Well, with the two sideshows now behind us, what can we expect from the Indys?
I'm certain that this thread will be nowhere near as entertaining as the DNC or RNC threads :)
Printable View
Well, with the two sideshows now behind us, what can we expect from the Indys?
I'm certain that this thread will be nowhere near as entertaining as the DNC or RNC threads :)
While I firmly believe a 3rd party, that could actually produce some electable candidates, would be a great thing, I don't see that happening this time around. If Bernie or Donald went that way maybe a 3rd party would have a chance in the future. The meek shall inherit the earth but they don't stand a chance against the wolves.
No doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Pups
We need a 'None of the Above' party. If that were a choice on the ballot, they would sweep most elections!
Before we get this thread started, please tell me what is an "Independent National Convention" ? :shrug:
Is it like a giant gun show or county fair ?
Ha, believe it or not I got that on a California proposition once. Of course after it had been rewritten by politicians it sounded like a waste of paper. Basically it went like this.
If a proposition is not presented to the people to vote on in such a way that they are sure they can vote with all the facts presented to them they can check a box that say's "try again" instead of just yes or no. This is back when the internet was nothing like it is today and the media completely controlled the minds of voters. On some issues it was impossible to find the other side of the story so to speak.
Today we are polluted with information that is spewed out by so called intellectuals and idiots with the same factual presentation and the same amount of value.
Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see and you can start to make sense of what is going on.
We have a lot of national parties in Canada, not all of them make sense and some that make a lot of sense don't get a large following because we are often voting for one party because we want to prevent another party from taking power, and not voting for who we think will do the best job simply because they won't get enough seats to take the big office. There is a party that have a great platform and really smart people but the name of the party is so stupid that most people don't even listen to what they have to say because The Marijuana Party just sounds like a bunch of stoners. Federal politics here is quite different and full of polarization too.
I would expect that they would also vote on a party platform and other party business, possibly nominate candidates to run for president and vice president of usa. Then they won't win any national office, may be split at some point, but generally remain in obscurity for the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelbro
For those that like to look like me. ;)
2016 Libertarian National Convention
It was held May 26–30, 2016 in Orlando, Florida.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_L...nal_Convention
Hmmm I missed that one.
[edit1 - oops. wrong convention]
United States presidential nominating conventions
Third-party conventions since 1872
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ing_convention
Same here where we have about 20 or so parties in the national politics alone. I never been that interested to count the exact number. Not to talk about the parties involved in provincial and/or county elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by RezDog
Of those small parties there are names like Pirate and Whiskey parties. Actually those two are small liberal democratic groups with an agenda to strenghen the rights of individual citizen against state. Quite sensible, imho, but choosing such names they made sure they never grow big enough to get into parlament.
Another example, luckily now already dead was National Independence Party. Sounds patriotic but actually it was just pro-Russia hard line communists. By choosing such name they counted that people would be stupid enough to put their vote basing only on nice, patriotic name and not caring about the agenda.
Still, the strangest party there was about 20 years ago was Yoga Flyers :) Obviously they never reached the parliament. I have no idea about their agenda nor interest to waste my precious time trying to find out.
Here in USA in Massachusetts elections there are frequently people with last name Kennedy who aren't politicians or part of the Kennedy dynasty who register on the ballots, don't campaign or anything and get a decent number of votes just based on the name recognition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
A couple of years ago in Arizona there was a guy named Scott Fistler who really wanted to be a congressman - ran few times as a republican and it didn't work for him, so he switched parties and changed his name to a famous civil rights and labor leader. He was disqualified from running because many of the signatures he obtained were deemed as invalid.
We have a very sensible mostly middle of the road party called the Green Party. The have a few seats and have been at it for many years. It is unfortunate that we are always worried about either the Liberals or the Conservatives getting office, and the power always bounces back and forth between the two. The Democrats had a leader that was sure to slam it out of the park but got sick and died very quickly and just before the election. They have not had a hope since.
The 3rd party standard bearer ain't no prize. Johnson was Governor of this state. He's a rich guy who made his money in the construction business and is basically a guy with some crazy ideas when you get to the nitty gritty.
Au contraire mon ami! This thread has the potential to be much more entertaining and even more constructive. The independent candidates should be explaining to their direct constituents what we should expect from them if elected. That's the whole point of the process and in my opinion would be the best way for us to elect officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelbro
If we're talking about an independent candidate then they wouldn't actually be a party. In fact that would work against the ideal and we would end up with more of the same. I agree that the right independent candidates could make a significant change to the political landscape. With enough of them in all the races "we the people" could become the wolves instead of the sheep. A collective of independent representatives at all levels of government is exactly what we need.Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Pups
But that would make it a party and that's where the slippery slope begins. Removing the party system could be our only chance to make real change that's truly reflective of the majority of citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelbro
Ah no. The former doesn't exist. The latter 2 do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirlau
I assume this was tongue in cheek as of course this would just make them another party and that's where the problems begin.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Nope, I was talking about the convention of these folks which I assumed is upcoming since they have a list of potential presidential nominees on the website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenngun
Am familiar with this group. I didn't interpret the OP's original post and thread title to mean this group. I guess we should ask so OP if you're reading this can you clarify for us. Did you mean true independent candidates or the group Gugi referenced above?Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Was not aware of that group...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenngun