Were a Centrist 3rd party to form, would you support it?

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

I disagree with the context of the question. Conservatism isn't extreme, it is natural, as it allows people to pursue their own life, and does not grow a centralized government to lord over us, paid for by confiscatory policies. Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is a vehicle to expand government, in a sense, a self-serving governmental construct that creates the much-needed dependents to feed and support it.

But don't take my word for it (few do). Just draw from the vast wealth of knowledge that history gives us. Liberalism ALWAYS leads to tyranny, everywhere and every time it has been tired. Conservatism is the attempt at an antidote, and most eloquently inculcated in our Constitution.

I love this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss in detail, turn me on....

I would, but you read way too fast. You'd never digest it.

Avoidance and dismissal. That's okay, I see you participating, that is good enough....

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

I agree with most of that.

Yes, people do fall along a spectrum of political points of view. After all, political parties do not define positions for all people. To your point, what on earth would a 3rd Party represent?

America.....

...as opposed to the people? Okay, based upon what set of principles?

 

[Youch]

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.

Two good posts.

Corporatism is the root cause of the failure.....this has fueled dysfunction in both parties and, even worse, is fueling Statism. It has all grown too big, and the apparatus drifts further and further from our best interests. The only group speaking out about this nationally is the Tea Party, and they are dismissed as fringe kooks from all sides. A nation in decline.....

 

[Pogo]

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.

Two good posts.

Corporatism is the root cause of the failure.....this has fueled dysfunction in both parties and, even worse, is fueling Statism. It has all grown too big, and the apparatus drifts further and further from our best interests. The only group speaking out about this nationally is the Tea Party, and they are dismissed as fringe kooks from all sides. A nation in decline.....

I was all set to "agree" with this until you went off the rails with the TP, which is as bad an example of the same syndrome you were building on as there is.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only a moron would be so confident in 1992 CNN polls: At times your Naivety can be astonishing.

I wondered who would bite down hardest on the red herring. I should have predicted it was the least transparent of partisan wonks

And yet, the CNN end poll in 1992 was dead on: it predicted Clinton +6 over Bush 41. Actual result: Clinton +5.56%, which rounds to +6. Or, you can say that CNN was off by 0.4.

In 2008, CNN predicted Obama at +4 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +4.58. CNN was on the mark, within 0.6

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond POLL CONVERGENCE 11

In 2012, CNN predicted Obama at +3 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +2.97: CNN was absolutely on the mark.

CNN Poll Obama 50 8211 Romney 47 in Ohio 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond End Polling Table - USA - alphabetical by pollster name

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.


Only a moron looks at polls that were DEAD ON and calls other people a moron for being confident in said polls.

CNN/ORC has put out better results than people realize. Only the most transparently partisan of stupid RWNJ hacks would not see this simple fact.

 

[Samson]

Only a moron would be so confident in 1992 CNN polls: At times your Naivety can be astonishing.

I wondered who would bite down hardest on the red herring. I should have predicted it was the least transparent of partisan wonks

And yet, the CNN end poll in 1992 was dead on: it predicted Clinton +6 over Bush 41. Actual result: Clinton +5.56%, which rounds to +6. Or, you can say that CNN was off by 0.4.

In 2008, CNN predicted Obama at +4 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +4.58. CNN was on the mark, within 0.6

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond POLL CONVERGENCE 11

In 2012, CNN predicted Obama at +3 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +2.97: CNN was absolutely on the mark.

CNN Poll Obama 50 8211 Romney 47 in Ohio 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond End Polling Table - USA - alphabetical by pollster name

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.


Only a moron looks at polls that were DEAD ON and calls other people a moron for being confident in said polls.

CNN/ORC has put out better results than people realize. Only the most transparently partisan of stupid RWNJ hacks would not see this simple fact.

Still biting on the red herring.

Predictable is good.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only a moron would be so confident in 1992 CNN polls: At times your Naivety can be astonishing.

I wondered who would bite down hardest on the red herring. I should have predicted it was the least transparent of partisan wonks

And yet, the CNN end poll in 1992 was dead on: it predicted Clinton +6 over Bush 41. Actual result: Clinton +5.56%, which rounds to +6. Or, you can say that CNN was off by 0.4.

