The United States is one of the only countries in the world that is controlled by 2 parties. Aside from a handful of minor political players, every single member of government belongs to either the Republican or Democratic Parties. Almost every other modern democratic country in the world has at least three viable political parties. Obviously, it would take either a massive grassroots effort, possibly to the detriment of one or both of the existing parties, or the abolishment of the Electoral College in order to create a viable third party in America.

What would the country stand to gain from a move like this?

What would we lose?

What would be the major ideological difference that could set it apart from the existing two parties?

Would other countries benefit from a two-party system, or is it best that each individual country handle their business as only they see fit?

Is the Electoral College really the only thing standing in the way of this happening?

10/27/2008 10:53:05 AM

Quote :

"Is the Electoral College really the only thing standing in the way of this happening?"

No, the Republicans and Democrats in power are standing in the way of this happening.

The good news is that I could see the Republican party splitting over the next few years. Hell, the Republican brand image is shit right now and the tent is straining at it's seams trying to keep fiscal and social conservatives together. A break between the 2 might be beneficial for them and the country. A return of the Tories in the US, perhaps? How that would shake out is anybodies guess, but it would be an uphill battle to transition into a multi-party, coalition government.

10/27/2008 11:00:01 AM

I dont know any of the answers to your questions except that I agree with the premise. I am tired of the 2 dominating parties that polarize each other to the point of ridiculousness.

10/27/2008 11:00:37 AM

No. Abolishing the electoral college would do nothing towards ending the duopoly. What we would need to do is abolish first-past the poll and replace it with something like instant run-off voting. Only then would voting for a third party not hurt your preferences.

The best way to go multiparty in the extreme is proportional elections. If your party got 2% of the votes then you get 2% of the seats in congress.

All these other systems would be compatible with the electoral college and as elections are still managed by state government I would strongly recommend we keep the electoral college.

10/27/2008 11:02:20 AM

Quote :

"The good news is that I could see the Republican party splitting over the next few years. Hell, the Republican brand image is shit right now and the tent is straining at it's seams trying to keep fiscal and social conservatives together. A break between the 2 might be beneficial for them and the country. A return of the Tories in the US, perhaps? How that would shake out is anybodies guess, but it would be an uphill battle to transition into a multi-party, coalition government."

the Republican brand is shit right now, kinda like the Dems a few years before. the shine comes and goes.

I think there is equal chance for a split in the Dems between the hard line left (daily kos) and the more moderate left. 4 parties is a possibility.

10/27/2008 11:02:29 AM

Quote :

"What would the country stand to gain from a move like this? "

competition. This is good.

Quote :

"What would we lose?"

Extremism. Potential loss of shitty politicians due to competition.

Quote :

"What would be the major ideological difference that could set it apart from the existing two parties?"

A Viable third party would be between the two extremes. Lower taxes, smaller fed, + less involvement of the fed in social issues.

Quote :

"Would other countries benefit from a two-party system, or is it best that each individual country handle their business as only they see fit?"

I think it would benefit any country in general, but its really going to be on a per country basis. You could have one party that everyone in a country really likes. Not the case in the US.

Quote :

"Is the Electoral College really the only thing standing in the way of this happening?"

the electoral collage has nothing to do with why we have a 2 party system.

We have a two party system because the two parties gerrymander themselves into power + the media ignores 3rd parties. In addition, our current system of one vote per person makes people less likely to "waste" it on a 3rd party.

A system where you rank the candidates in order of preference would fix the system. If we have Party A and Party B who are the dominate parties, but i really like the candidate for party C I could rank them
1. Candidate C
2. Candidate A
3. Candidate B

If my choice of candidate C doesn't get enough support, my support for candidate A over Candidate B is still counted. Therefore voting for C is no longer a wasted vote.

10/27/2008 11:05:25 AM

If a third party were to form, there would be a lot of upheaval in the political system for a couple of decades. I would envision the Christian fundamentalists becoming their own party (the thought is scary, I know) and the rest of the party splitting into Libertarians at the voting level and moderates at the political level. Democrats would likely win the next couple of Presidential elections, providing a much needed balancing to the center, until they broke into a left-wing Socialist party and the rest were slowly siphoned off into the moderates. I can't imagine any more major parties sprouting up. The green party would grab some power, but not a whole lot probably.

