THE THIRD PARTY HILLARY NEEDS... TO WIN: FLIM FLAM SCAM (Perot Redux)

jonchristianryter.com ^ | 6.18.06 | Jon Christian Ryter

[tee-sixtytwo]

Your post--and article--are highly overrought, but it is, sadly, true under our current winner-take-all electoral college system (at least where 3d party presidential candidates are concerned). The electoral college should be maintained, no question about that. But, to enhance the growth of third parties capable of breaking the suffocating \\\"vanilla vs vanilla\\\" contests we have every 4 years, we in the conservative movement should push for true proportionalization of the EC. Put simply, in a state with 10 electoral votes, the pres. candidate with 60 percent of the vote gets 6 votes, 30 percent gets 3 EVs, and the candiated with 10 percent gets 1 EV. Why would this be an improvement over our current system?

1. It gives conservative voters in true-blue states like NY, RI, MA a reason to get out of bed on election day.
2. It prevents false mandates (Clinton in 1992 only gets 43 percent of popular vote but an EC \\\"landslide\\\").
3. Regarding third-paries, a proportional EC gives third-party candiates--and votes--a reason for being. Let\\\'s say we had a proportional EC as of today. Assume \\\"hildabeast\\\" is the dem candidate in 2008 and George Allen is the GOP candiate (just to give the candidates names). A proportional environment would encourage third parties to break from the \\\"demopublicans\\\". Most likely a predominately Black party would form from the dems, perhaps with Jesse as its candiate. Perhaps a paleocon, nativist party would spin off the GOP, with Pat at the helm. Neither Hillary or Allen gets the magic 270 EVs. Though Jesse and Pat may have less than 2 doz EVs between them, they have powerful leverage over Hillary and Allen respectively, saying in effect, \\\"I\\\'ll give you my EVs to get you over 270, but you MUST pledge the following ...\\\"
Thus, small third parties are given real power in this scenario, power beyond their size.

[Mia T]

Tooth is remarkably fine. Thanks for asking. :)

Acting to satisfy one's moral sensibilities is not the same thing as acting morally. And doing so by distorting reality and logic is either fatuous or downright immoral. See my post # 178.

[Mia T]

Just to be clear, the article isn't mine.

I'll have to give some thought to your proposal... My initial reaction is that there is a downside: A certain amount of destabilizing of the sort suffered by parliamentary governments.

As for your #2, coincidentally, I had been planning a post on exactly that point. Specifically to challenge Peter Beinart, who turns that electoral college artifact/defect on its head to suggest that clinton's mere pluralities were something of a mirage, something more than they were.

[Badray]

Thank you.

I was raised to be able to discern evil and fight it. I just don't see how endorsing evil produces any good, even if it is to prevent more evil.

Do the right thing and leave the outcome to God.

[Mia T]

Another quick point: Empowering third parties may in fact exacerbate the fundamental problem--entrenched power in DC--by encouraging even more people to make politics a lifelong career! (see post 137)

[jla]

the fundamental problem--entrenched power in DC-

And electing Giuliani or a like pol only serves to prolong and exacerbate this dilemma.

[jla]

Tooth is remarkably fine.

You'll be spittin' watermelon seeds again in no time.

[Badray]

I welcome challenge. I welcome rational debate. (The operative word is 'rational.')

I believe your focus on the Clinton's has made you lose sight of what is rational.

I don't challenge your right to your own belief system, to your own values. To the contrary.

What I am challenging are your rationalizations, your distortions of reality and logic, to allay your conscience.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Because I don't fear Hillary as you do; because I don't agree with you, you believe me to be irrational, devoid of logic, and unaware of reality.

Of course, you can be against Rudy Giuliani because of his positions on some of the social issues; but it's absurd to argue, especially after the 8 sorry years of the clintons, that there would be no difference between Rudy Giuliani and hillary clinton in the managing of the determinative issue of our time, in protecting this country.

Do you believe that the GOP will lose control of Congress? Do you think that she get away with usurping their power? Do you think that if Congress declares war -- or authorizes the use of force -- that she'll be able to ignore it and live to talk about it? Do you think that the American people would just shrug off another attack? If you do, you aren't being rational.

I think that you spend too much time preaching appeasement of the left and not it's defeat.

But you can't acknowledge the significant and crucial difference between the two candidates because if you were truly honest with yourself and did, you would see that you are putting the entire country at risk so that you "can sleep well at night." This is a decision that is, IMO, anything but moral.

You are giving her too much power by fearing her so much. My vote won't put anyone at risk. Not voting for evil does allow me to sleep at night.

P.S. I didn't 'disconnect' your comment. The implication of your comment, as I read it, is that there is no difference between the two candidates, i.e., you would be killed either way.

That's not what I got from your response when I posted it. You ignored the context in your reply and made it sound like I didn't care about anything.

Your "Why do I care?" reveals a concern with your own well-being that is paramount.

You couldn't be more wrong. Unlike those who demand security and safety from the government, I demand to be free. Free to take care of me and mine; free to succeed or fail on my own; free to protect me and mine. I want the government to prosecute the war and protect the borders. Bush is only doing the first part. That puts the country at risk. Do you think that Rudy or Hillary are going to protect the borders? I don't. They are both too politically correct.

How could you not care? Where is your morality? Where is your concern for the country? For the children, born and unborn, conceived, not yet conceived... indeed, not yet even conceived of?

See, there you go again. You are ignoring the context of my comment. Nice hyperbole though, but disingenuous argument. Rudy would deny the unborn the right to be born and would be happy to take our guns so that we could'nt protect ourselves from terrorists or common criminals -- or the criminal government that would take your guns and endorse killing babies. You cannot protect them if you vote for anyone who would endorse such deeds.

Your entire argument is irrational and exposes a fundamental immorality.

LOL Get a mirror.

You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary.

Huh? Is that what you meant or is their a typo in there?

Your refusal to reconcile--or even acknowledge--your de facto vote for someone whose entire being is truly anathema to your belief system belies your claim to a higher ground.

Sorry, but you have to take that canard elsewhere. I don't respond well to emotional blackmail or fearmongering. I don't see how voting for evil produces good even if the supposed intent is to avoid a potential greater evil.

[Mia T]

All professional pols are the problem. Even those who start out relatively selfless. They have to get reelected and before they know it, they are selling their souls.

[Mia T]

;)

[Badray]

You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary.--me

Do you still not understand that by either sitting it out or voting third party you are placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton?

I know that you think that you know what you typed, but your two statements do not say the same thing.

You continue to confirm my argument. All the ad hominems and non sequiturs in the world won't change reality. Except, perhaps, in your own mind.

What ad hominems? Do you mean calling me irrational and suggesting that I am stupid enough to 'fall for a flim flam' that you believe in but I don't believe exists?

Just because you cannot make a connection does not make my comments non sequiturs.

Let's not beat this thing to death. I think both of our positions are clear.

Cut and run?

[Mia T]

You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary.--me

Huh? Is that what you meant or is their a typo in there?--you

 

Do you still not understand that by either sitting it out or voting third party you are placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton?

---

 

Your refusal to reconcile--or even acknowledge--your de facto vote for someone whose entire being is truly anathema to your belief system belies your claim to a higher ground.--me

 

Sorry, but you have to take that canard elsewhere. I don't respond well to emotional blackmail or fearmongering. I don't see how voting for evil produces good even if the supposed intent is to avoid a potential greater evil.--you

 

You continue to confirm my argument. All the ad hominems and non sequiturs in the world won't change the reality. Except, perhaps, in your own mind.

 

---

Of course, you can be against Rudy Giuliani because of his positions on some of the social issues; but it's absurd to argue, especially after the 8 sorry years of the clintons, that there would be no difference between Rudy Giuliani and hillary clinton in the managing of the determinative issue of our time, in protecting this country.--me

Do you believe that the GOP will lose control of Congress? Do you think that she get away with usurping their power? Do you think that if Congress declares war -- or authorizes the use of force -- that she'll be able to ignore it and live to talk about it? Do you think that the American people would just shrug off another attack? If you do, you aren't being rational.--you

You seem to fail to comprehend how it works, how the clintons do their damage.

Do you not understand that the clintons ignored terrorism for their entire tenure and that it was willful, self-serving?

Let's not beat this thing to death. I think both of our positions are clear.

[Mia T]

They are EFFECTIVELY equivalent. That is the reality you refuse to face.

By voting third party, or by sitting it out, you are voting for hillary clinton just as surely as if you placed an 'x' next to her name.

[tee-sixtytwo]

My proposal in post 181 solves that dilemma. It is something our movement should work for. It keeps the Electoral College yet gets the nation out of the one-party-with-two wings rut.

[Badray]

Please refer to Article One, Section 8, Clause 10 (if I counted right) of the US Constitution.

It will tell you that Congress has authority in this area. Whether the last Clinton or the (some think) next one ignores what happens to this country, Congress has a duty to act. Some would have you believe that the POTUS alone has a duty and authority to act.

If Congress declares war, does anyone think that 'she' can or will refuse to act, especially in light of another attack?

This post is meant only for lurkers. There is no need for any previous poster to reply.

[Badray]

"You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary.--me "

"They are EFFECTIVELY equivalent. That is the reality you refuse to face."

"By voting third party, or by sitting it out, you are voting for hillary clinton just as surely as if you placed an 'x' next to her name."

Slow down.

Read the first line as often as necessary. That sentence is the opposite of what you mean to say and what you say in the 3rd quote.

I am not arguing (at this time) with what you meant to say, only pointing out that I think you didn't type it right.

I understand your argument. I just don't buy into that theory as a reason to vote for someone that I find totally unacceptable.

[Mia T]

1-What I said was precisely what I meant to say.
2- It isn't a 'theory.' It's a demonstrable fact.

[Badray]

Good bye.

[Mia T]

Don't leave so fast, Badray.

I re-read your comment and halfway concede your point about the typo (but not the substance, however.) ;)

Either version, yours or mine, is consistent with the basic thesis, although they are diametrically opposite as to causal relationship, i.e.,

THESIS: "By voting third party, or by sitting it out, you are voting for hillary clinton just as surely as if you placed an 'x' next to her name."

You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary.--what I said

You vote 'yes' for hillary by voting 'no' for Rudy.--what you thought I meant to say

I said what I said because I see your voting (3rd party / hillary) as the act by which you vote 'no' for Rudy.

But your construction is also consistent with the thesis, although it would reverse cause and effect as I had meant it.