Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Nov. 4, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Dear reader,
The election is almost over, the polls close Tuesday and those fliers that clog the mailbox and fill the TV will soon be gone. Assuming the election isn’t drawn out with recounts and lawsuits, the nation should know who has won in the hours after the polls close Tuesday night.
Then what?
That’s the question we’re asking you. No matter who the winners are, can we get along? How does the nation move forward? What do the next two or four years look like? (And not just in Washington but in Carson City.)
We’d like to know what you think, and please don’t wait for the election, we’d like to start the discussion as soon as possible. Send an email to letters@lasvegassun.com with the subject line “What’s next?” You can also comment below, send a letter via the regular mail or fax. The address is: Letters c/o Las Vegas Sun, 2360 Corporate Circle, Third Floor, Henderson, NV 89074; the fax: (702) 383-7264. We’ll look forward to your responses.
Best,
Matt
Matt Hufman is editor of the editorial and opinion pages. On Twitter @MattattheSun.
Sorry that my expectations are low. I think there will be continued accusations, anger, blaming, complaining about whoever is in the Whitehouse, and Congress.
It is almost a national sport now.
- Obama's election will established that SUCCESS IS BAD. As shown by the eight months of character assassination of successful businessman Romney and taxing job creators.
- If Obama wins FAILURE IS THE NEW NORMAL. Meager economic growth has been rewarded.
-if Romney we will have a return to civility and economic growth
If we are to return to a decent rate of growth, rising wages and more employment, we have to have 'compromise' in our legislatures, both national and at the state level. This compromising will have to be led by the President and State governors and be supported by a majority of the American people.
Tough decisions, such as eventual higher taxes on everyone and a real commitment to a reduction in spending must be a part of any plan.
I understand that Obama and Romney must push the 'fairy tale' that no sacrifice will be necessary during a campaign, but I 'hope' both realize that it is a fairy tale and once elected, they drop it and tell us the truth, ugly though it is.
Michael
Our country will be just fine regardless of who wins the presidency. The USA moves by its own momentum thanks in large part to our Founders and Framers who designed our system of government to do so. And thanks to Americans who have an unwaivering love and respect our great country.
CarmineD
The following article from the Huffington Post cogently expressed what our nation would be like with a Romney presidency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-rei...
At the surface it embraces the Ayn Rand philosophy. However, individualism cannot happen in a society where opportunities are available only to a few and are denied to many through inequity, inequality, and obstruction in the access of resources. Our system is far from perfect, but it has served us well for centuries.
No man is an island. An evolved society is looked at through a lens of how it treats the underprivileged, the marginalized, and the downtrodden. There is nothing wrong with this philosophy. It makes us human.
Both philosophies can co-exist when they are balanced, centered. It collides when power and greed supersedes all that is human in us.
You have to wonder if, after all the energy expended on the election campaign, there's any gas left in the tank for actually solving problems.
Either way most of us will continue chopping wood and carrying water.
For one, I will start answering my phones again. For another, I will survive no matter who wins. I will also continue to record most TV I watch so I can continue to "fast-forward" through the commercials just as before. This includes news & entertainment shows. The only exceptions being sports such as football & baseball. With "picture-in-picture," I can easily switch channels and games to avoid as many commercials as I possibly can. (I do make excetions for clever commercials such as Geico's "Beep-Beep" commercial, though.)
In reply to Matt Hufman; should President Obama win reelection, even in the short run, the Democratic Party will lose even a larger amount of hearts from its voter base. I envision the birth of a new American styled Labor Party. This Labor Party, if nurtured properly can well mothball the present corrupted Democratic Party. Yes, even with a Democratic President in power, many Americans are still vulnerable to the powers and greed of the business and or corporate spheres of unfair and inhumane influences.
As an analogy of a frustrated Democratic voter, this is parallel to an abused housewife who keeps returning home to her often times violent, verbally offensive husband because she has no other place to go. This is precisely the predicament that many Democratic voters are faced with today.
NAFTA WILL LEAD TO THE DEMISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
Today's Democratic Party does not connect with the working class. Democratic candidates running for political office love to utilize terms such as, ""for working men and women" and "working families". Yet their endeavors do not add up to their speech-making.
Case in point is candidate Barack Obama who opposed NAFTA. As President Obama he has not only endorsed NAFTA, but has made extensions of NAFTA styled agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama.
Besides the millions upon millions of skilled middle-class American workers who have lost everything they have ever worked for, there is still a record number of other Americans across stunningly diverse demographics that believe NAFTA has severely hurt them economically. Even though labor unions are opposed to NAFTA, Obama is still not listening. He is well aware the middle and lower socioeconomic working classes have a restricted political party choice. This backs many middle-class Americans and their organizations into a narrow dogmatic corner where there are no other alternatives but to vote the Democratic Party line.