What would happen at the political level is a little bit harder to predict. What is it that happens if no Presidential candidate is elected outright? Doesn't the HoR vote then? That would turn our President into a Prime Minister of sorts, with the elected politicians voting someone in. That would be scary too because one of the biggest gains to be made out of a system like this would be the Christian Right who could possibly have the biggest representation in the House. But it's all too hard to predict.

10/27/2008 11:08:16 AM

What would the country stand to gain from a move like this?
A lot. I think we would have a less extremist political system than we do now. Currently there is no reason to really appeal to the middle ground as much because most people either attach themselves to one side or the other, and as we become more polarized in our views we tend to elect those who show themselves having the most extreme alignment with those views. If we had a third party i think it would provide opportunity for those people who say "i believe in these 3 days with this party and not these other 3 things but i'm going to vote for them anyways." middle ground could be achieved more readily and i think that would do us good. Also the way the system is designed right now complete party dominance is the goal of both parties. One party controlling all branches of government and a greatly diminished balance of power. Voters are so brainwashed by the two party system that we just usher it in. This is why I never vote straight ticket.

What would we lose?
Nothing really. except for extremist on either side feeling as compelled to vote as they once did. but thats not a bad loss.

What would be the major ideological difference that could set it apart from the existing two parties?

That to be a fiscal conservative does not mean that you are also socially conservative. Even now there are some moderate republicans who are really turned off by the uber religious movement of the right who basically act as a theocracy. comparatively there are those on the left who are frustrated with the nambi pambi ultra liberal as well, but i don't think they're as equally put of as those on the right are by the ultra socially conservative.

Would other countries benefit from a two-party system, or is it best that each individual country handle their business as only they see fit?
Each country should handle their business as they see fit (a lesson america could learn), but i still don't think they would benefit from a two party system for the same reasons i suggested in the first question.

Is the Electoral College really the only thing standing in the way of this happening?
As was said earlier by someone else, its the two parties who are keeping this from happening. especially since they make it almost impossible for you to get in debate time and people are so attached to left and right that the other candidates have a hard time getting funding. The two parties don't want to let go because that means letting go of some of their power, and that is the antithesis of what they want to do.

10/27/2008 11:13:06 AM

This is a very touchy issue for me.

I think having more than two parties would be a very good thing. I think having more than perhaps five parties would be a very bad thing.

Our American system has a number of flaws that have been pointed out several times in this thread, but then, on the other extreme, you've got places like Italy, which might as well have a political party for ever 3.2 citizens. There are plenty of countries with parliamentary chaos and frequent leadership crises caused by an overabundance of parties. Plus, it's common enough in those circumstances that the many factions come together in coalitions that are just more flexible versions of our two-party system.

I think the best plan is a moderate relaxation of most ballot standards -- reduce the number of votes a party has to get before it can be on the ballot, etc. Tweak public financing for elections to be equitable in that regard.

Quote :

"The good news is that I could see the Republican party splitting over the next few years."

I can see this, too, and frankly it's something I wouldn't lose too much sleep over. I think that after a split the Christian-conservative element would wither somewhat while the more "fiscal" brand would get an influx from lukewarm Libertarians and conservative Democrats. It'd be a rough couple of election cycles, but I think the outcome would please me immensely.

---

To the OP:

Quote :

"What would the country stand to gain from a move like this?"

Choice, competition, greater nuance of opinions. It's easier to vote your conscience on the issues that matter most to you without simultaneously voting against your conscience on other issues.

Quote :

"What would we lose?"

We'd have the potential to lose stability, both because of greater fluctuations and range of ideologies in the long term but also because our system, as it exists now, is really refined to handling two parties but in a lot of ways isn't equipped for more. It would need an overhaul, which in the short term confuses things.

People talk about losing "polarity" and whatnot, but remember to look at England. The parties all scream at each other there, you just have more variety in your screams.

Quote :

"What would be the major ideological difference that could set it apart from the existing two parties?"

Probably government size and involvement. On either end of the spectrum as we understand it, there's serious room to move from the relatively centrist stance that the main parties occupy. On the one hand there's libertarians who want to gut the government and shrink it as much as possible, and on the other there are (believe it or not) real-life socialists who want a major, permament expansion. Various issues -- gay marriage, taxes, whathever -- would differ along predictable lines, but that would be symptomatic of the larger difference.

