99.05%

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's the percentage of the vote Kerry and Bush got together. Less than 1% of the population voted for a third party. The lowest number for third parties since 1964.

It appears that the third party argument is dead. There is a difference between the two parties, and anyone who isn't a braindead idiot can see it. Less than 1% of the population thought there wasn't enough difference. It's obvious now that Nader is wrong. He can't even get 1 out of every 200 voters to vote for him, and not even 1 out of every 100 agrees with him that the two parties are identical.

The people have spoken, and they have overwhelmingly said there's a difference between the two parties. Third parties are now as irrelevant to the political process as this forum is. It's now time for Nader to shut up for good, go away, and never spew any nonsense again.

[bergie72]

The 99.05 % is only for the Presidential vote. 

If you look at the state or even the congressional elections, there were a lot more 3rd party votes there.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was re-elected to the House with 201k votes, or 68% of the votes cast.

In FL-21, the Libertarians had one of their best showings, with almost 51k votes, or 28%.

And here in PA, the Lib and Const party candidates received 283k votes, or around 5% of the votes cast.

Third Parties aren't dead -- they do better in local elections than in Presidentials.  At least in 2004, that's the trend.   :-)

[M]

Besides, the dynamic could change entirely at any point. In the 1820s, during the "Era of Good Feelings", many believed hat Washigton's dream was fulfilled and the party system in America was over. Things will change, and a powerful third party is sure to emerge again.

[Erc]

Just because people see a difference between the two parties doesn't mean people like the current selection...

[MN-Troy]

The 99.05 % is only for the Presidential vote. 

If you look at the state or even the congressional elections, there were a lot more 3rd party votes there.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was re-elected to the House with 201k votes, or 68% of the votes cast.

In FL-21, the Libertarians had one of their best showings, with almost 51k votes, or 28%.

And here in PA, the Lib and Const party candidates received 283k votes, or around 5% of the votes cast.

Third Parties aren't dead -- they do better in local elections than in Presidentials.  At least in 2004, that's the trend.   :-)

Has a Libertarian Party candidate ever been elected to an office higher than city council or county supervisor? Then to follow up that question, do said candidate running for city council actually run under the Libertarian party platform?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

That's the percentage of the vote Kerry and Bush got together. Less than 1% of the population voted for a third party. The lowest number for third parties since 1964.

It appears that the third party argument is dead. There is a difference between the two parties, and anyone who isn't a braindead idiot can see it. Less than 1% of the population thought there wasn't enough difference. It's obvious now that Nader is wrong. He can't even get 1 out of every 200 voters to vote for him, and not even 1 out of every 100 agrees with him that the two parties are identical.

The people have spoken, and they have overwhelmingly said there's a difference between the two parties. Third parties are now as irrelevant to the political process as this forum is. It's now time for Nader to shut up for good, go away, and never spew any nonsense again.

I hope this means the Democrats start paying attention to Middle America, without all the hand-wringing that all the left-liberals are going to flock to the Green Party.

The last thing this American wants is a one-party state.

[A18]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

[??????????]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

I concur.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

I concur.

<sarcasm>If it worked for Mexico, I guess it'll work for us...</sarcasm>

[Jake]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

I concur.

One party states are always better.

[A18]

If that one party screws up, another party will pop up and fix things.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If that one party screws up, another party will pop up and fix things.

Total control of government, either by the Republicans or by the Democrats, would be a disaster for the country.  We need balance of interests in government, and also the gridlock to insure that nothing gets done unless it's absolutely necessary and agreeable to a wide range of perspectives.

Your model:
1. Republicans take over, eliminate taxes for everyone making over $100K, increase military spending by a factor of 5, run the deficit to $18T, and open all trade barriers so big business can essentially shift all operations to Indonesia and Sri Lanka and operate with zero accountability.
2. Democrats "pop up to fix things."  They raise taxes to 75% on the $100-150K group, on up to 95% on the $500K+ group.  They tax big business to the point where they just up an leave the US for Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and then enact a stiff policy of protectionism to insure that big business stays out for good.  Health care is taken over by the government at a cost of $5T, we promise all Americans a guaranteed income of $30,000.  Deficit goes to $50T, which isn't that bad with the dollar now valued at roughly 20 Euros.
3. Republicans "pop up to fix things."...

etc. ad nauseum.

[badnarikin04]

That's the percentage of the vote Kerry and Bush got together. Less than 1% of the population voted for a third party. The lowest number for third parties since 1964.

It appears that the third party argument is dead. There is a difference between the two parties, and anyone who isn't a braindead idiot can see it. Less than 1% of the population thought there wasn't enough difference. It's obvious now that Nader is wrong. He can't even get 1 out of every 200 voters to vote for him, and not even 1 out of every 100 agrees with him that the two parties are identical.

The people have spoken, and they have overwhelmingly said there's a difference between the two parties. Third parties are now as irrelevant to the political process as this forum is. It's now time for Nader to shut up for good, go away, and never spew any nonsense again.

And I guarantee you that of that 99.05% that 99.05% of them have no idea who the hell they were voting for.

You forget the fact that we are a nation full of boobs, numbnuts, and neanderthals. And if we don't wake up and show Republicrats the suffering they have put upon us, we're doomed to a terrible demise.

[badnarikin04]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

I concur.

One party states are always better.

One party state=social enslavement

Republican one party state=Fascist, genocidal Nazilike state

Democratic one party state=Fascist, commie, reverse genocidal state

[ilikeverin]

A one-party state should be everyone's goal.

I concur.