I know firsthand from the Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms just how frustrated and angered these Democratic voters are. Bringing up issues such as President Obama turn-coating in his support for NAFTA has surfaced commentaries that could well equal a "kill the messenger" escapade. I try to be understanding, but frequently lose my patience in being negatively branded by some Democratic supporters.
One should remember that unions have played an important role in American politics throughout history. Another point is, labor unions are firmly in opposition to NAFTA, but are cornered into endorsing Barack Obama's reelection. Don't think for a second that our labor unions will take these turn of events lying down. I still envision the eventual birth of a new American styled "Labor Party".
Bradley, in a tone deaf series of posts has ragged on like this:
"If this is so, why are Democrats supporting Obama who has refused to repeal and or withdraw our membership from NAFTA? It doesn't make sense for liberals to back a President when the realities of NAFTA benefit out-sourcing businesses and tumbles the skilled middle-class employment of blue collar workers in America."
I say:
It is, to a lot of Obama supporters, a huge let down that Obama is in reality a staunch free trader. He likely always has been. Some Obama supporters like me are forced to accept it because we have no alternative.
I would like to see a 25% tariff on all imports with that money used to pay off the debt.
It is a sort of front end VAT.
Obama might support it, Romney never would, and to me the primary reason to vote Obama is the SCOTUS anyway.
@wtplv,
"I understand that Obama and Romney must push the 'fairy tale' that no sacrifice will be necessary during a campaign, but I 'hope' both realize that it is a fairy tale and once elected, they drop it and tell us the truth, ugly though it is." (Michael Casler)
Aah, where have Obama implied no sacrifice will be necessary?
The President has made it clear throughout his Presidency there must be shared sacrifice. The President has not changed during this campaign. The Republican candidate for running for president has changed his position every day.
So, your understanding is incorrect, and way off base. Plus your implying something and sending something of a distortion and misleading premise.
The LasVegasSun.Com asked
*****Then what?*****
As long as the victory by either side is outside of the margin of voter suppression the results should give enough impetus to get the debt situation addressed and a viable plan started.
The middle should dictate policy for a while whoever wins.
If the Romney win is where voter suppression has been implemented, and is plausible that the other side would have won, it will be war.
*****No matter who the winners are, can we get along?*****
I doubt it. Pretty hardened positions have been reached at this point.
*****How does the nation move forward?*****
It depends upon the middle of America getting activated. The hard core of both parties are likely to stay entrenched.
*****What do the next two or four years look like?(And not just in Washington but in Carson City.)*****
It depends upon the congresses in the federal government and state government. If they look at the future as the glass half full or half empty. The other end of the equation is will Christians accept that God is in control and will they support either winner? If they stand hard line against Obama or trample everyone in a Romney win...
Longtimevegan if I remember Obama's ad about shared sacrifice is that the wealthy will pay more.
Mr. Chapline: I have to agree with most of your post but it is also the surrogats (or self appionted surrogates) that make me shake my head. Bill Maher's latest comment to Romney supporters says the "Black people know who you are and they will find you". How despicable is a statement like this? In my opinion, all this does is cause division and resentment of one group against another.
You have heard me rail against NAFTA here before. Our President is a believer in the One World view and I do not agree. I believe that we must take care of our own first and formost.
Mr. Thompson, says,
"Longtimevegan if I remember Obama's ad about shared sacrifice is that the wealthy will pay more."
Mr. Thompson, do you not agree the majority of Americans are already paying an unbalanced amount per household income compared to the wealthy?
Bill Maher is not a surrogate.
He is a comedian whose material is meant for adults only.
He is a donor to Barack Obama, not a spokesman for the president.
Well Jeff how would you react if Dennis Miller said the same thing about white people hunting down black people. Bill Maher is not a comedian in my mind. My point was that there are too many dividing our country. As peacelily stated: "It is a national sport".
I expect the outright hatred between the two major parties to continue to increase no matter who wins. Too many people have accepted the belief that there can be only two major parties, and that third parties are a waste of time.
Bradley's comment is in fact a strong argument that there is a great need for another party to rise up that can bring in people from both the Democrats and Republicans who are not being properly represented by those platforms.
The Democrats now lay claim to so many different groups that internal conflicts of interest are inevitable. The Keystone Pipeline and NAFTA are classic examples of this. The more recent South Korea trade agreement even went so far as to pit various union factions against each other.
The Republicans are no better, they now routinely pit those who have a broad outlook about the human condition against those who can be called the "religious right" without regard for the logical implications for individual liberty.
No, I see the situation only getting worse until the moderates from both parties join up with those who are truly independents to build up a third major party. I have my preference for what that party should be, of course. :)
What's next,
I believe who ever wins this election should try and work for the benifit of the people. Not the benifit of the party.This will be difficult.
It has been proven that the Republican party has driven a wedge between both parties in trying to get anything done. This has caused myself and others to switch over and vote Democrat. For me this is the first time in 44 years that I have voted for a Democrat for president.People are waking up.
Long says "Aah, where have Obama implied no sacrifice will be necessary? The President has made it clear throughout his Presidency there must be shared sacrifice."
That statement is liberal's joke. Obama will threaten to and veto any bill that come to him until he get his ENVY TAX ON THE RICH AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
There is no demand for any SHARED sacrifice for anyone making under $250k
After reading more of the responses, I think it is not inappropriate for me to mention again my own preferences.
One thing that stands out is the not insignificant number of people who say they are dissatisfied in some way with their party of choice. I think that if people are honest with themselves they will admit that they agree with their chosen party only a little more than 50%.
Many of you know that I support the Modern Whig Party. I have been active in the past, but personal circumstances dictated that I was idle for a while. That is changing and I will once again take a more active role.
I have no doubt that those who are members of the Moral Majority or those with strong socialist leanings will find much that appeals. But those of you who believe our government should provide a strong defense, physical and social infrastructure (including public education), and a firm commitment to the American economy should find much to consider.
I urge you think about what would happen in Congress if besides Democrats and Republicans there was a significant number of Whigs who could pick and choose on each issue which was the better way to go based on logic and pragmatism instead of relying blindly on party ideology.
What will happen? The Party of No will continue to obstruct President Obama because, well, that's all they know how to do.
There's always hope, however, that those red states, mostly located in the South, will band together and declare their independence from America, leaving the rest of the country to get on a path to longterm progress where all citizens proper, not just the Romney country club elites.
OBAMA / BIDEN 2012 !
PERRY / LIMBAUH 2012 for the New Confederacy !
We need a new congress, not a new president!
Long says "We need a new congress,"
Finally Long agrees on the need to replace Senate leader Harry Reid
John Thompson asked:
"Well Jeff how would you react if Dennis Miller said the same thing about white people hunting down black people."
I say:
I don't worry about anything that relatively minor ex-SNL star has to say. The same way I don't worry about what Bill Maher says.
They just aren't on my "IMPORTANT HUMAN BEINGS" radar.
Future says,
"There is no demand for any SHARED sacrifice for anyone making under $250k" (Future)
Question to Future:
... do you not agree the majority of Americans are already paying an unbalanced amount per household income compared to the wealthy?
Future say,
"Finally Long agrees on the need to replace Senate leader Harry Reid" (Future)
Again, we need a new congress. Not a new president.
Let's go to school Future.
Thinking outside the box. Some call it being creative, creative thinking. Thinking is always creative, thinking is never within box, or limited, or narrow.
Ponder this if you will. The standards that defines the use of words to express our thinking.
NEW:
1)...having but lately or but now come into knowledge...
2)...of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time....
3)...having but lately come to a place, position, status.
The larger picture must always be considered my friend.
Those that wear the Republican label now are not you Mom and Dad's Republicans that were a part of the governance in the USA.
some links that explains what happened to the Republican party:
"The triumph of Political Derangement"
http://truth-out.org/opinion/opinion/ite... triumph-of-political-derang...
"Who killed Washington? Republicans caught red-handed"
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archiv...
"The Tea Party's Plan to Cripple Congress"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012/08/07... civil war erupts, led by super rich, GOP"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/print?/......
As America grows more polarized, Conservatives increasingly reject science and rational thought"
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155906/......
"The GOP's Class Warfare Hypocrisy, from Nixon to Romney"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20......
That's all for now, will be back later. Have a good evening.
boftx,
You know I support multiple parties in our politics. I mean more than two. So, that isn't an issue for me. I don't care who they are, there will be people who think the same.
My biggest problem is that they tend to run candidates for President, without any or sufficient Congressional support.
Other parties must start running full tickets in all states. This is needed to break up the monopoly in our Congress, and I don't mean Democrats and Republicans alone. They are the public players or puppets working for they puppet masters.
Congress as it is structured by the two parties has entrenched themselves and their special interests.
Personally, I would like to see several parties and coalitions formed for governance. This could break up some of the entrenchments and get the ball rolling again with sound legislation.
Lobbying will not cease and desist under the two party system. Yet, it is a deadly virus in our system.
I really hope that after this election, some really serious work will be done by multiple parties to find, educate, and prepare their way for full participation in the 2016 general election. However, if there are other offices to run for before that date, they need to enter the race. That includes State Legislatures and Governor races.
It will take time, and commitment by many, but if people are willing to give service for up to two terms, rather than a lifetime, there are ways to increase the commitment, experience, and growth of the parties.
There policy stands also have a significant impact.
Until a third party is present to gain sufficient support from fellows in Congress, I have to wait. There have been too many failures in Presidential runs alone.
To all third parties, you have much work ahead!
REVENGE!!!
That really reveals a lot about Obama. He's not the nice guy some people think he is! He's mean and nasty.
A third would not work in today political climate. It sounds good, it make for a good discussion, but in the reality of today's politics, it's a no go.
In order to run any campaign in today's political climate you need funding. Donors, small and large. Until the Citizen United decision is corrected, a third party would not have a chance to get off the ground.
One cannot say the Tea Party is trying, or attempting to be a third party. It's more of a highjacking of the Republican Party with the nob turned extremely to the right with a rabbit fever.
You can't even threaten the existing two parties with a third party. The two collectively, or individually, would sabotage or use the third party against the one another or have the third party dismantled altogether.
The Tea Party is a good example of being used by big money donors like the Koch Brothers and the Bradley Foundation. The Bradley Foundation, has done more harm to our democracy, more so than the Koch Brothers.
We need to fix a few things first before a third party can get started.
The way to fix things is to put a couple of dozen members of a third party in Congress! You are not going to fix either the Democrats or Republicans by continuing to vote for them.
A third party can attract its own big money donors *IF* people started the groundswell to begin with.
So quit complaining and actually do something about it.
Boftx,
Again, sounds good, but this is not the reality. Complaining and stating a fact are not the same.
If having a third party or voting in an independent is as easy as you put it, we would have many independents or a third party candidate in State and National elections.
Sorry my friend, a third party is far off in the future. You must fix several things first, mainly the Citizen United decision.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a new third party to suddenly appear on the scene.....
This isn't 1854 and the chances of a new third party coming on the scene and actually making a difference is "slim & none."
"slim," I'm told left town last week on a bus headed for parts unknown......
Some people have said that the present day Tea Party is going to develop into a major political party but if history teaches us anything at all, it's very evident......that's simply not going to happen.
Of course, the tea party reminds me of several other third parties who have come down the pike in the last 150+ years.
99% of them didn't last very long and any good ideas or beliefs that they had were sooner or later claimed/stolen by one of the two major parties.....
The tea party crew has NO long range plan and they have convinced themselves that being willing to compromise and work with other people is a sign of weakness....
Everything is "our way or the highway" with the tea party crowd. They actually believe that grid-lock is good and dysfunctional government is a sign that progress is taking place....
No, don't get your hopes up & think for a single minute that this country is going to be saved by a group such as the tea party.....
It ain't going to happen!!!!
The majority of Democrats in the Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms still don't get it.
I have come to realize that Obama has filed more lawsuits against China during his first four years in office than all other Republicans combined. This is an admirable game plan to put America on equal footing in a global market with manipulators. Obama most likely turned his back on his campaign promise to repeal NAFTA and figured that he would instead take legal actions against other countries that do not play by the rules. I get it. Obama is a lawyer, and sees his presidency from that perspective. However, a promise is a promise. To me, he broke an extremely important promise in not repealing NAFTA.
I don't see life from a lawyer's perspective. I see life of middle-class Americans from a current and humanitarian perspective. Because America did not eliminate NAFTA, millions and millions of skilled middle-class blue-collar careers vanished. These middle-class Americans lost their homes, and everything else they have worked for in their lives. When I see this happening all over our country, legalities and lawsuits mean absolutely nothing to me. All I see are the lives of innocent hard working Americans going down the tubes, when most of it could have been avoided.
In other words, you can have a lawyer representing you in a legal case, and sure, the lawyer is doing the legal job expected of him on your behalf, but he cannot relate to your present life crashing.
This is why I withdrew my support of Barack Obama. However, I must say, congratulations President Obama, it is true you have won almost every lawsuit filed against China. But, to all my fellow middle-class blue collar workers who have lost everything in their lives, where are they sitting since all these legal victories against China have been celebrated? Most are still unemployed; still, not able to recover from their personal financial crash. Was it all worth it taking the legal route Mr. Obama and not just taking the more practical route, as you promised as a candidate, and repealed NAFTA which would have saved millions of careers in the middle-class blue collar worker sector?
I wholeheartedly agree with the President of the International Teamsters Union, James Hoffa Jr. being in opposition to both NAFTA and any extensions thereof. Mr. Hoffa understands the repercussions that NAFTA brings to middle-class America. It is fact, Mr. Hoffa is NOT seeing through the prisms of lawsuits filed against China. He is, as he should be, watching out for the well-being of his middle-class blue collar workers.
This in itself, is more than just cause for the birth of the "American Labor Party" in politics.
Brad......
James Hoffa campaigned WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA THIS
WEEK!
James Hoffa and the TEAMSTERS UNION fully indorse
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
We back the president and will continue to work
with him on all labor issues.
And we don't need a third party for labor.
This isn't England.
The DEMOCRATIC PARTY backs labor and workers.
WE TEAMSTERS NEVER GIVE UP!
Matt......
We will continue to fight for the average
American and the poor.
In reply to "Teamster"; and who did you think the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was going to endorse, Mitt Romney??? I highly doubt it.