Quote :

"Would other countries benefit from a two-party system, or is it best that each individual country handle their business as only they see fit? "

I don't think it's an either-or question. Certainly we shouldn't start telling countries to get a two party system, but there are places where that might be preferable to their current situation. Obviously enough nations with one-party governments would probably be better off with a two-party system. There's also places where it might be better than the overabundance of factions currently in place.

10/27/2008 1:51:44 PM

Quote :

"People talk about losing "polarity" and whatnot, but remember to look at England. The parties all scream at each other there, you just have more variety in your screams. "

yeah, I agree with this statement. A multi-party, coalition style government typically features endless bickering and lots of turmoil.

10/27/2008 1:58:22 PM

I don't know how that would work in the United States since we're a geographically large country. There's bound to be a lot of disparity between say life in Seattle and life in Kansas. I don't think it would be outside the realm of possibility that the country split into seperate nations if this happened.

10/27/2008 2:01:34 PM

Nobody wants to split into separate nations though.

This isn't the USSR where the nation is being held together by sheer force.

10/27/2008 2:21:24 PM

I think you underestimate how much some of the right completely despise the left.

10/27/2008 2:24:38 PM

A lot of hate comes from the left as well, but I think you're exaggerating.


Nobody with any sort of say in the matter wants to break off from the Union. thats crazy talk.

10/27/2008 2:26:14 PM

^ tell that to Todd Palin lol

10/27/2008 2:30:21 PM

I don't know. I think this election shows what the right will tell themselves in order to win. Lots of people actually want to kill Obama and many, many others have made themselves believe complete lies about him. Plus some of those people actually believe in this "Real America, Fake America" bullshit. You're seriously underestimating a lot of these people. It's not all of them, but there are a shitload of them and they're making themselves known.

10/27/2008 2:32:28 PM

Agreed. It goes both ways too: remember how there were many left-leaning types who'd talk about moving to Canada, ceding to Canada, etc. during the Bush administration? Same type of mentality just from the other end of the spectrum.

As for proportional representation, I don't think it'll make a huge difference in the end. You'll still probably have two dominant parties (Democrats, Republicans) with a bunch of tiny splinter parties (Greens, Libertarians, religious party, maybe a Socialist/Labor party). One of the two big parties will achieve plurality and then court a traditional ally to form a coalition government which will look likely look very similar to the main parties we have right now. A coalition government of Democrats, Greens, and Labor? Democrats leaning on leftist factions to come to office? Republicans forging a coalition with Religious Conservatives to create a coalition?

In the end, I don't think it'll really change things.

Also, when we look at other nations with parliamentary systems and/or proportional representation elections, its usually still a horse race between two large parties with the small splinters joining up with small parties which tend to hang out on their end of the spectrum. British Labor in coalition with the Greens to fend off the Conservatives. Japanese LDP and DPJ with a moderate Komeito propping up the LDP.

As for defending two parties, the only thing I can think of off hand is that a two party setup provides a constant and continuous opposition. A lot of times, I've seen a parliamentary setup where the ruling coalition dominates the government and the opposition puts up an ineffectual fight because the various opposition parties are too splintered to fight back. Not a strong reason, but it is one I suppose.

10/27/2008 3:34:44 PM

It would likely take a complete alteration of the US voting system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Quote :

"A two-party system often develops from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties."

10/27/2008 3:47:47 PM

If we moved to a multi party system, I can see several forming.

Libertarian of course, would attract people from both current parties.

Socialist, would obviously attract people only from the Democratic party

The Green party would probably expand

A Christian left party would attract plenty of people from both parties (Christians who vote republican because of social issues, Christians who vote democrat because they believe in helping the unfortunate)

Neocons who believe in proactively protecting America's interests

10/29/2008 10:43:45 PM

Quote :

"WINNER TAKE ALL"

10/29/2008 11:06:02 PM

Quote :

" As for defending two parties, the only thing I can think of off hand is that a two party setup provides a constant and continuous opposition."

Not just continuous, but well-funded. The fact that individual parties can spend and raise multi hundreds of millions for a single election allows them to compete nationally and have a single, consistent, national brand and message. That tends to be very powerful for keeping that "continuous opposition" in place, especially in a country as large as the U.S.

Overall it seems very hard for the U.S. to have a single, nationwide political system without the winner-takes-all system. The country is just too damned big. It's easier for small parties to stay competitive in Europe where the countries tend to be smaller markets that require less big media spending to project messages.

I tend to think even if we did go proportional/multi-party, the coalitions would pool money in a similar way as the two-party system now. Maybe there would be more voices, the purse strings would talk loudest.

