Herman Cain says it's time for a 3rd Party

[TheCultOfPersonality]

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/11/10/herman-cain-time-is-ripe-for-a-third-political-party/

We have plenty of other parties besides the Democan and the Republicrat Party. The problem is that alot of the blue sheep and the red sheep prefer to stay in their abusive relationship with the Democans and the Republicrats. While I do not vote for the Democans or the Republicrats I prefer this idea better. I think it's time to get rid of all parties and go with a Free For All System for all our elections. The party system has run it's course and there's no need for it.

[DMC]

Any new party is just trying to skim some of the wealth from the existing parties. It's all a sham and anyone who wants to be a part of it is a crook already.

[Wild Cobra]

3rd party will never be a reality as long as we do not have run-off elections.

[Xevious]

Any third-party or independent candidate will have to be billionaires (like Ross Perot) to get enough media attention to get votes. The two big parties have too much money and too much pull.

[Spurs da champs]

Any third-party or independent candidate will have to be billionaires (like Ross Perot) to get enough media attention to get votes. The two big parties have too much money and too much pull.

Bloomberg 2016?

[Wild Cobra]

Any third-party or independent candidate will have to be billionaires (like Ross Perot) to get enough media attention to get votes. The two big parties have too much money and too much pull.
But the problem is the most votes win. We need a system that requires a minimum of 50%+1 to win. Too many people simply will not vote 3rd party when they believe one of the two major parties will win. Most these people turn around and vote for the lesser of two evils. I usually do myself.

When Ross Perot ran, he took 18.9% of the vote. Clinton won with 43% of the vote, Bush received 37.5% Clinton beat Bush by 5.5%. Too many people believe that Bush would have received at least 2/3rds of Perot's votes if he had not run, giving Bush the win. When things like this happen, too many people are too skiddish to vote for a 3rd party candidate they may prefer. They would rather their 2nd choice win rather than the party they dislike.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As typical, WC comes up with the inferior idea. 8 states have runoff elections including Texas. Do any of them have significant third party representation? No.

A parliamentary system and elimination of the single member district is what it's going to take for the 2 party system to lose it's hegemony. There is much more to federal politics than the presidential elections. 19% of the vote should get 19% of the seats as representation.

[George Gervin's Afro]

has anyone else realized that if you turn cain's 9-9-9 plan upside down you get.......

it becomes 6-6-6 plan... oh the horrah!

[coyotes_geek]

9-9-9 is a better, more comprehensive tax reform plan than anything Obama or Romney bothered to show us..............

[boutons_deux]

Cain, one of the Repug asshole clowns that right-wingers were supporting for President. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

As typical, WC comes up with the inferior idea. 8 states have runoff elections including Texas. Do any of them have significant third party representation? No.

A parliamentary system and elimination of the single member district is what it's going to take for the 2 party system to lose it's hegemony. There is much more to federal politics than the presidential elections. 19% of the vote should get 19% of the seats as representation.
You obviously do not understand what I was talking about. Understandable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You obviously do not understand what I was talking about. Understandable.

May be one day instead of making the statement 'you just don't understand' you will actually try to demonstrate what you claim I do not understand. This is a public forum. You should note that no one backs you up when you claim this. Not even people like CC and Darrin who have in the past made a point to call me out on mistakes.

Run-offs do exist and have done nothing to engender a third party in any state. In all of the country there is one legislator in a lower chamber that is associated with a third party. One.

The above is an example of explaining how I do know what I am talking about and how to go about supporting your assertions. You are about as articulate as a dirty toilet seat.

[Wild Cobra]

When I said run-off, I specifically stated the 50%+1 with it for the win. Just because there are different types of runoff elections does not make you right. I would agree with you if I did not specify the 50%+1 requirement. There is another requirement to make it work that I forgot about, but you libtards don't care. It doesn't matter. Texas does not operate with the 50%+1, so you are wrong. Again!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When I said run-off, I specifically stated the 50%+1 with it for the win. Just because there are different types of runoff elections does not make you right. I would agree with you if I did not specify the 50%+1 requirement. There is another requirement to make it work that I forgot about, but you libtards don't care. It doesn't matter. Texas does not operate with the 50%+1, so you are wrong. Again!

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/6_2_1.html


The general election allows all registered voters to participate in choosing the occupants of public office from among the candidates of competing parties. To win the nomination in a primary election a candidate must win a clear majority (more than 50 percent) of the votes cast. If no candidate wins a majority - as often happens when more than two candidates run for an office - a runoff election is held between the two candidates that won the most votes.

[Wild Cobra]

No shit Sherlock

My God you are to total idiot.

That does not fit the 50%+1 for the general election, does it.

[kamikazi_player]

I hope if he makes a third party, there will be no bunnies killed :cry
EdpN5C1_flQ

[Jacob1983]

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/636354125/herman_cain_999_plan_tshirt.jpg?height=380&width=380

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Where is the 50%+1 for the general election.

I guess you think democrats and republicans having a runoff election during their primary is the same thing. I have news for you. It's not!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy...

Where is the 50%+1 for the general election.

I guess you think democrats and republicans having a runoff election during their primary is the same thing. I have news for you. It's not!

You point is that runoff elections engender diversity. Texas has them and is about as unipolar as possible. GA and Washington have them and they have no significant third party nor do the other half dozen or so.

Now let's think about the mechanics of it and see if it would help a third party get elected? Lets say we have a typical election where the Dem and GOP ~45% of the vote and a libertarian gets ~10%. A runoff is held. Does the third party get on the ballot? No.

Ross Perot in 92 got 18% of the vote. Would he have been on a run off ballot? No.

And you call me stupid. Runoffs do not increase political diversity. They clarify existing majorities so you don't get the Gores and Bushs of the world bitching about how the third party took their votes away. You want a viable third party then you need to make it so they get proportional representation.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

I simply don't believe it.

Fuzzy.... You are even more stupid than I thought.

For a runoff election to have meaning, it has to be at the General Election level. Not just the Primary.

Georgia does have third parties elected.

WA? Didn't check that, bu considering where I live, I get news for WA as well, and never heard of a runoff election occurring, I say you are full of it there too.

[jack sommerset]

has anyone else realized that if you turn cain's 9-9-9 plan upside down you get.......

it becomes 6-6-6 plan... oh the horrah!

Brother, that is very interesting. Did you know if you turn most sharks upside down they will go into a self induced paralysis? They say the reason is it releases serotonin into the brain causing the shark to calm down so to speak. I would like you to give this a try. It may relax you and begin to mend your broken heart. Eventually turning that frown of your upside down. God bless

[Wild Cobra]

Ross Perot in 92 got 18% of the vote. Would he have been on a run off ballot? No.

Are you really that stupid, or purposely misunderstanding my intent.

First of all, Perot probably only got 18.9% because people knew their vote would not count because of no run off election.

Clinton won with under 50%. Now just try to follow me for a moment. If there was a runoff election that followed, in all the states that neither Bush or Clinton had 50%+1 in, how many states may have had their electoral vote change to the other? Clinton or Bush?

I was never saying Perot would have been president. I think it's unlikely, but I will stand on the idea he would have received more votes if the system were different. Just the same, my contention over this all along, was that Bush would have had reelection in '92 if there was a runoff election. That most those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush in the runoff.

More important than that. Because so many people like me, who want to vote third party, vote the lesser of two evils instead.