I spelled out an analogy on the Democratic voter and the labor organizations above. They have no place to go but to vote for and endorse Obama.
Said the Teamsters International Vice President;
"If we think the war on workers is tough right now, put Mitt Romney in office and you'll see how tough it is," said International Vice President John Coli."
Take this to heart because it is fact;
Teamsters' President, James Hoffa, claims that: "We were sold a bill of goods about NAFTA." That means, "Teamster", they were lied to.
"Teamster"; you have your job. You have your nest egg. What about all the other middle-class Americans who lost theirs because of NAFTA and lost everything through no fault of their own?
"It's easy to shake off pain and suffering when it is not truly yours isn't it?" >B. Chapline<
We need the "American Labor Party". In the coming years, just wait and see what James Hoffa Jr. will do!!!
We certainly don't have the parties of the past who were willing to work with each other.
I said before that the Tea Party was sucked into the Republican party rather than working hard to become a real party.
Once they got power, it was like creating a monster, with two years of holding up action, obstructing and thinking of themselves rather than the people.
I agree that Citizen's United must be overturned, and solid regulations must be a replacement for Glass-Steagall.
In my dreams is serious reform of lobbying and campaign financing that makes it easier for multiple parties to compete.
We don't need all the ads of garbage. We need to focus on learning from the candidates websites. Storefront offices can disseminate information in areas that don't have Internet access. If that is too difficult, call the campaign to request material be mailed.
There are always possibilities of more Town Halls in areas that seem out of touch.
The point is that campaigning doesn't require obscene amounts of money, IF we get the system fixed. That should be our focus.
Then the multiple parties have a chance, providing what they stand for really garners support.
They should also stand on their own and not be sucked into one of the established parties as the Tea Party was.
Yes, they need to have an effective presence in Congress to have an impact on change.
Much of the opinions I express includes my understanding that I am not privileged to all the information that our elected officials are. There are many issues that involve a variety of concerns, including diplomacy, defense, economic and trade, etc.
If I had the insight of those who have the responsibility for the jobs they hold, I might have different views.
In some things, it doesn't matter which party is involved in the very difficult jobs they have.
That said, I expect them to work together on behalf of the nation, not lobbyists and those they represent as more important than every other citizen.
They should also be required to renounce any outside pledges, promises, or vows to a special interests, whether an individual or a group, or business, as part of their swearing in as representatives to the entire nation.
Longtimevegan says that President Obama has talked about shared sacrifice, and that is true. But those are only words.
The 'specifics' are tax the wealthy more and cut defense spending. That's short on the 'shared' part and wholly 'inadequate' to address our fiscal problems. Romney also lacks specifics.
Longtimevegan and most other Americans need to stop believing the balony. Support who you like but be open enough to recognize and acknowledge that neither man has a plan that contains the higher taxes, the spending cuts and things to increase economic growth that will be required.
Michael
"James Hoffa campaigned WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA THIS
WEEK!"
His father James R. Hoffa hated the democrats. He was put in jail by the Kennedys and pardoned by Richard Nixon.
CarmineD
Time and time again we hear from the news media that the United States Congress is 'broken' and can't get anything done. When is the media going to start getting this right? Congress is not 'broken'. A small faction of extreme right-wing Republicans has produced the stalemate in Washington DC we are all too familiar with. As just one example look at this article about how a small faction of Republicans in Congress threw a wrench in disaster relief legislation yet the news media blamed all of Congress:
Coming on the heels of the debt ceiling crisis from this summer, it looked like the logjam over FEMA might be the latest example of Congressional brinksmanship between Democrats and Republicans, since they couldn't agree on how the pay for FEMA's billions in the wake of Hurricane Irene. Before the story recedes, it's worth examining how the press covered the controversy and specifically how the press often looked away from the latest radical turn taken by Republicans. Indeed, the GOP tried to fundamentally change the way disaster relief legislation was funded -- and passed -- in Congress. That fact was central to the standoff and that's what sparked the stalemate. Yet in so much of the news coverage, that fact was omitted, which changed the entire dynamics of the story. Instead of the story being about how Republicans were embracing a radical new legislative initiative, and doing it the expense of disaster victims in need of government aid, the story was presented as more partisan sniping. In reality, the press did Republicans, and their Tea Party activists, a favor by dumbing down the FEMA story and refusing to acknowledge the party's increasingly extremist nature.........
..........Last week, an on-air CNN reporter noted that traditionally FEMA funding "is not something that's a political hot potato," but that it suddenly had become one. The reporter though, never really explained why it had become a political hot potato. (Answer: It was a deliberate Republican strategy.)
FULL ARTICLE:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/09/27/...
El_Lobo, says,
"This isn't 1854 and the chances of a new third party coming on the scene and actually making a difference is "slim & none."
"slim," I'm told left town last week on a bus headed for parts unknown....."
El_Lobo, your the best!