One party states are always better.

One party state=social enslavement

Republican one party state=Fascist, genocidal Nazilike state

Democratic one party state=Fascist, commie, reverse genocidal state

Reverse genocidal?  What, we reincarnate people?

[badnarikin04]

Well, One Party does pretty much control the Federal Gov't. They have all three branches of gov't: The W House, both houses in Congress and the Supreme Court.
Look at the mess we are in. An immoral War, hated by the rest of the world, a flailing economy, a MOUNTAIN of debt, a disgraceful minimum wage, a deeply divided country, the constant threat of terrorism.... the list goes on and on...

The Republican Dictatorship has been a disaster..

And this thus reinforces my point that we are a nation full of retards. If we have a chance to dethrone such a miserable mess of a regime and we don't, how dare we even give ourselves the time of day?

This has gotten me riled up. I bet you understand.

[chadnat1019]

Wow, a one party state,  what are we Russia.

Look I voted for Bush and lean Republican on about 80% of issues, but we need people out there like the Democrates, Greens, and Libs  to keep a balance.

My biggest problem is that some states were not even allowed to vote for some 3rd party canidates.  I don't care for Nader one bit, but the Democrates should not have did every thing they did to keep him off the ballot.

If people don't vote for the 3rd party, oh well, But we the people should have the right to vote for them.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well, One Party does pretty much control the Federal Gov't. They have all three branches of gov't: The W House, both houses in Congress and the Supreme Court.

While the GOP does control a simple majority in both houses and controls the W. House, they do not have total rule:

1. Because of the presence of a strong Democrat minority, the GOP is forced to moderate, lest they lose the majority to them.  It also gives moderate/liberal GOPers another side to go to.  In a true one-party state, there's only one way to go: the way of the party.  Either tow the party line or be ignored/kicked out of the party.  Moderates would simply be swept along for the party ride.

2. Filibuster

3. SC justices are non-partisan.  Some of our most liberal justices are, in fact, Republican appointees.  Souter and Stevens.  The moderates: Kennedy and O'Connor, are Reagan appointees.

Look at the mess we are in. An immoral War, hated by the rest of the world, a flailing economy, a MOUNTAIN of debt, a disgraceful minimum wage, a deeply divided country, the constant threat of terrorism.... the list goes on and on...

The Republican Dictatorship has been a disaster..

Um, most of the "mess" you point out had nearly full Democrat backing.  It's a bi-partisan "mess," not the result of one-party rule.

As an example, exactly one Senator voted against PATRIOT.  (The one I voted to re-elect ;-) )

[Bugs]

We have been a two party nation for nearly our entire history.  When one party died out, another one took its place.  The Democrats aren't going to go away.  They're here to stay, as are the Republicans.  One checks the other.  It doesn't seem that way when one party has the presidency and the congress, but it has happened before and it will happen again. 

[MN-Troy]

As an example, exactly one Senator voted against PATRIOT.  (The one I voted to re-elect ;-) )

What's wrong with the Patriot Act?

[badnarikin04]

As an example, exactly one Senator voted against PATRIOT.  (The one I voted to re-elect ;-) )

What's wrong with the Patriot Act?

I assume you're asking what's wrong with the Patriot Act?

Everything.


Is this 1984? Is Dubya Big Brother?

I shouldn't have to be scared of the government.

[The Dowager Mod]

That's the percentage of the vote Kerry and Bush got together. Less than 1% of the population voted for a third party. The lowest number for third parties since 1964.

It appears that the third party argument is dead. There is a difference between the two parties, and anyone who isn't a braindead idiot can see it. Less than 1% of the population thought there wasn't enough difference. It's obvious now that Nader is wrong. He can't even get 1 out of every 200 voters to vote for him, and not even 1 out of every 100 agrees with him that the two parties are identical.

The people have spoken, and they have overwhelmingly said there's a difference between the two parties. Third parties are now as irrelevant to the political process as this forum is. It's now time for Nader to shut up for good, go away, and never spew any nonsense again.

I hope this means the Democrats start paying attention to Middle America, without all the hand-wringing that all the left-liberals are going to flock to the Green Party.

The last thing this American wants is a one-party state.

WooHoo!! i already flocked!

[MN-Troy]

As an example, exactly one Senator voted against PATRIOT.  (The one I voted to re-elect ;-) )

What's wrong with the Patriot Act?

]I assume you're asking what's wrong with the Patriot Act?

I believe I asked that question, right? (see above).. Moving on





Give me specifics though of what is wrong with the Patriot Act?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

As an example, exactly one Senator voted against PATRIOT.  (The one I voted to re-elect ;-) )

What's wrong with the Patriot Act?

I assume you're asking what's wrong with the Patriot Act?

I believe I asked that question, right? (see above).. Moving on

The source for the confusion is that you messed up the attributions.

Give me specifics though of what is wrong with the Patriot Act?

In particular, it gives law enforcement broad new powers of surveillance, allowing them to circumvent our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and siezure without due process (a warrant).  For example, the cops could monitor what you check out from the library, simply on suspicion that you are a "terrorist," and no judge need be involved.

[King]

That's the percentage of the vote Kerry and Bush got together. Less than 1% of the population voted for a third party. The lowest number for third parties since 1964.

Actually in 1984, Reagan + Mondale = 99.33%

So since 1984, it would be 1988 if 0.03% of 3rd party vote had swung to Bush or Dukakis. Hardly anything surprising, it just symbolizes the end of the Perot-Nader era.

P.S. More people voted for a 3rd party in 1964 than in 1984.