It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Libertarians, YOU decided this election, we are the next SWING state.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:42 AM
Ok then.

I just want to make sure (can't stress this enough), I am not trying to tell people how to vote. I am 1000 times more interested in why they vote as they do.

I drove three of my friends to the voting station. Two voted Obama, one voted Johnson (I voted by mail). We had breakfast and then they voted. Afterwards we ate lunch and shared a few goods hours among friends. Politics do not have to divide us.

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:26 PM
Heres what Pundit, Loud Dobbs had to say...

Checking polls and returns, it seems Romney's "missing vote" in this election could be accounted for by the voters who supported Ron Paul.

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:05 AM
Couple points:

Voting does matter, no vote is truly wasted. The statistical data is what will drive policy focus.


The two party fallacy: I know people are going to slam this statement without truly understanding the complexity of what I'm going to try and explain.

The presidency is the only office where the two party system is in effect. This is due to the fact that it is the only nationwide office. Yet I will explain why even in a multiple party system this would still not alter the outcome.

Take a parlimentary system. Unless one party has a majority, a coalition must be formed between multiple parties. The Prime minister is going to come from the largest party, with concessions given to the smaller parties making up the coalition. Now the largest party that is unable to form a government, is given minority status and the lesser fringe parties have 2 choices. Most parties overlap with considerable common ground. The more common ground, the more likely they are to work together. Or they can shut themselves out and they still have no say.

Now what i propose is that our POTUS elections are made up of coalitions prior to the election process rather than following. Naturally the canidate with the strongest following, aka the majority parity, is going to win the nomination. Now because it is a presidentail system, the president is elected seperately from congress; however, he is still going to need the support of a majority in order to get anything done.

Now to use a recent example, the emergeance of The Tea Party and the traditional GOP. As I stated 2 paragraphs above, there is considerable common ground; however, there are some differences in philosophy. There were 2 outcomes, ethier the support for the Tea Party would grow and it would take over the lead in GOP philosophy or it would lose out to the traditional GOP. If it wins out, the presidential canidates come from the Tea Party because they would be the leaders of the party. But if the Tea Party loses out, it still has sway within the GOP at large based on its strength in local elections.

Legislatures from both state and federal offices are elected from a local canidate pool. These representatives are going to represent they local vote and even if they have a republican or democratic label, they are stil going to be in a position win their primary based on their strength locally.

Now of course there are fundamental differences between a presidential system and an a parlimentary system; however, the "first past the post system" only forces coalitions prior to a goverment forming, rather than a government never forming and a new election held.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Cypress because: (no reason given)

Edit: Tried to clean up some pieces but its late and i know there are going to be typos I missed, so I'm going to call myself out on it ahead of time.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Cypress because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by eLPresidente

Yes.. and you know what that means.
If Ron Paul had been the candidate for the GOP he would have beaten Obama. He would have all the Mitt Romney/GOP votes plus these extra Ron Paul votes that would have put the GOP over the top.

Ron Paul would have beaten Obama. Romney was never supposed to beat Obama, he was actually just there to keep Obama from having real competition like for example debating Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

Obama would have lost if the GOP weren't so stupid and didn't buy into Fox news and ignorance. Not to mention the outright fraud perpetrated against RP that was ignored by them.

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:30 AM
Just to add one more point.

If the libetarian party had the national appeal to really draw out the vote needed to force policy, then they would create a shift in the political spectrum and either the democratic or republican party would be consumed.

Just because the two major parties have control now doesn't mean the Libertarian party gains any more control with a multi-party system. Its no different than a fringe party in those systems. It would still have to work at forming a coalition or be left out; because it would not have the power to forma majority on its own.

Even if the argument is that people feel obligated to vote right or left, a reduction in that obligation will still end up with a primary party on each side and fringe parties. The primary parties will head the government. Libertarian support is still on the fringes of the spectrum and the fact that they continue to run as a seperate party shows there is no want for a coalition. Hence, they would be left out anyways.

Thats why the 2 party system is a fallacy.

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:06 AM
Hmm really so people are now lambasting others for not voting the way they voted and blaming their lose on another persons freedom to choose who they can give their vote too?

How democratic of them...

Edit:- Ditch your governmental system and get a damn Parliamentary system already,
at least then the minor parties get to play a vital role in forming coalitions as long as its not a first past the post style system. but that aint never gonna happen.
edit on 9-11-2012 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by 200PlusI also think if someone says they "decided the election" they should admit that they put the winner in that spot.

This point is sound.
...Maybe you don't have to push them as far as admitting to putting the winner in said spot...but could ease the connotations by saying they put "the loser" in their spot.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in