In 2008, CNN predicted Obama at +4 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +4.58. CNN was on the mark, within 0.6

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond POLL CONVERGENCE 11

In 2012, CNN predicted Obama at +3 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +2.97: CNN was absolutely on the mark.

CNN Poll Obama 50 8211 Romney 47 in Ohio 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond End Polling Table - USA - alphabetical by pollster name

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.


Only a moron looks at polls that were DEAD ON and calls other people a moron for being confident in said polls.

CNN/ORC has put out better results than people realize. Only the most transparently partisan of stupid RWNJ hacks would not see this simple fact.

Still biting on the red herring.

Predictable is good.

No. Correcting your ignorance with real and tangible data that is now part of the historical record, a record that you cannot run away from. It's really that simple.

And you talk about "morons" and "partisanship". Funny that. Doctor, heal thyself.

 

[Samson]

Only a moron would be so confident in 1992 CNN polls: At times your Naivety can be astonishing.

I wondered who would bite down hardest on the red herring. I should have predicted it was the least transparent of partisan wonks

And yet, the CNN end poll in 1992 was dead on: it predicted Clinton +6 over Bush 41. Actual result: Clinton +5.56%, which rounds to +6. Or, you can say that CNN was off by 0.4.

In 2008, CNN predicted Obama at +4 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +4.58. CNN was on the mark, within 0.6

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond POLL CONVERGENCE 11

In 2012, CNN predicted Obama at +3 in Ohio. Actual mark: Obama +2.97: CNN was absolutely on the mark.

CNN Poll Obama 50 8211 Romney 47 in Ohio 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond End Polling Table - USA - alphabetical by pollster name

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.


Only a moron looks at polls that were DEAD ON and calls other people a moron for being confident in said polls.

CNN/ORC has put out better results than people realize. Only the most transparently partisan of stupid RWNJ hacks would not see this simple fact.

Still biting on the red herring.

Predictable is good.

No. Correcting your ignorance with real and tangible data that is now part of the historical record, a record that you cannot run away from. It's really that simple.

And you talk about "morons" and "partisanship". Funny that. Doctor, heal thyself.

I almost appreciate your blitherings as much as the fact you've derailed your own thread!

 

[Shanty]

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

Not really.

Voters normally have very few choices about "who they vote for."

For example, Presidential Debates.

How many third party candidates are invited to appear?

You make another interesting point about constitutionality and a "proportionally representative legislature." Do you know how many people each legislature represented when the constitution was written? Hint: It wasn't the nearly 800,000 constituents that it is today: How can any third party be distinguished in a heard like this? It cannot. This is hardly the representative government that the founders of the USA envisioned.

There are as many options as there are candidates on the ballot. But frankly, the third parties themselves don't put the work in, get the candidates to run, or get the votes, to be automatically one the ballot. They can gripe about the rules, but the fact is that even were the rules bent to accommodate them, they can't get traction. Then, when they caucus with the two larger parties, they just get swallowed by the ones they caucus with.

 

[Samson]

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

Not really.

Voters normally have very few choices about "who they vote for."

For example, Presidential Debates.

How many third party candidates are invited to appear?

You make another interesting point about constitutionality and a "proportionally representative legislature." Do you know how many people each legislature represented when the constitution was written? Hint: It wasn't the nearly 800,000 constituents that it is today: How can any third party be distinguished in a heard like this? It cannot. This is hardly the representative government that the founders of the USA envisioned.

There are as many options as there are candidates on the ballot. But frankly, the third parties themselves don't put the work in, get the candidates to run, or get the votes, to be automatically one the ballot. They can gripe about the rules, but the fact is that even were the rules bent to accommodate them, they can't get traction. Then, when they caucus with the two larger parties, they just get swallowed by the ones they caucus with.

The third parties themselves don't put the work in, get the candidates to run, or get the votes, to be automatically on the ballot is my point.

When a district is composed of 800,000 people, it is impossible to assimilate the resources that established parties have at the state and district level. A third party could have a candidate, work their ass off, but until "the rules are bent to accommodate" more than the established party system, constituents can look forward to the choice between vanilla, and more vanilla.

