Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
..and the male domination has not exactly all been good either. There have been some great world leaders of the opposite sex.

Exactly one

(Thatcher)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Some beg to differ...

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: You're joking, right? Voting for either party is throwing away your vote, even though one of them will win? Whereas voting third party is not a waste, even though your vote will be going to somebody who will get maybe 5% of the vote in a good year?

And voting your conscience is only if they vote how you say they should vote?

Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

IF there was a chance for actual change... good change, you'd have a point. But alas, there is not so you don't. A third party vote is the epitome of a wasted vote. Just like my write in vote. I get it. You don't.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

IF there was a chance for actual change... good change, you'd have a point. But alas, there is not so you don't. A third party vote is the epitome of a wasted vote. Just like my write in vote. I get it. You don't.

With that attitude there will never be change. Fatalist.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

IF there was a chance for actual change... good change, you'd have a point. But alas, there is not so you don't. A third party vote is the epitome of a wasted vote. Just like my write in vote. I get it. You don't.

No, what I get and you don't is that if people keep saying "I'm a third party proponent and the system is broken" and then continue to vote for one of the two major parties, we'll NEVER have a "chance for actual change". I guess the difference is I believe we COULD have change. You don't. Klammy is right...you're a fatalist.

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: IF there was a chance for actual change... good change, you'd have a point. But alas, there is not so you don't. A third party vote is the epitome of a wasted vote. Just like my write in vote. I get it. You don't.

No, what I get and you don't is that if people keep saying "I'm a third party proponent and the system is broken" and then continue to vote for one of the two major parties, we'll NEVER have a "chance for actual change". I guess the difference is I believe we COULD have change. You don't. Klammy is right...you're a fatalist.

It's not like it's close guys. It's been 26 years since Ross Perot got almost 19% of the vote. Nothing has been close since. Last year all the third party together didn't crack 6%.

Now, IF a Republican runs as an independent this year, I would expect a better than average year, but don't look for anyone to crack 5% on their own. You say fatalist, I say realist.

Could change... sure. I could also win the lottery.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
No, what I get and you don't is that if people keep saying "I'm a third party proponent and the system is broken" and then continue to vote for one of the two major parties, we'll NEVER have a "chance for actual change". I guess the difference is I believe we COULD have change. You don't. Klammy is right...you're a fatalist.

It's not like it's close guys. It's been 26 years since Ross Perot got almost 19% of the vote. Nothing has been close since. Last year all the third party together didn't crack 6%.

Now, IF a Republican runs as an independent this year, I would expect a better than average year, but don't look for anyone to crack 5% on their own. You say fatalist, I say realist.

Could change... sure. I could also win the lottery.

I certainly doesn't help that politics as an industry has made it nearly impossible for a competitor to take root and grow.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
No, what I get and you don't is that if people keep saying "I'm a third party proponent and the system is broken" and then continue to vote for one of the two major parties, we'll NEVER have a "chance for actual change". I guess the difference is I believe we COULD have change. You don't. Klammy is right...you're a fatalist.

It's not like it's close guys. It's been 26 years since Ross Perot got almost 19% of the vote. Nothing has been close since. Last year all the third party together didn't crack 6%.

Now, IF a Republican runs as an independent this year, I would expect a better than average year, but don't look for anyone to crack 5% on their own. You say fatalist, I say realist.

Could change... sure. I could also win the lottery.

What % of people do you think vote major party but would vote 3rd party if (like you) they thought "they had a chance for actual change"?

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: It's not like it's close guys. It's been 26 years since Ross Perot got almost 19% of the vote. Nothing has been close since. Last year all the third party together didn't crack 6%.

Now, IF a Republican runs as an independent this year, I would expect a better than average year, but don't look for anyone to crack 5% on their own. You say fatalist, I say realist.

Could change... sure. I could also win the lottery.

What % of people do you think vote major party but would vote 3rd party if (like you) they thought "they had a chance for actual change"?

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What % of people do you think vote major party but would vote 3rd party if (like you) they thought "they had a chance for actual change"?

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

I’d be on board with ranked choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

I’d be on board with ranked choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What % of people do you think vote major party but would vote 3rd party if (like you) they thought "they had a chance for actual change"?

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

I'd be fine with ranked choice in primaries, but I don't think it would make any difference in the actual Presidential election. Besides, it ends up giving the eventual winner even more of a mandate (the "see, I had more than 50% of the vote, people really wanted me" vibe). This past election was a perfect example - both Hillary and Trump were terrible candidates - why do we want a system that bestows any more mandate on the winner of that election than what they already had? Ranked voting kinda covers over the ugly warts of an election and shines it up to look pretty.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

I'd be fine with ranked choice in primaries, but I don't think it would make any difference in the actual Presidential election. Besides, it ends up giving the eventual winner even more of a mandate (the "see, I had more than 50% of the vote, people really wanted me" vibe). This past election was a perfect example - both Hillary and Trump were terrible candidates - why do we want a system that bestows any more mandate on the winner of that election than what they already had? Ranked voting kinda covers over the ugly warts of an election and shines it up to look pretty.

But it might make a difference in getting other members elected. Need to start there.

Cumulative voting would actually give a third or fourth party a better shot at winning seats in the House.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I’d be on board with ranked choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.

I think the concept is intriguing. I could have had a ballot that looked something like this:

1) Gary Johnson
2) Willie Nelson
3) Donald Duck
4) Mickey Mouse
5) Kid Rock
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99) Donald Trump
100) Hildabeast

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Same here.

I think the concept is intriguing. I could have had a ballot that looked something like this:

1) Gary Johnson
2) Willie Nelson
3) Donald Duck
4) Mickey Mouse
5) Kid Rock
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99) Donald Trump
100) Hildabeast

Hence the idea that Trump still would've won and he could've claimed a more than 50% mandate.

dbackjon wrote:Cumulative voting would actually give a third or fourth party a better shot at winning seats in the House.

Sure, but in some cases it would be someone's second or third choice, which doesn't really mean they'd want those candidates either. I've seen Parliamentary governments, I really wouldn't want one of those here.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I think the concept is intriguing. I could have had a ballot that looked something like this:

1) Gary Johnson
2) Willie Nelson
3) Donald Duck
4) Mickey Mouse
5) Kid Rock
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99) Donald Trump
100) Hildabeast

Hence the idea that Trump still would've won and he could've claimed a more than 50% mandate.

Can he really claim a "mandate" if it takes 99 ballots to get him one?

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Cumulative voting would actually give a third or fourth party a better shot at winning seats in the House.

Sure, but in some cases it would be someone's second or third choice, which doesn't really mean they'd want those candidates either. I've seen Parliamentary governments, I really wouldn't want one of those here.

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure, but in some cases it would be someone's second or third choice, which doesn't really mean they'd want those candidates either. I've seen Parliamentary governments, I really wouldn't want one of those here.

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

“Since we aren’t a parliamentary system, I love everything about it.”

- Houndawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: It's not like it's close guys. It's been 26 years since Ross Perot got almost 19% of the vote. Nothing has been close since. Last year all the third party together didn't crack 6%.

Now, IF a Republican runs as an independent this year, I would expect a better than average year, but don't look for anyone to crack 5% on their own. You say fatalist, I say realist.

Could change... sure. I could also win the lottery.

What % of people do you think vote major party but would vote 3rd party if (like you) they thought "they had a chance for actual change"?

10

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure, but in some cases it would be someone's second or third choice, which doesn't really mean they'd want those candidates either. I've seen Parliamentary governments, I really wouldn't want one of those here.

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

I don't like narrow-minded, single-issue political groups. For all of their warts, I prefer the bigger umbrella political parties that bring those groups together. Or do you actually like political parties like the UKIP? The Weimar Republic and the flip flop coalitions are other great examples of the wonder of Parliamentary systems. I'll take our setup, warts and all.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure, but in some cases it would be someone's second or third choice, which doesn't really mean they'd want those candidates either. I've seen Parliamentary governments, I really wouldn't want one of those here.

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

It’s unconstitutional in federal elections, but other than that...

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Then support ranked choice or cumulative voting

I'd be fine with ranked choice in primaries, but I don't think it would make any difference in the actual Presidential election. .

I think the last Presidential election is an example of one in which it could have made a difference. Trump did not get a majority of the vote in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. And the margins were extremely close in those States. What if people who did not vote for either major Party candidate in those States had been able to indicate a second choice that would've gotten their vote if nobody got at least 50%? Not implausible at all that it could've made a difference.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

I don't like narrow-minded, single-issue political groups. For all of their warts, I prefer the bigger umbrella political parties that bring those groups together. Or do you actually like political parties like the UKIP? The Weimar Republic and the flip flop coalitions are other great examples of the wonder of Parliamentary systems. I'll take our setup, warts and all.

No, I like our system better. However, the reality is we have single interest parties that are in a coalition to govern - Groups like the Freedom Caucus are no different than the UKIP, and have a disproportionate control over the GOP.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

It’s unconstitutional in federal elections, but other than that...

There is the Amendment process.


And cite where you think it is unconstitutional