10/30/2008 2:37:52 AM

It is inevitable that the republican party will split, and it will all be John McCain's fault for his poor choice in running mate. Sarah Palin has plenty of support within the party, but not enough to go forward as the main leader. Its not hard to believe that she would split from the party and take the Christian right with her.

10/30/2008 3:18:50 AM

^riiiigggghhhttttt

10/30/2008 4:06:03 AM

gonna bump this thread as a place to talk about the Forward Party, since this is really what they're really all about (not Yang and not 2024 Presidential races)

here's a quick video explaining what the Forward Party is actually about. production values aren't great but it's concise and to the point



[Edited on July 29, 2022 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2022 2:14:29 PM

I'm down if we can have ranked choice

Unfortunately the people rarely get what they want

7/29/2022 3:18:50 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately the people rarely get what they want"

I get it, but that's the thing that needs to change right. The reason why we're so accustomed to not getting what we want, is because our political system has stagnated. so, in order to get what we want, we have to revitalize our political process so that the government will be more responsive to serving the needs and interests of the public.

This is why the majority of the Forward Party's focus is on electoral reforms like RCV and open primaries. If we change the structural incentives of our politics, then that will re-open the door to policy responsiveness across the board

[Edited on July 29, 2022 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2022 3:21:36 PM

Quote :

"I don’t get how this story of the evil Dems cheating the Green Party out of ballot access just continues to perpetuate. Everyone laughed it up when all those GOP gubernatorial candidates in Michigan got booted from the ballot for signature fraud. The NC Green Party was using the exact same contractor. They shouldn’t get a free pass from following the law."

If we really value democracy and the rights of citizens to vote for candidates and parties they align with, then we have to use our critical thinking skills and not just default to laughing it up when some political opponent gets knocked down, especially when they are knocked down by a party that has a conflict of interest in the matter. The Dem-led NCSBE talks about a "cloud" over NCGP signatures, well there's an even bigger cloud over their own behavior in contesting the NCGP's petition for ballot access. Very sus, as the kids these days might say.

If there was indeed sufficient fraud to disqualify the NC Green party from ballot access, or they didn't follow the procedures correctly, so be it. But we have to look at the actual evidence or else we're just useless partisans.

So from what I've gathered, here's what happened:

May 17 - last day to gather and submit ballot access signatures to county boards of election. At this point, Matthew Hoh's campaign has been working for months to gather signatures across the entire state, almost entirely via volunteer efforts. 13,865 are required to appear on the ballot. Ultimately, they submitted more than 22k signatures.

May 31
County boards of elections have officially validated more than the 13,865 signatures required.

June 25
Evidence emerges that the DSCC has been calling, texting and even visiting people door to door trying to get people to revoke their signature. Sometimes even lying about who they are contacting them on behalf of, some saying they are with the Green Party of the NC Secretary of State (which has nothing to do with elections in NC).

https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1540044398473482242
https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1540745516169961472
https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1542224549865033728
https://twitter.com/chantellelmiles/status/1542571133613903873
https://twitter.com/james_roe/status/1552141205294632960

If we're going to care about fraud on behalf of hired contractors, we should care even more about this kind of fraud, which is partisan in nature (whereas the contractors are probably just some poor souls who took the job for a paycheck and didn't treat the work with the care it required).

June 30
The NCSBE denies the Green Party ballot access.

At this point, the Green Party had over 15,900 signatures approved by county election boards, which is 2,000 more than was required.

Of the ~22.5k signatures submitted, NCSBE highlighted 3 individuals from the contractor in question who collected 1472 signatures, of which 624 were accepted.

On the NCSBE call when this decision is made, the lawyer for the Green Party asks if any of the 15,953 validated signatures are in question, the chair of the board ignores the question and mutes him on the call. (this btw is not the first time Damon Circosta has used his position as chair in a manner contrary to the public good)

So now, a month has passed. A month is pretty crucial for a campaign, especially when there's only 3 months left before the general. One could argue that the press the NCGP has been able to generate over the last month may have actually boosted their chances, should they get on the ballot. The NCSBE is meeting Monday morning https://dl.ncsbe.gov/index.html?prefix=State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2022-08-01/

I'm not under any delusion that Matthew Hoh is going to win the Senate seat, and I don't plan on voting for him myself. But I am concerned that the Democrats are playing dirty in an effort to protect Cheri Beasley in a tight race.

And this isn't the first time the Dems have played dirty. We all know how the Dems treated Bernie and his wing in 2016 and 2020. Dems are out there this year spending donor money to boost extreme MAGA candidates in GOP primaries in hope that it'll give them an edge in the general. See Doug Mastriano in PA. and I know the GOP plays even dirtier. It's dirty either way, and this kind of behavior is why institutional trust among the public has eroded over the last several decades to the point where according to latest Gallup polls, over 60% of Americans think neither Dem or GOP do an adequate job and that a third major party is needed.

We can acknowledge that the GOP is a nightmare, but also that the Democrats suck ass too, and work toward something better. And it's because they have both cemented their place in the US political environment, and they can get away with sidelining any competition, whether it's progressives within the Dem party, or any number of third parties.

If you think about our political system in the abstract rather than as the teams that we all know and love/hate, then you will see that the structure of our democracy can inevitably lead to various outcomes (Buttigieg had an infamous quote along these lines that got mocked to death). Just think about it like a thermodynamic system. It will reach an equilibrium according to the laws that govern the system. In our case with single ballot, plurality-rule, first-past-the-post, we end up with the duopoly we have now (duverger's law, as mentioned above), and now we find ourselves with a toxic GOP and a feckless Dem party that gets 10x as much done for corporations and the wealthy than it does the for the people. We all know it, and more and more Americans are sick of all of it, but we're held captive to the Dems because the GOP is so much worse.

This is just like when businesses either resist or embrace government regulation. like every organization, they will follow their incentives. regulations get in your way? then regulations are bad. have a sufficiently secure position in your market? then let's have more regulations to keep out new entrants. Just like Trump tried to cast doubt over the elections and throw out valid electors in order to achieve his goal of winning an election, the Dems in this case are using ballot access law as a tool to cast doubt over the NCGP's right to be on the ballot and invalidate their entire petition, because they have calculated that it would help their chances in Cheri Beasley's election. In both cases, each party ends up demonstrating a willingness to cast aside their integrity when the stakes for their own incentives are high enough, and they think they can get away with it.

I get the concern about the spoiler effect. But the solution cannot be to deny the rights of citizens who want to vote for something new. Who is the bigger danger to our democracy - a million people who want to vote for something other than Dem/GOP, or the 70+ million people that voted for Trump? We would never suggest it would be ok in the United States of America, the oldest democracy on Earth, to deprive GOP voters of their right to vote for who they want. It's 100% unfortunate they want to vote for Trump, but it is their right as Americans to do so. And we should be thoughtful enough to understand why they may want to do so so that we can adjust our own course and provide them with a saner alternative that they can be proud to embrace. we should also not deprive supporters of minor parties the right to cast their vote the way they wish, just because it would be easier to get away with it.

The solution for Democrats must be to run candidates that are so amazing, and to have such a strong track record of working in the public's interest, that the presence of some other party earning 1% of the vote doesn't even matter. It's not anybody else's fault but the Democrats that Cheri Beasley is mostly uninspiring. and to be clear, I have donated to her campaign and will almost certainly vote for her because even the corparateyist of corporate Dems is still far better than 99% of today's GOP. But I'd like to be able to vote for the candidates I support the most, rather than making viability calculations in our current FPTP system. And most Americans would like to be able to do the same.

And so, again, my main point in this thread, is NOT about the Forward Party, or Andrew Yang.

The point is that if we want to reverse this downward slide we've been on, we have got to find a way to introduce some new life into the political system. Ranked Choice Voting isn't perfect, but it absolutely adds some structural reform and realigns the incentives in a way that could be a huge boost to straightening out our politics.



[Edited on July 30, 2022 at 3:16 PM. Reason : https://www.betterballotnc.org/]

7/30/2022 2:26:09 PM

Quote :

"Evidence emerges that the DSCC has been calling, texting and even visiting people door to door trying to get people to revoke their signature. Sometimes even lying about who they are contacting them on behalf of, some saying they are with the Green Party of the NC Secretary of State (which has nothing to do with elections in NC). https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1540044398473482242 https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1540745516169961472 https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1542224549865033728 https://twitter.com/chantellelmiles/status/1542571133613903873 https://twitter.com/james_roe/status/1552141205294632960"

If you're going to use the Green Party's nominee twitter feed as a source of truth, is there really a point to having this discussion?

Regardless, the DSCC is verifying signatures, they've said this.

Quote :

"As for the texts and phone calls people are receiving, DSCC spokesperson Amanda Sherman said they are continuing to reach out to people to validate their signatures on the ballot."

Also, keep in mind, the issues found by Elias Law Group (group representing the DSCC) were submitted under penalty of perjury and also had numerous official declarations by people who had signed the Green Party petition wishing to removed from it because they signed under false pretenses

See the documentation here https://www.wfae.org/politics/2022-07-07/n-c-green-party-rejection-sparks-claims-of-unfair-undermining-by-national-democrats

Quote :

"We all know how the Dems treated Bernie and his wing in 2016 and 2020."

Yes, how dare the Dems treat Bernie poorly by not showing up at the polls to vote for him.

7/30/2022 5:39:50 PM

Quote :

" May 17 - last day to gather and submit ballot access signatures to county boards of election. At this point, Matthew Hoh's campaign has been working for months to gather signatures across the entire state, almost entirely via volunteer efforts. 13,865 are required to appear on the ballot. Ultimately, they submitted more than 22k signatures. May 31 County boards of elections have officially validated more than the 13,865 signatures required. "

The county boards approved 16,000 votes, in other words there was a 25+% rejection rate on the signatures right out of the gate. That’s enormous. Note that it was around the end of May when news broke of all the signature fraud being exposed in Michigan. The Green Party was using the same contractor in some cases.

Given that evidence of impropriety, the Dems started back checking the NCGP’s work. Hoh gives evidence of people misrepresenting themselves, not a great look, but he never mentions the people the Dems found that claim they never signed the NCGP’s ballot access and other fraud uncovered. Is the expectation that Democrats should just trust their opponents integrity, or just let election fraud slide b/c our 2-party system is flawed? Na, Dems are allowed to expose the criminality of their opponents, hell, we should be thanking them.

I think rejecting their ballot access was the right thing to do given the evidence produced so far. The NCSBE couldn’t determine the extent of the fraud but indications are it was widespread. We’ll see how this situation shakes out in courts, but I think the NCSBE has the receipts and someone might end up indicted.

Quote :

"We can acknowledge that the GOP is a nightmare, but also that the Democrats suck ass too, and work toward something better. And it's because they have both cemented their place in the US political environment, and they can get away with sidelining any competition, whether it's progressives within the Dem party, or any number of third parties."

No sensible person thinks the 2-party system is optimal. We can wax all day about how to form a better democracy, but it’s kinda meaningless when you consider the political reality of NC in 2022. This state is teetering on a knife’s edge between being a mediocre purple state or full blown GOP christo-fascism. Third party ballot access feels like a distraction when we are just trying to maintain a woman’s right to choose, expanding Medicaid, enforcing the Leandro decision, our feeble voting rights, or maintaining our court systems checks on the legislature.

So the NCGP isn’t going to get a pass on following the law and I’m not going to stop pushing back on this “Dems are playing dirty” narrative. It blows my mind how one sided so much of the media coverage has been.

7/31/2022 10:44:14 AM

lol, 'the media is mean to me' - one of the most famous loser arguments in history.

i have no problem with them getting nailed for breaking the law but dont pretend the isnt the same problem democrats have always had with the green party. dont make it complicated...

none of these long-ass posts would be necessary and nobody would actually be mad if certain users would just admit they hate losing votes to these rubes.

7/31/2022 11:27:03 AM

Florida GOP literally ran ghost candidates to fuck with the election.

7/31/2022 11:27:24 AM

“The Green party probably committed fraud but it doesn’t matter because Dems have acted against their opponents in the past.”

I mean, what? That’s not an argument.

7/31/2022 11:48:47 AM

Quote :

"If you're going to use the Green Party's nominee twitter feed as a source of truth, is there really a point to having this discussion?"

what's the issue here? that it's the GP defending itself (who else would you expect to, should we instead ask the Dems if they have any proof that they'd been lying to GP ballot signers?) or that it's on twitter (that's middle school teacher won't let you cite wikipedia vibes. twitter is a legitimate means of sharing information).

and DSCC wasn't just verifying signatures. they're also trying to persuade people to revoke their signature. and when they're lying to people about who they represent (as in the phone call in the last tweet) that's even worse. They should leave the investigations to the appropriate authority, which is the NCSBE. The fact that they got involved in another party's ballot access petition verification when it's none of their business just goes to show it was done for political purposes to keep them off the ballot.

Quote :

"how dare the Dems treat Bernie poorly by not showing up at the polls to vote for him"

?????????? I'm talking about the DNC, not voters. I don't care if voters voted for Bernie or not, just like I don't care if voters vote for Matthew Hoh. I care that voters get a chance to vote for whoever they want to, without competing political parties and candidates putting their thumbs on the scale.

Quote :

"The county boards approved 16,000 votes, in other words there was a 25+% rejection rate on the signatures right out of the gate. That’s enormous."

yes it is enormous. and also typical of ballot access petition drives. and people who have gone through the ballot access process before know this. that's why NCGP submitted 22.5k signatures, 60%+ more than the 13,865 required. and the rejections are usually on technicalities, not actual fraud. this is an example of what I was talking about earlier, where ballot access law is used as a tool to keep new entrants out of the political marketplace.

we know why the GOP wants voter ID laws, right? cus it's another bureaucratic cudgel they can use to disenfranchise people who threaten their election chances.
we know why in the 2020 election the GOP wanted to limit mail-in voting and wanted signature verification and witness requirements? cus it's another bureaucratic cudgel they can use to disenfranchise people who threaten their election chances.
ballot access requirements are used in the same way. we should be making it EASIER for people to vote, and easier for new parties to participate in elections, not harder.

over 500k ballots were rejected in the 2020 election. is that fraud? nope. it's largely procedural, bureaucratic blah-blah-blah that ultimately only disenfranchises people who were sincerely trying to cast their vote. this is the same argument Trump made - look at all these FRAUDULENT BALLOTS, we should probably throw out all the electors for PA, AZ, GA, etc.

look at all these REJECTED AND FRAUDULENT BALLOT ACCESS SIGNATURES, we should probably deny the Green Party's entire ballot access petition request. see the similarity? does it matter that the Green Party is obviously a legitimate party, with fellow citizens who want to vote for them? does it matter that NCGP submitted more than the required 13,865 signatures, validated by 100 county boards of elections?

I've read the evidence submitted to the NCSBE, and I'll be interested to see what happens in the NCSBE meeting tomorrow. I will say I don't absolve the NCGP of responsibility in this. They have shot themselves in the foot by using a contractor and not checking their work. Even if the Dems are taking advantage of their mistake and playing dirty, it's still NCGP's responsibility to handle their business. Imagine if you were responsible for collecting 20,000 signatures across all 100 NC counties. That's a lot of work. Imagine asking people to volunteer their time to help collect those signatures. Campaigns like Hoh's have limited resources, so it's very common for campaigns (even established Dem/GOP campaigns) to hire people to gather signatures. So I can understand why they maybe weren't as thorough as they should have been. Do I think there was malicious intent? No, I don't. But of course I don't know for sure. So, all we can really go on is whether they submitted more than the required 13,865 validated signatures. And so far, the answer is yes. If it turns out no, then so be it. But I'm still not happy about the Dem's involvement in this whole thing. That's my main objection. I don't personally care about the Green Party, but I do care that the Dems, who routinely espouse their own moral righteousness as protectors of American Democracy, continue to play dirty when it suits their interests.

Quote :

"This state is teetering on a knife’s edge between being a mediocre purple state or full blown GOP christo-fascism. Third party ballot access feels like a distraction when we are just trying to maintain a woman’s right to choose, expanding Medicaid, enforcing the Leandro decision, our feeble voting rights, or maintaining our court systems checks on the legislature"

so I guess the Dems and Cheri Beasley better get to work making a strong case to NC voters instead of wasting their time and energy disenfranchising voters of a party that gets 1% of the vote! nobody in the soap box has said a word about Beasley since March/April. her campaign has frankly not been inspiring at all, and if she loses, it'll be the Dems own fault for running her. Just like it was when the Dems ran Cal Cunningham. and it'll be North Carolinians and the American people who will suffer the consequences.

Quote :

"No sensible person thinks the 2-party system is optimal"

and again, that's the point of this thread. not Matthew Hoh or the Green Party specifically. I just want a more vibrant political environment. It's like when AT&T and Verizon were the only 2 options for cell phone service, and they both sucked ass. We need new competition!

and how do we get more competition? If we can get ranked choice voting and non-partisan open primaries adopted, it'll be a great start that will open up the doors to further improvements in our political health.

