3rd Party Candidate for President?

[Marathoner]

20 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

I don't disagree, but it's just a wondering of mine that I opened to (hopefully) light conversation. In any case, I'm for the King and helping Him bring in His kingdom, not in the temporal stuff - it's interesting for a moment and that's pretty much it.

I understand, brother. 

You can see why I remain silent as a rule. Lacking roots of any kind, having no family, and traveling for most of my life (thus lacking an address which is required for voting) made it possible for me to remain "the outsider looking in." 

I have, however, studied history and am rather familiar with the history of the United States. A three party system would only be feasible if the current "winner takes all" electoral paradigm were discarded. As it stands right now, power fluctuates between the presidency and the Congress. History demonstrates that general elections are a different animal than midterm elections. Independent or "swing" voters are famous for the following: the party of the president they vote for is often the opposite of the party of the legislators they vote for.

Just as well, local or state-level elections are not like national elections among the voter base.

I did well in my political science coursework in college. This is probably because politics makes me feel ill! 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Marathoner

[Rick-Parker]

One may not participate in voting, but they still have to live under the rule of those that are elected. You might as well pretend to have a say in it.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

On 6/9/2023 at 10:52 AM, Vine Abider said:

Just read an interesting article by Peggy Noonan on the Wall Street Journal on why the sistuation could be ripe for a 3rd party candidate to actually win.  I've thought for some time that that the federal government might need this, to break up the frustrating stranglehold the two parties have - a powerful duopoly system.

I would be labeled a conservative/libertarian, but these days I don't like a fair amount of what the GOP has done or is doing. And, according to Peggy, I'm in the 44% of conservatives who don't want to see Trump run again (for a variety of reasons).  And according to polls, an even larger amount (near 50%) of Democrats don't want Biden to run again.  Overall, she says 60-70% of voters don't want to see either one of them run! (BTW - most people describe themselves as independent, for a variety or reasons)

She put's forth the notion that with this major dissatisfaction with the current offerings (Biden & Trump) and if things lined-up a certain way, a 3rd party could actually get the majority of a 3-way split (with the 3rd party carrying some states). This would mean not enough electoral college votes (270) to automatically reach the presidency for any party, and it would then go to the House of Representatives to resolve. 

I must say I like the idea, as I cannot vote for either Trump or Biden . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-count-a-third-party-out-in-2024-no-labels-independents-republicans-democrats-election-candidate-nomination-polarization-f5931258

This might be off topic, but I think they should dissolve the whole party system. It does so much damage. This can be seen when congress votes on either people or bills. People vote with their party, regardless of the consequences. On a personal note, I can't wait to vote foe Trump again. He might not be a great person, but his policies helped so many people.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

On 6/11/2023 at 8:14 AM, Rick-Parker said:

One may not participate in voting, but they still have to live under the rule of those that are elected. You might as well pretend to have a say in it.

The founding fathers believed you couldn't call yourself an American if you didn't fulfill your DUTY to vote. 

[AnOrangeCat]

On 6/9/2023 at 11:52 AM, Vine Abider said:

  I've thought for some time that that the federal government might need this, to break up the frustrating stranglehold the two parties have - a powerful duopoly system.

I'd love it if we did manage to break up the two party system and agree that we need it. But I'm possibly too cynical about our politics and don't see it happening... yet. There's a variety of reasons for it, like the money and influence wielded by both parties, but another issue is that the current system really funnels voters toward one party or the other. Most people who care enough to vote realize that as nice as it might be to make a symbolic statement with their vote by voting for 3rd party candidate that they really agree with, it'd ultimately be a wasted vote.

I couldn't read the article either, but I do know that ranked choice voting has been gaining traction. Most states don't allow it, and other than Maine none of them allow it for the presidential election. I strongly believe that until we see that implemented on a national level we won't see the two party system go away.

[FJK]

1 hour ago, AnOrangeCat said:

I strongly believe that until we see that implemented on a national level we won't see the two party system go away.

Be careful what you wish for, there is no law made that cannot be abused outside of its original purpose and if it can be it will be.  Know who the winners and losers will be when it is abused before you support it.

Remember, the First Amendment guarantee of the free practice of religion is now used to suppress the free practice of Christianity and promote anti-Christian government activities that ban open Christian practice, in government offices and employment, in our schools and in the public square.

[Ray12614]

 The reality of our situation in the US is that in our 2 party system, the Democrats NEVER split so much as to eventually unify into a single unified party. The Republicans, on the other hand, split all the time, and most of the time lose . . . and seem to be comfortable losing.

So . . . what do I do?  I VOTE for the least wicked PARTY who will at least have a chance to promote key issues of freedom and Christian values. Remember it is the PARTY and the Administration and all of the overhead that comes with an elected president. We see that with our current president who barely knows what day it is . . . it is his administration that is actually running governing this country.

Remember - we are not voting for Pastor . . . we are voting for the party who will best fight for our Judeo-Christian values, or the one who will LEAST hurt those values. THAT is our responsibility and duty as dual citizens of this country and heaven.

