What Party is this?

I cannot disagree on both counts Ollie and Mtn., in fact and this is just a thought here, does the Republican Party or Democrat Party actually represent the majority of Americans anymore? Perhaps thats a better question.



To be honest, if we were to have a serious third party, I doubt an party could capture the imaginations of 40% of the population.


Run offs could become a norm in most elections

Worst, how would the electoral college select a president?

On your first point, I don't think having runoff's because of a viable 3rd party is bad thing because it might tell both parties that they need play more towards the center than to the extreme left or the the extreme right. On your next point the electoral college will work the same way it does now, the states won by a 3rd party candidate will win the electors in that state, or in those states that parse them out they will when whatever percentage they capture.
 
If I'm not mistaken, there are a few items that would not sit well with the Libertarians.

I guess that number 3 could be a problem--throw it out,and who is left?
I doubt they take kindly to no. 12, either.

I do not think the A-libs would be too up in arms over a regulation that is useful to maintaining the system.

But then, I do not know what regulations the A-libs would embrace.(A-libs: Libertarians or American Libertarian)
 
I cannot disagree on both counts Ollie and Mtn., in fact and this is just a thought here, does the Republican Party or Democrat Party actually represent the majority of Americans anymore? Perhaps thats a better question.



To be honest, if we were to have a serious third party, I doubt an party could capture the imaginations of 40% of the population.


Run offs could become a norm in most elections

Worst, how would the electoral college select a president?

On your first point, I don't think having runoff's because of a viable 3rd party is bad thing because it might tell both parties that they need play more towards the center than to the extreme left or the the extreme right. On your next point the electoral college will work the same way it does now, the states won by a 3rd party candidate will win the electors in that state, or in those states that parse them out they will when whatever percentage they capture.

But to select a president, would he/she need 270 electoral votes? I suspect vote selling would become a requirement if the division does not give anyone the required number.
 
To be honest, if we were to have a serious third party, I doubt an party could capture the imaginations of 40% of the population.


Run offs could become a norm in most elections

Worst, how would the electoral college select a president?

On your first point, I don't think having runoff's because of a viable 3rd party is bad thing because it might tell both parties that they need play more towards the center than to the extreme left or the the extreme right. On your next point the electoral college will work the same way it does now, the states won by a 3rd party candidate will win the electors in that state, or in those states that parse them out they will when whatever percentage they capture.

But to select a president, would he/she need 270 electoral votes? I suspect vote selling would become a requirement if the division does not give anyone the required number.

Again there is even a mechanism for cases in which elections come down to not one candidate getting the required 270 votes. I personally don't see this as a bad thing myself and I have no doubt that the K Street types will be out in full force to influence whatever they can, however if people are to remind those in Washington D.C. who they work for a little pot stirring is needed every so often. Frankly arm, I'm actually a bit surprised when people advocate for change no matter what the party then turn around and elect the same people who have been in Washington to office over and over again and expect they will somehow morph into something else. If people want their Govt. back then they must eventually find a way to do so and accept the fact that there will be bumps along the way.
 
I cannot disagree on both counts Ollie and Mtn., in fact and this is just a thought here, does the Republican Party or Democrat Party actually represent the majority of Americans anymore? Perhaps thats a better question.



To be honest, if we were to have a serious third party, I doubt an party could capture the imaginations of 40% of the population.


Run offs could become a norm in most elections

Worst, how would the electoral college select a president?

Nothing would change with respect to the electoral college. Run offs would NOT be needed.
 
To be honest, if we were to have a serious third party, I doubt an party could capture the imaginations of 40% of the population.


Run offs could become a norm in most elections

Worst, how would the electoral college select a president?

On your first point, I don't think having runoff's because of a viable 3rd party is bad thing because it might tell both parties that they need play more towards the center than to the extreme left or the the extreme right. On your next point the electoral college will work the same way it does now, the states won by a 3rd party candidate will win the electors in that state, or in those states that parse them out they will when whatever percentage they capture.

But to select a president, would he/she need 270 electoral votes? I suspect vote selling would become a requirement if the division does not give anyone the required number.

No they don't. If a viable third party candidate took a majority of the States then that would allow enough electoral votes for that candidate to take the White House. The only thing 270 represents is a simple majority based on States won.
 
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States



Think that about sums it up.
 
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States



Think that about sums it up.

Yep, it does...no where does it reference 270.
 
