ones that they [I]do[/I]. GCP Grey explains it better than I could: [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] We need a proportional voting system, but that isn't going to happen, because the current voting system is what keeps politicians cozy and in power.[/QUOTE] In a system where there's two parties, then you don't really have any choice or freedom. It's just a coin that flips every once in a while.

we need to organize a protest for reform here in the states. We need to have people fed up with this shit. Honestly i had faith in both the republicans and democrats at some point in my life, but now i can see it's just a false choice. We should use social media to spread a call for reform, across three days, and if successful organize more. We need to get people to care, and today that seems like getting support from social media. That's the only way things are going to change, considering most of the other candidates we've had are just stupid and a false dichotomy. The only way to change this country is through the power of the people.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;41502853]In a system where there's two parties, then you don't really have any choice or freedom. It's just a coin that flips every once in a while.[/QUOTE] Would that mean a third party victory would be that extremely unlikely coin flip where the coin lands right on the edge?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;41503153]we need to organize a protest for reform here in the states. We need to have people fed up with this shit. Honestly i had faith in both the republicans and democrats at some point in my life, but now i can see it's just a false choice. We should use social media to spread a call for reform, across three days, and if successful organize more. We need to get people to care, and today that seems like getting support from social media. That's the only way things are going to change, considering most of the other candidates we've had are just stupid and a false dichotomy. The only way to change this country is through the power of the people.[/QUOTE] Because the last big protest movement to call for reform in Washington went so well...

As much as I hate to admit it and as much as it makes me sound like some sort of reactionary dickbag, as long as a left/far left party like Green doesn't get into power I'm pretty happy. Even with more centrist-conservative types, I have to choose between people who I think are too far left and people who I think are too far right, but I really dislike the left more.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;41503153]we need to organize a protest for reform here in the states. We need to have people fed up with this shit. Honestly i had faith in both the republicans and democrats at some point in my life, but now i can see it's just a false choice. We should use social media to spread a call for reform, across three days, and if successful organize more. We need to get people to care, and today that seems like getting support from social media. That's the only way things are going to change, considering most of the other candidates we've had are just stupid and a false dichotomy. The only way to change this country is through the power of the people.[/QUOTE] Won't happen when half the country doesn't even vote to begin with.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41489440]The GOP has a massively unfair advantage in the way the Senate is structured. The Democrat's power base is in the population centers on the coastlines and a handful of other states, while the GOP gets 2 Senate seats for every depopulated state in the middle of the country. A few thousand ultraconservative people in Montana get the same power in that body as the entire population of California. Plus, the seats up for grabs this year are nothing but seats the GOP is safe in, or Democratic Senators in largely Republican states. If they win a majority, we get one of two things: More complete gridlock as the Democrats obstruct for obstruction's sake in revenge for what the Republicans have done to them the last four years, or the Democrats roll over and Obama gets to veto one nightmare bill after another until the idiot American electorate gives the Republicans the White House in 2016 because none of our problems have been fixed. UUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.[/QUOTE] Depopulated areas also tend to carry the entire population of the United States compared to some sardine canned hellholes. :v: Also just to be spiteful... The last thing we need is urban-centers which only makeup 10% of the countries population controlling the other 90%.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41506112]Depopulated areas also tend to carry the entire population of the United States compared to some sardine canned hellholes. :v: Also just to be spiteful... The last thing we need is urban-centers which only makeup 10% of the countries population controlling the other 90%.[/QUOTE] This is bollocks. The urban population of the United States makes up more of the population than rural areas. If anything we should be increasing the power of the cities as much as possible.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41506217]This is bollocks. The urban population of the United States makes up more of the population than rural areas. If anything we should be increasing the power of the cities as much as possible.[/QUOTE] Why should we be increasing the power of cities? By the way, my numbers were referencing Urban Clusters control vs Rural Area/Urbanized Area.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41489100]There are third parties. The best thing people can do is try to get rid of the idea that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote" (because there is no such thing as a wasted vote, even if it's blank)[/QUOTE] Well spit it out. Tell us how voting for a third party candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of actually being elected, and even if they are elected will either not be able to do anything because they're drowned out by D and R shouting or are just a slightly disgruntled member of the main two parties and will end up siding with one of them on 99% of issues anyway is in any way useful. We're waiting. While you're at it let us know how a blank vote also helps, because as far as I can tell blank votes make it [i]easier[/i] for the shitheads to win, mostly due to how the election system works. Blank votes end up a minority, but if there's enough of them, they will skew the overall results such that the worst shithead on the ballot might win when otherwise he'd lose hard. Which is kind of also the problem with independent votes.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41506217]This is bollocks. The urban population of the United States makes up more of the population than rural areas. If anything we should be increasing the power of the cities as much as possible.[/QUOTE] This is why we have states. We have over 300,000,000 people, there's no reason to force everyone to live under the same exact laws. The more rural states are usually in support of strong states rights. So they have no problem letting the cities do whatever they want, but would rather the people living in urban centers, who have no idea about the problems rural areas face, to not force their laws on them. On the other hand, urban centers would rather force their opinions on everyone no matter what. Read some De Tocqueville and see how irrelevant the federal government (and even state government) was originally intended to be with everyday affairs.