Which party does the third party take most of their voters from?
There were 4 party affiliations available at my elections site: DEM REP LIB GRE What happens when you have 5 candidates. Candidate A follows platform 1 Candidate B follows platform 2 Candidate C follows platform 2 Candidate D follows platform 2 Candidate E follows platform 3 In a no-party system, if 65% of the nation supported platform 2, your votes could come out like this. A: 29% B: 20% C: 25% D: 20% E: 1% So while the overwhelming majority of voters might be strongly against candidate A, candidate A gets elected. Breaking our two-party system into a 3-party system is a fantastic idea; however, the party that splits up loses. Currently the larger political rift lies in the republican party, which means the republican party is more likely to split. Consider if three parties went to the general election with candidates, Republican, Democrat, and Tea Party; While support for the Democratic party might only be 45%, the Republican and Tea party split might very well be 40%/15%. Since a tea party candidate would prefer a republican over a democrat, and since a republican would prefer a tea partier over a democrat, they agree to hold a single primary between the two parties, and let the winner take on the democrat. |
depends. but republicans are easily split (see ron paul)
|
1. End of corporate personhood. 2. Separation of investment and savings banks 3. Closure of delaware legislation loophole Why are you so down on them again Brainy? Or is it just because of their insane tactics? |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 844259)
After talking to several prominent Occupy protesters, those appear to be their demands.
Why are you so down on them again Brainy? Or is it just because of their insane tactics? Wait... would that make me a dirty liberal hippy? :m-freak: |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 844286)
Not speaking for Brain, but that's the first time I have heard that "officially declared." Assuming it was (and I think that's a big assumption given their wildly differing makeup), if you added "and union" to the first bullet (assuming we are talking Citizens United) and clarified the meaning of the "loophole" in the third, I might be able to get on board with most of that.
Wait... would that make me a dirty liberal hippy? :m-freak: The media doesn't go for the average or the sane people. They find, say, 5% of the weirdest and most out there people, then do a story on them. Add a good dose of a very similar problem that is behind getting Ron Paul media attention and significant amount of either out of context or grossly mischaracterized quotes (Hey, wait, they do that to Paul too....).....Remember, it's distinctly against media's interest for #1. Voila, a cause is suddenly distorted, villified, and mocked due to a crazy minority. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 844259)
After talking to several prominent Occupy protesters, those appear to be their demands.
Why are you so down on them again Brainy? Or is it just because of their insane tactics? because I don't agree with those or them. your honestly asking me why I dont agree with them? they represent almost everything I hate in human beings. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 844307)
because I don't agree with those or them.
Why do you support Corporate (And, interestingly, Union since both fictions are based on the same legal basis.) Personhood? Why do you oppose the separation of investment and savings banks? Why do you support the Delaware legislation loophole? (http://www.williamscoulson.com/news-...ware-loophole/ is a Pennsylvania law that was intended to close it.) |
because it is necessary for them to do business without being a single person accountable for billions of dollars if the company does something its accountable for.
because it was never a big deal before or after the law. because i dont give two shits what corporation dont pay state taxes where. close the loophole, i dont give a ----. its beyond trivial. honestly, this is what they are out raping women and destroying public/private property over? these stupid minute things? they are stupider than i thought. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 844311)
because it is necessary for them to do business without being a single person accountable for billions of dollars if the company does something its accountable for.
because it was never a big deal before or after the law. because i dont give two shits what corporation dont pay state taxes where. close the loophole, i dont give a ----. its beyond trivial. honestly, this is what they are out raping women over? these stupid minute things? they are stupider than i thought. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 844314)
Why can't the CEO be accountable instead of the Corporation then?
I have yet to see an economist that did not state that the financial meltdown was not at least in part due to the removal of the separation of investment and savings banks. I would say this is a Very Big Deal. So, you don't care? Aww, Brainy. Are you trying to paint an entire group over the actions of a few retarded people? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 844323)
Why should he, he's just a dude.
That's possibly cause you only read left sources. a few? P.S. Just for you Brainy, http://visual.ly/lobbyists-how-we-run-washington |
I just came to a crazy conclusion when thinking ahead to elections... I might just vote for Obama. I have not had anything good to say about him since he stepped into office, and I don't really like him or the way he does things. But honestly, at this point, he looks better than the crazy fuckers we have to choose from to oppose him. Unless Ron Paul pulls a rabbit out of a hat, I may have no choice but to vote for the guy I have been against being in office for the last 4 years.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 844323)
That's possibly cause you only read left sources.
|
Props, Sav, for making me laugh my ass off. Breitbart is one of the few economists I can think of to the right of Brainy.
|
Andrew Breitbart was an economist?
|
A) Breitbart didn't write that piece
B) What the hell does "to the right" or "leftist" mean in these instances? C) How many economists use models or theories with zero understanding of actual banking operational realities? D) There are a number of people within the financial services industry (e.g. banking of one version or another) that will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of several contributors. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but it certainly seems like an example of crony capitalism in which investment banks were able to "gamble" with implicit government guarantees via FDIC that were previously unavailable to them. That is largely what allowed them to socialize losses while privatizing gains. |
imagine this, im not an economist either! w00t.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 844439)
imagine this, im not an economist either! w00t.
But hey, as a bonus, Scrappy backed what I'm sayin' bro! |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 844423)
A) Breitbart didn't write that piece
D) There are a number of people within the financial services industry (e.g. banking of one version or another) that will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of several contributors. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but it certainly seems like an example of crony capitalism in which investment banks were able to "gamble" with implicit government guarantees via FDIC that were previously unavailable to them. That is largely what allowed them to socialize losses while privatizing gains. If any good comes of the 2012 GOP primary, it will be the GOP/Fox News's realization that continuing to court the fringe Tea Party vote is not the way forward. The silver lining of Fox's stranglehold on conservative media is that the switch will happen very, very fast - one day we'll all wake up and the Tea Party will be irrelevant, because the "Establishment" said so. I hypothesized this a few months ago, when Herman Cain was the GOP front-runner. I was actually hoping he would win the nomination, purely so the GOP could watch him get utterly crushed in a general election cycle. If a real TP candidate had made it into the national arena, it would have proven that TPers aren't capable of bringing enough voters to the table to compensate for the loss of independent voters. If Santorum somehow wins the primary, his defeat in November will serve a similar purpose. Once the switch happens, Republicans like McCain and Romney (the Massachusetts Romney, not the clown that's going to get curbstomped in November) will be free to court independents and work with Democrats on bi-partisan issues (like Glass-Steagall) without fearing that they'll be painted as "traitors" by the TP rhetoric and Fox News. We might even get to hear more from centrist Republicans like Jon Huntsman, whom I would have readily voted for over Obama in a general election. The most vocal TPers will find themselves spent out of office or relegated to the House Committee on Shut The ---- Up. Or at least that's how I hope it works. :) |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 844531)
Scott was complaining about "left sources", so I pointed out a "right source". The author is irrelevant - the important part is that it's hosted on Breitbart's website. The point was to show that support for Glass-Steagall is bi-partisan and not a fringe left view like Scott apparently thinks.
Agree 100%. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is crucial to the prolonged stability of our economic system, and it's even a bi-partisan issue. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands