Americans have a third candidate on the 2012 American POTUS ballot...

[Centexfarmer]

I have looked up his record....may vote for him but he's a little too left on some and right on others

That's the ever lovin' point!

On Foreign policy,he's a nonstarter because he just isn't realistic at all....our role must likely change,but we must remain active and engaged with the world.Russia,China and some other upstarts would love to fill a US vacuum.Though in terms of being intellectually honest and forthright as a libertarian I find him much more so than Ron Paul,and many of his positions I am comfortable with despite my misgivings on others.I know he won't be elected but perhaps light a spark with the electorate that if things remain as they are today or worsen change won't be so difficult to conceive.

That's what I'm hoping too.

 

[Stardreamer]

Well Duh, my little Latin Firecracker!

Me too!



Baby steps.

I've always personally felt that the majority of Americans are more "centrist." If given the chance to vote for a party that more represents the complexity of who we are as Americans, rather than for or against two extremes. a "center" candidate could win.

The only "center" that's presented itself for me are Libertarians.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans refer to them as "Independents."

And a lot of that has to do with how each state forces us to "register" to vote.

As a Texas Democrat I can't vote in the Republican Primary.

If I were a Texas Republican I could not vote in the Democratic Primary.

Those are the Texas Party rules for both parties.

It's the same in a lot of other states.

Neither of the two parties allow "a third."

So we hear fellow Americans say, "I don't vote for the party I vote for the candidate."

So when their "candidate" cant even get on the ballot, much less a nationally televised debate, where and when do they vote?

Certainly not in the primaries, because both the Democrat and Republican Parties have that locked up.

I'm just trying to figure out WHERE in the U.S. Constitution where a two party system of Government was laid out.

And who gets to decide what our options are as American electorate.

Part of how the game is rigged, and instead of complaining about it, we ridicule the folks it is rigged against.

 

[Sammie13]

In GA, we don't register by party. I am one of those people who votes all over the place. I just did early voting on Friday and I chose Democratic....I think the last few primaries, I went GOP. It is a tough call with local elections as I really wanted to vote in one Dem race but another GOP race....you have to use psychology to figure out which party priamry to choose based on whom you think your vote will help most. In my case, if it's a city or county wide election, it's futile to vote GOP, but in many commission and state legislative races, the Dems don't even run candidates in my neck of the woods. As the state has evolved into GOP-dominated politics, I find myself more often participating in GOP primaries, but voting Dem in general elections.

 

[cocksucker4use]

A 3rd Political party would make sense, if it was a European type "Center" party, which could encompass the moderate wings of both the present parties, The republicans especially would be better off (& so would the country) if people like Bloomberg & Schwarzenegger, Huntsman, Collins & Snowe in ME, Brown here in MA , Jeb Bush were in a separate party. Note I don't count Christie here. these are the republicans with BALLS, which Christie doesn't have (& couldn't see if he had any) Nor do I count Nader. I still feel that had he dropped out in 2000, W would have had to go back to TX with his tail between his legs

I think Clinton and Obama, both really moderate Democrats, would fit into a Centrist Party. Dubya and his administration were not conservative as much as blatantly promoting oligarchy. The prevailing belief is that Americans don't have the stomach for the extremes. Maybe that's changing -- Occupy vs. Teabaggers, for instance. Throw the moderate Democrats and Republicans together, and the resulting Centrist Party would create space for political parties made up of true liberals and true conservatives, greens, and whatever. Basically, additional parties might field candidates who give a fuck about this country, and even us poor bastards who live here. Perhaps they could break the mold and not be for sale to banks, brokerages, military contractors, billionaires. The two parties we have now regard the "extremists" within their midst as an embarrassment and throw them a bone, or at least tell them what they want to hear til the election is over. We should have multiple political parties to represent the opinions, beliefs and needs of voters.

 

[Just_Believe18]

I absolutely agree with you guys. If Johnson was allowed to participate in the debates, it would change the entire dialogue of the election. A third voice calling out both parties for their double-speak would devastate the partisan politics of Romney and Obama.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think Clinton and Obama, both really moderate Democrats, would fit into a Centrist Party. Dubya and his administration were not conservative as much as blatantly promoting oligarchy. The prevailing belief is that Americans don't have the stomach for the extremes. Maybe that's changing -- Occupy vs. Teabaggers, for instance. Throw the moderate Democrats and Republicans together, and the resulting Centrist Party would create space for political parties made up of true liberals and true conservatives, greens, and whatever. Basically, additional parties might field candidates who give a fuck about this country, and even us poor bastards who live here. Perhaps they could break the mold and not be for sale to banks, brokerages, military contractors, billionaires. The two parties we have now regard the "extremists" within their midst as an embarrassment and throw them a bone, or at least tell them what they want to hear til the election is over. We should have multiple political parties to represent the opinions, beliefs and needs of voters.

But none of that will happen until the law ends the "winner take all" spoils system where representation is tied to geography instead of people's views. There were multiple parties to begin with; we got a two party system because that's what happens with "winner take all". It makes politics about getting the whole pie, leaving the losers not represented at all, and the winners represented only insofar as their interests don't conflict with those of the money men who bought the candidate.

 

[jackoroe]

We'll Centex, I've been a Johnson supporter since they ignored him in the primaries. I'm voting for him come Hell or high water. They only vote that is wasted, is the one never cast. Obama is one step away from being the Anti-Christ and Romney is walking towards Socialism. Either way, we get someplace we don't want to be.

 

[hotatlboi]

I like most of his positions except where he says we need to balance the budget in 1 year, which would represent a drop of 10% GDP in spending in 1 year. That would collapse the economy again.

 

[Kulindahr]

I like most of his positions except where he says we need to balance the budget in 1 year, which would represent a drop of 10% GDP in spending in 1 year. That would collapse the economy again.

That and he's practically with Romney in the "corporations are people" idiocy.

 

[frankfrank]

Gary Johnson will probably get around 1-2% of the vote... if he's lucky. He won't be a Ross Perot.

I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he had a viable chance of winning. I'm not one to squander my vote though.

I'd rather independents vote for Obama instead of Johnson because that'll help OBama more. Johnson doesn't have a chance and he won't be like Ross Perot.

I absolutely agree with you guys. If Johnson was allowed to participate in the debates, it would change the entire dialogue of the election. A third voice calling out both parties for their double-speak would devastate the partisan politics of Romney and Obama.

The difference between now and 20 years ago, was that Ross Perot had entirely become a household word. He was even buying informercials on TV and, of course, he was in the DEBATES. There was a very real juggernaut in force in 1992. I am still absolutely convinced that if Perot had not temporarily ABANDONED THE RACE only to get back in later, he would have certainly won. His change of mind mortally wounded his chances.

Of course, in 2008, they all made sure that Dennis Kucinich's views got as little exposure as possible, too. I'm not sure if he would have won, though. Some people considered him to be fungus-face pugly, and some of the American electorate is so shallow that they'll vote for somebody based on how they look. It's been said that appearance was very likely the determining factor in the 1960 election, which was the first "TV Presidential election" in American history. JFK was an energetic hunk, and Richard Nixon was somewhat "homely" and wooden in demeanor.

There were multiple parties to begin with; we got a two party system because that's what happens with "winner take all". It makes politics about getting the whole pie, leaving the losers not represented at all, and the winners represented only insofar as their interests don't conflict with those of the money men who bought the candidate.

Nobody ever mentions that, whichever Party the POTUS is, all of the administrative bureaucrats (such as Federal Communications Commission *commissioners*) become the President's Party as well. (In the case of the FCC, if Romney wins, administration of that department will become 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.) In Congress, ALL of the committees in the House are majority Republican I believe, and majority Democratic in the Senate. The POTUS gets to name a Supreme Court successor Justice who will most identify with his Party as well, and I believe Souter (now retired) was the last nomination which wasn't driven entirely by ideology - I think it was "Daddy Bush" who nominated him, right?

 

[TheFireGod]

Technically it's a Second Option cause the D/R are pretty much a political monopoly.

Nonetheless, my vote is going to Johnson in November!

 

[Centexfarmer]

I absolutely agree with you guys. If Johnson was allowed to participate in the debates, it would change the entire dialogue of the election. A third voice calling out both parties for their double-speak would devastate the partisan politics of Romney and Obama.

Can you imagine?

All of the bullshit "wedge issues," and personal attacks cast aside for an actual debate about how to best solve America's issues?



I would love it.