What's next"
The 100th day of the Romney administration
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/en...
peacelily, bchap, boftx very good posts and logical. I enjoyed very much this morning.
A MUST See:
12 must-share facts about President Obama's record
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/12...
For the dimwits who post here:
"Instant-runoff voting (IRV) has several alternative names such as alternative vote (AV), transferable voting, or simply preferential voting.
It is an electoral system used to elect a single winner from a field or more than two candidates. It is a form of preferential voting (or ranked choice voting) in which voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than simply selecting a single candidate.
Ballots are initially distributed based on each elector's first preference. If a candidate secures more than half of votes cast, that candidate wins.
Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots indicating that candidate first are added to the totals of the candidate ranked second (if done). This process continues until one candidate wins by obtaining more than half the remaining votes.
IRV has the effect of avoiding split votes and the need for electors to vote "strategically" for candidates who are not their first choice. For example, suppose here are two conservative candidates A & B, and a liberal candidate C, with raw popularity of 35%, 25% and 40% respectively. In a Plurality voting system, candidate C may win with 40% of the votes even though most electors prefer A or B.
Alternatively, a conservative elector who likes B may decide to vote for A instead in order to prevent C from being elected. With IRV, the elector can allocate their preferences B, A, C and then A will win despite the split vote in first choices.
Instant runoff voting is used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives and most Australian State Governments, the President of India, members of legislative councils in India, the President of Ireland, the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, and the House of Representatives of Fiji. It is also used in Northern Ireland by-elections and for electing hereditary peers for the British House of Lords.
IRV is employed by several jurisdictions in the United States, including Portland, Maine; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Saint Paul, Minnesota.
It is used to elect the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom and will be used to elect the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in a national primary and in the elections of city mayors in a number of countries.
IRV is used to elect the mayor in cities such as London in the United Kingdom (in the variant known as supplementary vote)and Dunedin and Wellington in New Zealand.
Info from Wikipedia.
That is a more likely scenario to happen, and a way to have, for instance an Evangelical candidate like Sam Brownback or Sara Palin, A progressive candidate like Bernie Saunders, and or a party full of stupids candidate like Mitt Romney, and if there is not a clear and demonstrable choice, we go again a week or two later.
TODAY'S DEMOCRATS FALL SHORT OF BEING TRUE DEMOCRATS
PART ONE
"Slim Jim" Barack Obama promised as candidate Obama to, "Put on sneakers and walk a picket line himself when union rights were threatened."
Hmm, we all know "Slim Jim" Obama didn't leave town to join these fights. In Wisconsin, under Governor Walker, where public employee unions were fighting for their mere survival; Obama as well, ignored unions in Ohio and other states where GOP lawmakers have curbed collective bargaining rights. Yes, "Slim Jim" Obama stayed right at home. I have to wonder why then, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters endorsed Barack Obama in his reelection bid. The answer is clear, they had no choice. The alternative, Mitt Romney, could never even be considered for endorsement. However, it is true that Obama and the Democratic Party are losing a good bit of labor union support. Let us look at the supporting facts;
Many union leaders are easily fault-finding in that Obama that they worked so hard to elect in 2008 has not focused on job creation and other bold plans to get their union membership back to work. The president of the Amalgamated Transit Union was quoted as saying, "Obama campaigned big, but he is governing small."
Therefore, it is not surprising that unions have begun shifting money and resources out of Democratic hands and to the states in efforts to reverse or limit GOP measures that could well wipe out union rolls.
In supporting this, the AFL-CIO president said, "This is part of a new strategy for labor to build an independent voice separate from the Democratic Party."
Yes, yes, sounds like this is a beginning determination in formulating an "American Labor Party" to me!!!
PART TWO
I should not even have to mention, AGAIN, that "Slim Jim" Obama came out in favor of NAFTA styled trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama that will certainly cost more middle-class union jobs.
I shouldn't even need to mention that "Slim Jim" Obama was a great disappointment to unions when his healthcare overhaul didn't include a government-run insurance option.
I shouldn't need to mention that "Slim Jim" Obama agreed to extend George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
And, I should not have to mention that "Slim Jim" Obama despite his campaign promise in raising the minimum wage hasn't touched this issue since taking office.
So, go right ahead professed Democrats; tomorrow is Election Day. Yes, go ahead and cast your vote for "Slim Jim" Obama. It will only be a half vote for Romney. But know this, your vote for Obama proves that you fall short of being a true Democrat.
I, myself, in good conscience cannot do that. I care about the middle-class and what politicians have done to them in taking millions of these livelihoods away. I will continue to stand my ground as having the right to choose neither presidential candidate. This is my protest vote!!!
Just remember, your vote for "Slim Jim" Obama is just a half-hearted vote to protect the middle-class and those that were once middle-class and have fallen into poverty. Yeah, enjoy yourselves at the polls!!!
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Here is what I want to happen after the election:
http://www.modernwhig.org/handbook/who-a...