[Edited on July 31, 2022 at 9:31 PM. Reason : https://www.betterballotnc.org/]

7/31/2022 9:07:35 PM

Quote :

" and DSCC wasn't just verifying signatures. they're also trying to persuade people to revoke their signature. and when they're lying to people about who they represent (as in the phone call in the last tweet) that's even worse."

Except you have no real evidence of this. You have a single tweet and that dude who recorded it isn't under oath/didn't make an official statement/etc.

8/1/2022 8:32:27 AM

I have almost zero knowledge of this story but I do know q posted 4 separate tweets and all are evidence: one recorded call, one text exchange, one secondhand witness and one first hand. One single statement is evidence. Its just evidence you don't believe or feel is worthwhile

8/1/2022 10:09:52 AM

It's extremely weak evidence and he's saying it as fact.

The DSCC has legal documents and sworn statements about the behavior of the Green Party.

The people making the claims against the DSCC should do so in an official manner.

I mean, it's the exact same issue with all the GOP claims over voter fraud. People said all kinds of shit, but the moment you invite them to go under oath, the story changes.

8/1/2022 10:59:37 AM

I mean, the claim here is that DSCC agents are pretending to be affiliated with election officials. That's a felony. File a criminal complaint, don't just tweet about it.

8/1/2022 11:01:37 AM

Quote :

"has legal documents and sworn statements"

so did sidney powell.

Quote :

"File a criminal complaint, don't just tweet about it."

I believe they have.


This morning the NCSBE certified NCGP as a political party (but apparently not for Hoh to appear on the ballot since it's past the July 1 deadline. Hoh will continue in court (scheduled Aug 8) to try to get on the ballot, although ballot printing begins in like 2 weeks so any further delays may prevent him). Guess that settles that. I'm personally satisfied with the approach the NCSBE ended up taking, although I'm not a big fan of Circosta. And I'm also satisfied that there will be an ongoing investigation into the contractors who submitted fraudulent signatures. They should be held responsible for their behavior. But just like the NCGP shot themselves in the foot by using a contractor that ended up being shady, the DSCC shot themselves in the foot by inserting themselves in the process. If they had stayed out of it and just let the NCSBE do their thing, nobody would have had anything to complain about. I certainly don't want Ted Budd supporters calling, texting and visiting my home asking if I'm sure I registered as a Democrat and didn't I know that Democrats are evil and groomer pedophiles and I should probably reconsider voting for Cheri Beasley (or else........ :gun-emoji: )

anyways, gl Cheri Beasley!

[Edited on August 1, 2022 at 12:34 PM. Reason : update. maybe Dems will get what they want out of this after all]

8/1/2022 11:08:05 AM

Yea, the “bare knuckle dirty Dems” folded like cheap lawn chairs so we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya on the way to the voting precinct. Completely feckless. Accusations of unfairness are like the Dems’ kryptonite, they just go completely weak and fall apart even when armed with clear criminal wrongdoing.

This isn’t really the last say though. Multiple petitions finding yet more evidence of fraudulent or incomplete signatures were produced at this meeting as well. The Dems will continue to find these instances until they whittle the signatures below the 13,500 threshold, at which point they will be able to sue to keep the Greens off the ballot again.

8/1/2022 11:26:55 AM

Your link to them filing a criminal complaint was a tweet to a fundraising page. Okay.

[Edited on August 1, 2022 at 11:57 AM. Reason : K]

8/1/2022 11:56:54 AM

And yes, so did Sidney Powell, but she's now facing the legal consequences of her actions because she filed shit she knew was wrong. I'm not sure how that helps your argument? The guy who allegedly recorded that conversation is under no risk until he goes files an official complaint.

8/1/2022 12:02:56 PM

The legal document for NCGP vs NBSBE includes statements from witnesses regarding DSCC's actions. I don't know for sure if NCGP is suing DSCC or Elias directly. They probably don't have the resources to take on that kind of fight and are taking a calculated decision to focus on the upcoming election rather than legal battles.

[Edited on August 1, 2022 at 12:10 PM. Reason : this thread is about ranked choice voting]

8/1/2022 12:09:52 PM

first sitting member of congress to align with the Forward Party

9/14/2024 10:27:35 AM

More parties or somehow empowering state parties or institutions more to where representatives are more accountable to the real issues of their states and localities than just doing whatever partisan national stuff

9/14/2024 2:34:41 PM