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

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051189]You can't elect 5 presidents.[/QUOTE] Have a prime minister instead?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51050386]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.[/quote] except it doesn't really work that well. state governments are trending towards failure and bankruptcy - many of the functions of the american prefectures are being slowly assumed by the central government because of the failings of the lower ones [quote]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)[/quote] no they didn't. soviet bloc/yugoslav nations were the only ones which had democracies established recently. also how did the USA help? america didn't do shit to rescue latvia or ukraine from communism [quote]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] the US political institutions enjoy the least legitimacy in their history and the moment, and most of the country hates both presidential candidates also the USA still had big internal wars and rebellions in the late 19th century. also the usa is equal with china in terms of superpower status

Remember the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912"]last time[/URL] a third party gained major traction in a presidential race? [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/AUsyNuL.png[/IMG] I hope he's at the debates though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051377]except it doesn't really work that well. state governments are trending towards failure and bankruptcy - many of the functions of the american prefectures are being slowly assumed by the central government because of the failings of the lower ones[/QUOTE] You're right about that. My state would be a third-world shithole if it weren't for federal backing. [quote]no they didn't. soviet bloc/yugoslav nations were the only ones which had democracies established recently. also how did the USA help? america didn't do shit to rescue latvia or ukraine from communism[/quote] It's kind of a mix of both. We drove the Soviets into bankruptcy and collapse through decades of competition. The former Warsaw Pact states took advantage of Gorbachev's reforms and broke away. The way I see it, we contributed to the change in environment that permitted the formation of democracies, the citizens of the former WP states did all the heavy lifting and actually built those democracies. [QUOTE]the US political institutions enjoy the least legitimacy in their history and the moment, and most of the country hates both presidential candidates also the USA still had big internal wars and rebellions in the late 19th century. also the usa is equal with china in terms of superpower status[/QUOTE] We're not overthrowing our government. Fuck that. The system might suck, but violence isn't a solution. It's not like we're starving to death en masse, like in Venezuela.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51051321]Have a prime minister instead?[/QUOTE] Right, just let the congress appoint the most powerful person in the world. Aren't we supposed to be talking about democracy? [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51051261]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.[/QUOTE] A single party cannot win with 30% of the vote in the USA. A single party requires 51% of the vote. Do you understand how our system works? [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=IrishBandit;51051407]Remember the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912"]last time[/URL] a third party gained major traction in a presidential race? [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/AUsyNuL.png[/IMG] I hope he's at the debates though.[/QUOTE] The last 3rd party candidate to gain major traction was Ross Perot

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051539]Right, just let the congress appoint the most powerful person in the world. Aren't we supposed to be talking about democracy?[/QUOTE] didn't realise the half of the Western world that uses a Parliamentary system is undemocratic, you sure opened my eyes

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51051477]It's kind of a mix of both. We drove the Soviets into bankruptcy and collapse through decades of competition. The former Warsaw Pact states took advantage of Gorbachev's reforms and broke away. The way I see it, we contributed to the change in environment that permitted the formation of democracies, the citizens of the former WP states did all the heavy lifting and actually built those democracies.[/quote] to claim credit for those is a bit stupid though - take all the credit when you don't have to muck about in the shit communism collapsed more from its own internal contradictions than anything else. USSR was already sliding towards its grave even when Hitler was deepthroating a pistol [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;51051539]Right, just let the congress appoint the most powerful person in the world. Aren't we supposed to be talking about democracy?[/QUOTE] the president isn't directly elected either lmao

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51051565]didn't realise the half of the Western world that uses a Parliamentary system is undemocratic, you sure opened my eyes[/QUOTE] I'm not saying the entire system is undemocratic. I'm saying that relying on elected officials to appoint the most important official in the country is undemocratic. In the USA, Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures, not directly elected. the 17th amendment changed that. We prefer to directly elect representatives with that much power ourselves rather than relying on the government to do it for us. So the parliamentary system wouldn't work for us, because instead of giving x% representation to one party and y% representation to another, each county elects their congressional representative, each state elects their two senators, and each state votes for the president. That way, you're voting for the people, not the party [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051570]the president isn't directly elected either lmao[/QUOTE] The electoral college very VERY rarely skews from the vote they were elected to make and doing so has never influenced the outcome of an election.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051606]The electoral college very VERY rarely skews from the vote they were elected to make and doing so has never influenced the outcome of an election.[/QUOTE] minus the 2000 elections [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;51051606]I'm saying that relying on elected officials to appoint the most important official in the country is undemocratic.[/QUOTE] but that's literally how america elects their president