I would wager that the moderates and independents here can agree with almost every point of that philosophy/platform.
Again, just think what Congress would be like if people came together to elect even 25 or 30 Whigs in 2014. How many of you couldn't get behind a candidate with those values?
People on the fringes, no matter what fringe of the political map, won't find much there, but I suspect a large number of average Americans can find plenty of meat to bite into.
As I said, this is what I want to see happen next.
Boftx:
Jim, I read about 98% of your New Whigs website, it is the same prescriptions except for no mentions of unions and a little parsing of words that the Progressive Democratic caucus has espoused for years.
Very altruistic and harmless your buddies and you are, not too useful though. Most of your ground is included in the current day democratic party.
Based upon your website you proffered you should despise the republicans and vote with democrats about 95% of the time.
Jeff,
We part ways from the Democrats, Republican, and even the Libertarian parties in some key areas: mainly, we will take a good idea from wherever it originates, whether that be with us or from one of them.
Granted, many of our ideas (such as individual liberty) originated a few hundred years ago, but they are still just as valid today as then. :)
You're right, some of the Whig positions are progressive. This is not surprising. The Whig philosophy is essentially Classical Liberalism, which has little in common with what liberalism means today.
And for those who want to place Whigs in the Libertarian Party camp, don't. The LP leans toward anarchy, the Whigs recognize that government should be big enough to fulfill its responsibilities, but NO BIGGER!
That is why there are progressive elements present such as staying out of bedrooms and relationships.
Jim:
You can bluster all you want, you are a few degrees off from most democratic party positions, and on the other side of the planet from a lot of republican ideas.
" Bill Maher is not a comedian in my mind ." He seems to make a lot of money faking it then.
Jeff,
Look at the stances under "Where we stand" and you will see more divergence, especially on fiscal matters. Granted, we a a LONG ways away from Republicans on social matters, but you will find an interesting discussion on Affirmative Action that I daresay more than a few Democrats would also question.
The stands on the Second Amendment and separation of Church and State are decidedly along classical lines. I would daresay that hardline Democrats AND Republicans would be surprised by some of the ideas in the Church and State discussion, and how the ramifications of that stance follow through to same-sex and reproductive rights discussions.
No, the Modern Whigs are a continuation/rebirth of the ideas that helped shape our country from the beginning. (And you can believe we are upset with the TEA Party for making it almost impossible to talk about "Founding Fathers" without being lumped in with them.)
Jim,
I read every tenet. You mentioned 2nd amendment. Here is what your website says:
"Second Amendment
We support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our general viewpoint is that states can regulate firearms to whatever their local values dictate, but these regulations must be reasonable and can't be too costly or otherwise prohibitive to a point where it would violate the Constitutional right."
and the Church separation:
"While our members range from deeply religious to completely secular, we are realistic. We follow the rule that the government must not fund religious activities. However, the business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous. At the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others. So long as all other religions have equal access to display their holiday symbols, we see no problems.The Constitution is steeped in natural law and guarantees freedom of religious expression and a secular government."
Both are progressive positions and the Evangelicals and the NRA will both run you out of town on a rail.
As I say, you guys are harmless, keep attending the "We Think We Are Smarter" than everybody else meetings.
No skin off my nose...
What's next? The bloodletting by the Republicans over how this election was lost. The right will complain that Romney wasn't "conservative (really extremist) enough", even though he started doing much better when he veered to the center. The Teabaggers won't take no for an answer and the Republican brand will be further damaged in 2014 because of these idiots.
Besides failing on the economy Obama lied and people died!
"Ambassador Chris Stevens is Dead and Al Qaeda is Alive!"
Jim,
I fail to see why you try to convince Jeff. He seems quite convinced that the D's have every right answer there is, and they are the only party that it makes any sense to support.
I am always suspicious of people, right or left, who cannot find anything not to like about the party they support and nothing to agree with about the other party.
The party you support is different than the R's on social issues and different than the D's on fiscal issues. If a fair minded person goes to the site and reads what's on it with an open mind, they can see that.
Others can decide how open a mind Jeff really has. Again, I don't fault Jeff for his support or vote, as everyone has to support someone and a party, but it's nice to also keep an open mind.
Michael
Michael,
I probably won't sway Jeff to any extent, but there are others reading who might have the same questions that he does, but are willing to think about the answers and views I present.
So it is a worthwhile exercise from that perspective.
Bush lied and tens of thousands of people died...you were FINE with that!
People engage in such 'limited' thinking:
One side is sure Bush 'knew' there were no wmds in Iraq and lied and said there were even though there is no way to know if Bush believed what he told Americans or not.
Currently, one side is sure Obama 'knew' the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and lied and said it was something else, even though there is no way to know if Obama believed what he told Americans or not.
If either guy 'knew' what he was saying was untrue, we should all be condemning him. However, if we condemn one, we cannot ignore the other and not be hypocrites.