Because smaller congressional districts greatly improve constituent monitoring of legislators and enhance legislators’ representation of constituent interests, most of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the states that ratified them) expected that the following principles would always apply:

• The size of the congressional districts should remain relatively small (e.g., no larger than 60,000). Instead, the average district size is approximately 700,000 and growing.
  
• The number of federal Representatives should grow proportionately with the general population. Instead, Congress has fixed the total number of Representatives at 435 ever since 1913.
  
• The Congressional districts should be equivalently sized across the nation pursuant to the one-person-one-vote principle. Instead, some House districts are currently nearly twice the size of others.

In fact, Federalist Papers 55 and 56 explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants

 

[Shanty]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

Thanks for the laugh. Humor, intended or not, is a balm for the soul.

I'm glad facts are funny to you.

 

[Shanty]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

Thanks for the laugh. Humor, intended or not, is a balm for the soul.

Many Democrats feel that theirs is the centrist party, I doubt that this is a joke. That's why Republicans need to be wary of polls that say that few people are liberals, because liberals see themselves like this. So they would identify themselves to a poster as moderate, not liberal.

Clearly being a centrist is a matter of perspective.

I'm the most fair-minded person I know.

I've seen the Democratic Party being akin to communism. The perspective of people so far to the right to say that is pretty much skewed in epic proportions.

 

[Youch]

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.

Two good posts.

Corporatism is the root cause of the failure.....this has fueled dysfunction in both parties and, even worse, is fueling Statism. It has all grown too big, and the apparatus drifts further and further from our best interests. The only group speaking out about this nationally is the Tea Party, and they are dismissed as fringe kooks from all sides. A nation in decline.....

I was all set to "agree" with this until you went off the rails with the TP, which is as bad an example of the same syndrome you were building on as there is.

Whether or not you agree does not diminish the truthfulness of what I said.

If you have sage knowledge of the Tea Party different than what the Tea Party promotes as their platform (discounting the parasitic fringe groups), then speak up. Otherwise you are just dismissing for dismissal sake.

Edited to add: What other group is speaking out nationally against out-of-control federal government growth and corruption? Nada, Nil, Nin, zip, zero, nada..... Why don't you acknowledge this point? Please discuss, and I promise to not read too fast.

 

[Pogo]

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.

Two good posts.

Corporatism is the root cause of the failure.....this has fueled dysfunction in both parties and, even worse, is fueling Statism. It has all grown too big, and the apparatus drifts further and further from our best interests. The only group speaking out about this nationally is the Tea Party, and they are dismissed as fringe kooks from all sides. A nation in decline.....

I was all set to "agree" with this until you went off the rails with the TP, which is as bad an example of the same syndrome you were building on as there is.

Whether or not you agree does not diminish the truthfulness of what I said.

If you have sage knowledge of the Tea Party different than what the Tea Party promotes as their platform (discounting the parasitic fringe groups), then speak up. Otherwise you are just dismissing for dismissal sake.

Ain't about what the tea party "promotes"... it's about who promotes the tea party.

See the upper part of your own post sister nun-so-blind.

 

[Youch]

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.

Two good posts.

Corporatism is the root cause of the failure.....this has fueled dysfunction in both parties and, even worse, is fueling Statism. It has all grown too big, and the apparatus drifts further and further from our best interests. The only group speaking out about this nationally is the Tea Party, and they are dismissed as fringe kooks from all sides. A nation in decline.....

I was all set to "agree" with this until you went off the rails with the TP, which is as bad an example of the same syndrome you were building on as there is.

Whether or not you agree does not diminish the truthfulness of what I said.

If you have sage knowledge of the Tea Party different than what the Tea Party promotes as their platform (discounting the parasitic fringe groups), then speak up. Otherwise you are just dismissing for dismissal sake.

Ain't about what the tea party "promotes"... it's about who promotes the tea party.

See the upper part of your own post sister nun-so-blind.

Right, so you dismiss the philosophy due to the imperfections and parasites of those who may cling to it?

Am I to infer that in a perfect world, sans the barnacles, that you would support the Tea Party platform? That is what you just said, right?

For you it is the who, and not the what?

As I've kept stating, I think it is the what the matters......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

I agree with most of that.