Just a thought but I find the use of the word 'believes' rather funny, it makes government sort of faith based rather than goals or laws driven. The Constitution has few of these as that was written over 200 years ago, so we can hardly look there for answers to contemporary issues. Doesn't fit any government, number five is particularly confusing?

Disquisition on Government - John C. Calhoun


John C. Calhoun: Disquisition on Government
 
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States



Think that about sums it up.

Yep, it does...no where does it reference 270.

That is the majority number for two parties.

But if there is a two way tie for majority in a three way race--I guess they just eliminate the last guy and do a recount--then how would the minority group vote?

I think Navy said it best, they would have to remember why they are there and vote accordingly.
 
Just a thought but I find the use of the word 'believes' rather funny, it makes government sort of faith based rather than goals or laws driven. The Constitution has few of these as that was written over 200 years ago, so we can hardly look there for answers to contemporary issues. Doesn't fit any government, number five is particularly confusing?

Disquisition on Government - John C. Calhoun


John C. Calhoun: Disquisition on Government

I used the word "believes" to express what this party would see as their party's stance on issues. I could have used any number of words I suppose, but it seemed proper given the nature of the post. As for looking to the constitution for contemporary issues, I hate to break it to you, but that document is what limits. and gives our Govt. it's power so working with it's structure is very relevant to todays issues. The real problem happens when Govt. decides to step outside those limitations and powers.
 
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States



Think that about sums it up.

Yep, it does...no where does it reference 270.

That is the majority number for two parties.

But if there is a two way tie for majority in a three way race--I guess they just eliminate the last guy and do a recount--then how would the minority group vote?

I think Navy said it best, they would have to remember why they are there and vote accordingly.

Reread the article. The Constitution covers that contingency
 
Yep, it does...no where does it reference 270.

That is the majority number for two parties.

But if there is a two way tie for majority in a three way race--I guess they just eliminate the last guy and do a recount--then how would the minority group vote?

I think Navy said it best, they would have to remember why they are there and vote accordingly.

Reread the article. The Constitution covers that contingency


Just got through reading the article--The House decides. Thanks
 
That is the majority number for two parties.

But if there is a two way tie for majority in a three way race--I guess they just eliminate the last guy and do a recount--then how would the minority group vote?

I think Navy said it best, they would have to remember why they are there and vote accordingly.

Reread the article. The Constitution covers that contingency


Just got through reading the article--The House decides. Thanks

It's interesting that the founding fathers allowed for MORE THAN ONE PARTY yet we only have 2.
 
Reread the article. The Constitution covers that contingency


Just got through reading the article--The House decides. Thanks

It's interesting that the founding fathers allowed for MORE THAN ONE PARTY yet we only have 2.

I think that has more to do with how politics are handled.

Give the public an issue and ask "Are you for or against it". Throw in some prominent left/right winger to give their beliefs and opinions on the issue and the public tend to divide along those lines. Not much room for new ideas to enter it or middle ground if the issue is divisive.
 
Just got through reading the article--The House decides. Thanks

It's interesting that the founding fathers allowed for MORE THAN ONE PARTY yet we only have 2.

I think that has more to do with how politics are handled.

Give the public an issue and ask "Are you for or against it". Throw in some prominent left/right winger to give their beliefs and opinions on the issue and the public tend to divide along those lines. Not much room for new ideas to enter it or middle ground if the issue is divisive.

and therein lies the demise of a 3rd Party.
 
I sort of thought Libertarian somewhat especially when it comes to empowerment part.
Me too, but the Libertarians are not so hot on defense spending or any social entitlement spending, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect there are some Libertarians here who could better comment.

I do like the fundamentals of the Libertarians but we part ways where I am in favor of certain government spending and certain growth, in fact. And, the fact that I accept the need for some entitlement programs (but please, please, do them efficiently and effectively) is another area where we part ways.

Many libertarians, and especially those who are members of the Libertarian Party, believe that defense spending is the most important function of the federal government. The key word, however, is defense. We would not agree with occupying the rest of the world or waging wars we can't win.

You say you want government to run entitlement programs efficiently, but that's impossible. The government has no profit and loss motive and they waste resources because of that. That's why libertarians oppose these programs.

There are a few things libertarians would not agree with on this platform, so it's not the Libertarian Party. I'd say this platform is what the Republican Party claims to be, but always fails to live up to.
 

Forum List

Back
Top