Some have estimated that 30-40 million Christians have not voted, nor are registered to vote.

To stay home and not vote is casting a vote for the status quo of the left . . . so . . . tell me if you can . . .

How is that currently working out for us ? ? ? 

[Vine Abider]

2 hours ago, Ray12614 said:

Remember - we are not voting for Pastor . . . we are voting for the party who will best fight for our Judeo-Christian values, or the one who will LEAST hurt those values. THAT is our responsibility and duty as dual citizens of this country and heaven.

This seems to be a pretty good guiding principle as it relates to politics.  This world's system is not the Lord's government, even though scripture says He has provided it and has ultimate control.

So we vote according to what you said above, and do our best not to focus on the whole swirling mass of men's motives and actions, but rather on the King, His love and His wonderful purpose!

[Ray12614]

20 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

This seems to be a pretty good guiding principle as it relates to politics.  This world's system is not the Lord's government, even though scripture says He has provided it and has ultimate control.

So we vote according to what you said above, and do our best not to focus on the whole swirling mass of men's motives and actions, but rather on the King, His love and His wonderful purpose!

Addendum . . . 

Interestingly enough, as fate would have it, Today in the Christian Post is an article of news NOT being reported on network news (for the most part - I rarely listen to them). Namely this: The supreme court threw out a lower court ruling that stopped South Carolina from removing Planned Parenthood from the list of approved Medicare providers.

Why is this important? It is because government money (Medicare) will no longer be used to fund abortions in SC via the wicked Planned Parenthood provider. This will break the money cash cow for abortion provider PP in that state. Other states will probably follow who are against the wicked hideous practices of PP.

How did that ruling happen?  

It happened because President Trump appointed several supreme court justices who were not leftist abortion judges. It happened because in 2016 Christians turned out to vote for him. It happened because Trump was and is a 'fighter' and not a meek and humble career politician who is not afraid of doing what he thinks is right in spite of all the 'trump haters' that stood  (and still stand) against him.

So . . . do I always agree with what Trump says and does? OF COURSE NOT!!!  But Trump was the least evil candidate for president in 2016 that would have an administration come with him that would work for some of our conservative values (some of which are Christian BTW).  Do you think that the SCOTUS decision would have happened under Hilary Clinton? OF COURSE NOT.

And yes, God did have a major role in this decision, but, in our representative government in the USA, we the people can have a say in who are elected leaders are, and we are responsible for voting for the best of the choices given to us.

A lot more could be said on various issues (border, energy, schools, etc.), but I will leave that for others to weigh in on if they want to.

Ray . . . 

[Vine Abider]

4 hours ago, Ray12614 said:

Addendum . . . 

Interestingly enough, as fate would have it, Today in the Christian Post is an article of news NOT being reported on network news (for the most part - I rarely listen to them). Namely this: The supreme court threw out a lower court ruling that stopped South Carolina from removing Planned Parenthood from the list of approved Medicare providers.

Why is this important? It is because government money (Medicare) will no longer be used to fund abortions in SC via the wicked Planned Parenthood provider. This will break the money cash cow for abortion provider PP in that state. Other states will probably follow who are against the wicked hideous practices of PP.

How did that ruling happen?  

It happened because President Trump appointed several supreme court justices who were not leftist abortion judges. It happened because in 2016 Christians turned out to vote for him. It happened because Trump was and is a 'fighter' and not a meek and humble career politician who is not afraid of doing what he thinks is right in spite of all the 'trump haters' that stood  (and still stand) against him.

So . . . do I always agree with what Trump says and does? OF COURSE NOT!!!  But Trump was the least evil candidate for president in 2016 that would have an administration come with him that would work for some of our conservative values (some of which are Christian BTW).  Do you think that the SCOTUS decision would have happened under Hilary Clinton? OF COURSE NOT.

And yes, God did have a major role in this decision, but, in our representative government in the USA, we the people can have a say in who are elected leaders are, and we are responsible for voting for the best of the choices given to us.

A lot more could be said on various issues (border, energy, schools, etc.), but I will leave that for others to weigh in on if they want to.

Ray . . . 

That's great hearing about the SCOTUS decision on Planned Parenthood!

However, my wife and I, and several conservative fiends we know, have pretty much had our fill of Trump. I liked that he was an out-side-the-beltway guy who wasn't beholding to anybody in DC.  But at some point the mounting liabilities just seem to be way over the top . . .

One liability I see in electing him is the impact on everyone who isn't completely in the tank for Trump (and there are a lot of independents out there now). These folks would really be - to put it mildly - alienated and heated up if he's elected or if they just see a potential of him winning.  Therefore I'd like to see someone who didn't immediately insult everyone else and cause them to totally dig in their heels. (DeSantis or Pence?)

In politics, one has to be able to have some measure of diplomacy, in order to get things done.  War is where you confront your enemy with a big show of strength, but that's not always so effective in politics. I think Trump may have spent about all his political capitol, and could be generally ineffective if he was in again, for the aforementioned reasons.

But that's just my ramblings . . . may we have God's guidance, wisdom and speaking as we consider & select the next president!