Should Libertarians and Greens form a coalition?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

democrats are trashy and they care about societal parasites too mcuh

No, they just understand Keynesian economics.

I favor KEynesian economics, I just only favor giving benefits to people who work. For the working poor I favor stuff like naitonal health care, guarenteed national welfare etc but only for those who work. As far as I'm concerned the productive, working members of soceity are worth more than social parasits who laze around and don't work.

[MaC]

They should only form a coalition for ballot access purposes. Nothing else. Classical liberalism (LP) and "envirofascism" (Green) don't mix. Even though the Greens are wrong on environment and the economy, at least their pro-drug.

good post, I'll agree with that.

[memphis]

I like the two party system. Anybody remember the Dem primary debate? It was awful because there were too many candidates and, as a result, nobody got enough time. I would hate for a general debate to look like that. A two party system also discourages elections where a candidate with less than a majority wins. I really hate that. Fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians could get more done if they worked within the Dem and Rep parties respectively. Instead, the Greens handed the Republicans the presidency in 2000 and the Libertarians gave the Senate to the Dems in 2006. These people inadvertantly are working against their own positions.

[John Dibble]

I like the two party system. Anybody remember the Dem primary debate? It was awful because there were too many candidates and, as a result, nobody got enough time. I would hate for a general debate to look like that.

And some would argue that a debate between only two candidates makes it so that nothing unexpected comes up. All you have to do is make the other candidate look worse than yourself, not show yourself to be more intelligent. Sure, a nine party debate wouldn't get very far, but how about a three or four person debate? Also, the quality of the debate aside, it's kind of crappy when you only have a Douchebag(R) and Douchebag(D) as your only viable options at the voting booth. Hell, remember how Kerry got selected - it was because people thought he was 'electable' and could 'beat Bush', not because he was an outstanding man of moral fiber or a real leader. So if the debates lower in quality by the introduction of one or two more candidates(unlikely considering they're pretty low quality right now) I say it's worth it by allowing us a decent selection of viable candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alternative voting systems could be implemented to fix that problem. For instance approval voting could be modified to allow a runoff between the two highest ranked candidates if no candidate gets over a majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. Many people left those parties and joined the third parties because they only give lip-service to our issues and don't follow up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for the Greens, but for us Libertarians neither the Republicans or the Democrats work for our positions for the most part. Also, as a Libertarian I am glad that the Dems now have some control because one party control is very bad. It might just result in some gridlock, which is better than spending going up and up and up under either party, at least to us. So not a complete loss, now is it?

[memphis]

I like the two party system. Anybody remember the Dem primary debate? It was awful because there were too many candidates and, as a result, nobody got enough time. I would hate for a general debate to look like that.

And some would argue that a debate between only two candidates makes it so that nothing unexpected comes up. All you have to do is make the other candidate look worse than yourself, not show yourself to be more intelligent. Sure, a nine party debate wouldn't get very far, but how about a three or four person debate? Also, the quality of the debate aside, it's kind of crappy when you only have a Douchebag(R) and Douchebag(D) as your only viable options at the voting booth. Hell, remember how Kerry got selected - it was because people thought he was 'electable' and could 'beat Bush', not because he was an outstanding man of moral fiber or a real leader. So if the debates lower in quality by the introduction of one or two more candidates(unlikely considering they're pretty low quality right now) I say it's worth it by allowing us a decent selection of viable candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alternative voting systems could be implemented to fix that problem. For instance approval voting could be modified to allow a runoff between the two highest ranked candidates if no candidate gets over a majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. Many people left those parties and joined the third parties because they only give lip-service to our issues and don't follow up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for the Greens, but for us Libertarians neither the Republicans or the Democrats work for our positions for the most part. Also, as a Libertarian I am glad that the Dems now have some control because one party control is very bad. It might just result in some gridlock, which is better than spending going up and up and up under either party, at least to us. So not a complete loss, now is it?

1. If you don't like the candidates, join a major party and vote in the primary.
2.Alternative voting systems could be great, but they are unlikely to be implented. To paraphrase Rumsfeld "you go to the voting booth with the system you have."
3. If you want the Dems to have control, you should vote for them. On the other hand, the Republicans would be more likely to consider your positions if you voted for them. If you consistently throw your vote away on a third party, nobody will give your opinion any consideration.

[Brandon H]

Voting for the Republicrats tells them that you like what they are doing and that they should keep doing it. Nothing is going to change as long as they are both in power.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The two party system is sh**t. Where is the party for the populist types like Frodo? Or the libertarians/fiscal centrists-social libertarians like BullMoose or me?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My family gets along better than they would

[memphis]

The two party system is sh**t. Where is the party for the populist types like Frodo? Or the libertarians/fiscal centrists-social libertarians like BullMoose or me?

Populists have strong elementss in both parties. My advice to these voters is not to vote strictly by party. Fiscal centrists/social libertarians are a major element of the Democratic Party. Libertarians are, likewise, a huge part of the Republican Party.

[NewFederalist]

Libertarians are a huge part of the Republican Party.

If only that were true... (sigh)

[John Dibble]

1. If you don't like the candidates, join a major party and vote in the primary.

The problem is that most of the candidates still don't represent the ideas I care about, and those that do aren't likely to win. Hardly soliving the problem, no? You also get the issue of the first one or two states to vote in the primary determining which candidate is going to win the primary - see John Kerry for an example.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's unlikely under a two party system because the two parties know it benefits them. Under a multi-party system it would be more likely to happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't want the Dems to have control and I don't want the Reps to have control - I want neither to have total control. I want checks and balances. And what I really want is more than just this partisan crap where there's two parties. Not to mention the areas I live in are 'safe' areas and the representatives don't really need to worry, so my singular vote won't change much now will it?

It is also my experience that my representatives don't give a damn what I think. I've mailed them often and always been ignored or outright had my opinion rejected. So as far as I'm concerned voting for people who don't give a flying f**k about my concerns is a bigger waste of my vote than voting for someone who does even if they won't win. If I voted for the Reps or the Dems it would be showing them that I approve of what they stand for, aka their issues and not mine. At least if we spoil a few elections there's an off chance that they'll use our issues in the future so they won't lose because they ignored us.

Libertarians are, likewise, a huge part of the Republican Party.

If that were true they'd give more than lip service to us.

[Colin]

The two party system is sh**t. Where is the party for the populist types like Frodo? Or the libertarians/fiscal centrists-social libertarians like BullMoose or me?

Fiscal centrists/social libertarians are a major element of the Democratic Party. Libertarians are, likewise, a huge part of the Republican Party.

I'd like to see the evidence for either of that. Libertarians within the Republican Party are a never listened to minority and the Clintonian DLC Democrats are basically being pushed into the wings by populist Democrats and old traditional leftists who are now controlling a party in a hyperpartisan Washington.