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051570]to claim credit for those is a bit stupid though - take all the credit when you don't have to muck about in the shit communism collapsed more from its own internal contradictions than anything else. USSR was already sliding towards its grave even when Hitler was deepthroating a pistol[/QUOTE] I agree, the Soviets were fucked to begin with. However, I'd argue that decades of economic, military, political and cultural competition hastened their collapse. Who knows how many more years they would have lasted if they hadn't spent so much money building ICBMs and filling Eastern Europe with tanks? Same with the Eastern European democracy thing. I'm by no means claiming total credit - I'm just pointing out that we did have an effect, however minor.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051629]minus the 2000 elections[/quote] The individual members of the electoral college didn't affect the outcome of the election. They voted how they were elected to vote, minus one person who didn't affect the outcome. You can't really complain about the lack of direct representation, because the real problem is gerrymandering, not the electoral college. [quote]but that's literally how america elects their president[/QUOTE] The president is elected, not appointed. If you can't see the difference between the UK system where you get 0 input on who will be the prime minister and the American system where you do get input on who will be the president then I don't think you understand a single thing about either of our political systems

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051539]Right, just let the congress appoint the most powerful person in the world. Aren't we supposed to be talking about democracy? [/QUOTE] Well you let congress decide the laws for the most powerful country on earth, and a prime minister doesn't have the same powers as a president - executive orders (or at least as far I know and understand them), for example, wouldn't be possible, and, probably, not needed with a congress that mostly wouldn't be in perpetual gridlock.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51051667]Well you let congress decide the laws for the most powerful country on earth, and a prime minister doesn't have the same powers as a president - executive orders (or at least as far I know and understand them), for example, wouldn't be possible, and, probably, not needed with a congress that mostly wouldn't be in perpetual gridlock.[/QUOTE] The prime minister has vested authority as the commander in chief of the UK military, and the US president has constitutional authority as commander in chief of the US military. One is elected, the other is not

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051662]The individual members of the electoral college didn't affect the outcome of the election. They voted how they were elected to vote, minus one person who didn't affect the outcome. You can't really complain about the lack of direct representation, because the real problem is gerrymandering, not the electoral college. The president is elected, not appointed. If you can't see the difference between the UK system where you get 0 input on who will be the prime minister and the American system where you do get input on who will be the president then I don't think you understand a single thing about either of our political systems[/QUOTE] If you want to avoid gerrymandering, the easiest way is simply to do away with the electoral college (which spawns a host of other democratic problems as well) in the same change.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51051700]If you want to avoid gerrymandering, the easiest way is simply to do away with the electoral college (which spawns a host of other democratic problems as well) in the same change.[/QUOTE] ok? Are we still arguing over whether or not the president is elected by the people? We have different ways of quantifying votes (and the electoral college was designed for its own specific reasons), but it still stands that our presidential election of electoral college and gerrymandering is still far more democratic than the parliamentary system of the most powerful person in your country being appointed with 0 input from the constituency

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051662]The president is elected, not appointed. If you can't see the difference between the UK system where you get 0 input on who will be the prime minister and the American system where you do get input on who will be the president then I don't think you understand a single thing about either of our political systems[/QUOTE] the UK prime minister isn't appointed though - they're elected. they have to be elected as both an MP for their constituency and as party leader the US president is elected by the electoral college, in turn elected by the public it's similar in that nobody actually directly votes for either of them - they have to either vote for electors or for MPs

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051713]the UK prime minister isn't appointed though - they're elected. they have to be elected as both an MP for their constituency and as party leader the US president is elected by the electoral college, in turn elected by the public it's similar in that nobody actually directly votes for either of them - they have to either vote for electors or for MPs[/QUOTE] an MP is elected for his job as MP, not for his job as PM, which has much higher responsibilities than an MP (also, it's worth noting that you don't have to be the party leader to be Prime minister) The Electoral college is elected by the people, and they have always elected the president expected to be voted for. Imagine if the electoral college was made up of computers, not people, and those computers were obligated to vote for who they were told to vote for. This is essentially direct election, but we simply group votes together in big blocks. The UK system is akin to the US congress choosing the president after a primary election. I think the difference is that the US president is a much more important job in the US than the PM is in the UK, and to the world in general. Also, I think we have different values of democracy in the UK vs. the US

imo GJ was really boring in the libertarian debate and never had anything of substance to say; all of his answers were "I don't have the power to do this but if congress passes me a bill saying they would like to do it I will sign it" based off of that I don't think he will be really missed in the debates

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51049591]Yeah like reality[/QUOTE] Yes, the reality is that the only thing stopping Gary Johnson from having a chance is the fact that there are systems in place intentionally stopping people like Gary Johnson from having a chance.