Yes, people do fall along a spectrum of political points of view. After all, political parties do not define positions for all people. To your point, what on earth would a 3rd Party represent?

America.....

...as opposed to the people? Okay, based upon what set of principles?

America is the people....the principles are you put the welfare of the Country ahead of the party and its wants and your wants....and hopefully elect someone who is an actual leader.....who can rally the Country to come together and start getting things done that benefit all of us not just the right or the left or the special interests....

 

[Shanty]

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

Not really.

Voters normally have very few choices about "who they vote for."

For example, Presidential Debates.

How many third party candidates are invited to appear?

You make another interesting point about constitutionality and a "proportionally representative legislature." Do you know how many people each legislature represented when the constitution was written? Hint: It wasn't the nearly 800,000 constituents that it is today: How can any third party be distinguished in a heard like this? It cannot. This is hardly the representative government that the founders of the USA envisioned.

There are as many options as there are candidates on the ballot. But frankly, the third parties themselves don't put the work in, get the candidates to run, or get the votes, to be automatically one the ballot. They can gripe about the rules, but the fact is that even were the rules bent to accommodate them, they can't get traction. Then, when they caucus with the two larger parties, they just get swallowed by the ones they caucus with.

The third parties themselves don't put the work in, get the candidates to run, or get the votes, to be automatically on the ballot is my point.

When a district is composed of 800,000 people, it is impossible to assimilate the resources that established parties have at the state and district level. A third party could have a candidate, work their ass off, but until "the rules are bent to accommodate" more than the established party system, constituents can look forward to the choice between vanilla, and more vanilla.

Because smaller congressional districts greatly improve constituent monitoring of legislators and enhance legislators’ representation of constituent interests, most of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the states that ratified them) expected that the following principles would always apply:

• The size of the congressional districts should remain relatively small (e.g., no larger than 60,000). Instead, the average district size is approximately 700,000 and growing.
  
• The number of federal Representatives should grow proportionately with the general population. Instead, Congress has fixed the total number of Representatives at 435 ever since 1913.
  
• The Congressional districts should be equivalently sized across the nation pursuant to the one-person-one-vote principle. Instead, some House districts are currently nearly twice the size of others.

In fact, Federalist Papers 55 and 56 explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants

Even before the various states made those rules about petitions for third parties, they never got traction in the US, because the system we have only allows for two parties, for the most part.
And the Federalist Papers couldn't promise anything. Neither the Federalist or Anti-Federalist writings hold any legal weight. They are opinions.
I generally agree with making the districts smaller. How much, I don't know. Increasing the numbers of congresscritters would be a small addition to spending, overall.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

I agree with most of that.

Yes, people do fall along a spectrum of political points of view. After all, political parties do not define positions for all people. To your point, what on earth would a 3rd Party represent?

America.....

...as opposed to the people? Okay, based upon what set of principles?

America is the people....the principles are you put the welfare of the Country ahead of the party and its wants and your wants....and hopefully elect someone who is an actual leader.....who can rally the Country to come together and start getting things done that benefit all of us not just the right or the left or the special interests....

So you will agree neither modern party is acting on the best interests of the welfare of the country!!!

And rather than promote what is best, you promote capitulation (more of the same) in a third party?

 

[Synthaholic]

Increasing the numbers of congresscritters would be a small addition to spending, overall.

Hmmm.... you have to take their pensions, and all their freebies into account. Also, their careers as lobbyists after they leave office, and the damage they continue to do to the taxpayer. And don't forget that while they are in office, their wives, kids, etc. all get jobs with PR and lobbying firms.

I get the feeling that Congresscritters cost Americans a lot more than their yearly salary.

 

[Shanty]

Increasing the numbers of congresscritters would be a small addition to spending, overall.

Hmmm.... you have to take their pensions, and all their freebies into account. Also, their careers as lobbyists after they leave office, and the damage they continue to do to the taxpayer. And don't forget that while they are in office, their wives, kids, etc. all get jobs with PR and lobbying firms.

I get the feeling that Congresscritters cost Americans a lot more than their yearly salary.

The whole government sees about 15% of the budget spent on administering it. Congress and the White House don't take up a whole lot of that cost, overall.