I find it funny that someone is arguing congress electing the President would be undemocratic, when the current system ensures that there will only ever be two viable parties at a time - which is inherently undemocratic. The American political system needs to change. It does not work in a country as diverse and as large as the States, and PR voting would in my opinion have a magical and fantastic effect on the country.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51049878]i think he should be on the debates just to showcase how terrible libertarianism actually is[/QUOTE] so you'd rather keep an authoritarian regime in place? do you understand the political spectrum?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051750]an MP is elected for his job as MP, not for his job as PM, which has much higher responsibilities than an MP (also, it's worth noting that you don't have to be the party leader to be Prime minister) The Electoral college is elected by the people, and they have always elected the president expected to be voted for.[/quote] apart from when the electoral college goes against the will of the public and elects the president that won less votes - as it has done multiple times in the past [quote]Imagine if the electoral college was made up of computers, not people, and those computers were obligated to vote for who they were told to vote for. This is essentially direct election, but we simply group votes together in big blocks. The UK system is akin to the US congress choosing the president after a primary election. I think the difference is that the US president is a much more important job in the US than the PM is in the UK, and to the world in general. Also, I think we have different values of democracy in the UK vs. the US[/QUOTE] US democracy largely consists of a mixture of dysfunctional traditional institutions combined with voting where voting isn't needed and appointments where voting would be better. while the american system has held up admirably for nearly 250 years (save for a civil war), its limitations are already pretty apparent judges (for some stupid reason) are elected, as are numerous other petty officials and civil servants ranging from coroners to clerks. meanwhile the presidency isn't directly elected. it's possible for the candidate to win less votes than the competitor and yet still win. this seems a bit undemocratic that somebody is elected against the wishes of the majority [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;51052045]so you'd rather keep an authoritarian regime in place? do you understand the political spectrum?[/QUOTE] i'm not sure how that makes one an authoritarian? point is that libertarianism is a failed ideology peddled largely by cranks. it's the Marxism of the rightwing

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51049603]I mean it wouldn't be that way if we didn't have the mentality of "voting third party is throwing your vote away", which we have because we give almost 0 coverage to the third parties.[/QUOTE] You would need to educate the entire voting base how our voting system works and how in reality, third party candidates have a zero percent chance of winning. This is well documented. Stop acting like it will change this time. It is either bad or really bad. Choose the person you least hate most and we will come back to it when there isn't a insane person on the republican ticket.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;51052246]You would need to educate the entire voting base how our voting system works and how in reality, third party candidates have a zero percent chance of winning. This is well documented. Stop acting like it will change this time. It is either bad or really bad. Choose the person you least hate most and we will come back to it when there isn't a insane person on the republican ticket.[/QUOTE] We're in a thread where a third party candidate has actually on the ballot and close to being in debates and you're still going "its impossible stop being idiots fucktards wow wow."

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51052060]apart from when the electoral college goes against the will of the public and elects the president that won less votes - as it has done multiple times in the past[/quote] No this has literally never happened

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51051377]the US political institutions enjoy the least legitimacy in their history and the moment, and most of the country hates both presidential candidates also the USA still had big internal wars and rebellions in the late 19th century. also the usa is equal with china in terms of superpower status[/QUOTE] the 19th century was the worst the government ever got, today it mind as well be single party with how united it is in comparison. we have yet to get anywhere close to the bottom. and china isn't a super power lmao. they're strong but they don't have anywhere near the sway the usa does.

[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] "Don't worry, you have many parties you can't vote for!"

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51053004]No this has literally never happened[/QUOTE] apart from 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51052060] i'm not sure how that makes one an authoritarian? point is that libertarianism is a failed ideology peddled largely by cranks. it's the Marxism of the rightwing[/QUOTE] Authoritarian and Libertarian = antonyms silly. YOU CAN BE A LEFT LEANING LIBERTARIAN, and in the extremes we refer to them as "anarchists".

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51051189]You can't elect 5 presidents[/QUOTE] You could. In Switzerland our head of state is 7 people.