Michael
Jim,
I see your point. You are not going to move Jeff, though. He thinks he's got it all figured out, and the truth is that none of us do.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
Michael,
My brilliance to you or someone else has twice been removed today by a moderator with an itchy mouse finger.
If I was offensive it must have been because the moderators are getting ready for you republican types to start your election day demonstrations after the results are known tomorrow.
In reply to "Jeff From Vegas"; this sounds to me like the room moderator was the brilliant one!!!
Bradley:
It is nice to see you give a one sentence post, usually there is part 1 part 7, etc.
I thought about you last night as I watched the majesty of America happening in Iowa. There was Bruce Springsteen with an acoustic guitar and a harmonica mesmerizing the crowd, the most polished first lady ever, Michelle Obama, and the president of the United States of America -- a man that has earned our nations respect as a disciplined compassionate moderate leader through our first period of no money being available to our corporations and citizenry in almost a century.
Then I thought about the naysayers who spit on him here daily and I KNOW whether this man wins tonight or not, that he is one of God's favorites and He is mighty pleased with our Barack Obama.
Shame on all of you for the trash you spread about this wonderful man. Shame on you all.
I'm fired up, ready to go.
Watch it yourself: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Obama...
Get out and vote America.
Your daily reading on your iPhone or Android or iPad or tablet while waiting in line:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-sc...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/111...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2...
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscar...
Yeah Yeah Yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pfbe9GzP...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/06...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...
Why people don't and won't vote, in two big old charts even republican/tea partiers can understand:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...
When was the last time the Republicans won the White House without a Bush or Nixon on the ballot?
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; there is one thing we agree on, and that is the "First Lady". Yes, the most "top of line" of them all.
I'd never spit on President Obama. The reason I've nicknamed him "Slim Jim" is because he's tried to fix some political issues in a method that is similar to getting inside your car when your keys are locked inside. Politically speaking, instead of calling a locksmith, he has used "Slim Jim" tools in political mannerisms to attempt to remedy many situations.
My biggest disagreement with Obama has been Afghanistan. Obama deserves all the credit in the world for making a gutsy decision to order the raid that took out Osama bin laden. However, in my eyes, as an old soldier, the moment Osama bin laden was killed, the war was over and the troops needed to come home.
Yes, I may well be an old, tired, worn out soldier who is cranky and dislikes politicians. But, I have just cause. I worry about our soldiers. I loathe when politicians continue to make them fight wars that there is just no further need to. Since retiring, one of the reasons I stay up and post through most nights is to avoid nightmares. I've had them come forth again ever since the Iraq war started and my son served in both that war and Afghanistan. Yes, I'm just an old Marine Corps Sergeant. I look at our troops much more differently than most any politician does. Most politicians see the casualties of our soldiers as numbers; I see them as lives that should mean a great deal to all of us. I can't change my ways. I worry about them. They are golden to our security as a nation. I've already in my past years seen way too much in the horrible effects of troops that have fought wars that either from the beginning, or became of no meaning to our country. As a former Marine Sergeant, I cared for those men under my responsibility immeasurably. When they fell, I helped them get back up on their feet without any form of condemnation. I just don't know how this is possible when these men have served so many repeated tours in combat. Can't the President possibly see this? These men and women are only human. They can only take so much. That floating cut-off has been well exceeded, a long time ago.
I have to view the fallen middle-class the same way. It breaks my heart to see what has happened to them, and I know NAFTA has been one of the major culprits.
I don't hate Obama. I have just withdrawn my support for him. But, I guess I'll always feel this way about any politician. Our focus of care will always be a day and night difference. True, Obama is a much better vote than Romney, but not enough to bring me to vote for him. I am damn well mad and angry at all politicians. They have put the backbone of America in this terrible predicament, and none of them have figured out a way to lift them back to their feet. And this "Jeff from Vegas" is precisely what a true leader is supposed to do!!!
Bradley:
I have a son that has done two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. This is very personal to me. I think that American paranoia is horrid and would support an earlier timetable to leave Afghanistan.
We have only planted seeds in Afghanistan. Many, if not most of those seeds have not endured the harshness of the terrain there.
Some will take root, but it will likely have been a mission that was misguided by our country. Leaving is a hundred fold more difficult that starting a war.
I trust Obama as my son's commander over Romney in every measure of life.
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; I think we have come to an understanding. I get what you are saying.
However, I am an old and cranky former Marine Sergeant who sees through the prisms of protecting at virtually all costs our soldiers and our middle-class citizens. They have done so much for the country and still have been trampled on by our leaders. Some more than others. My no-vote is twenty times more stronger for Romney than it is for Barack Obama.
I despise politics, and politicians. I guess nothing will ever change this crusty old man.
In case I worded my above post wrong, let me make it clear, I detest Romney twenty times more than I ever would Barack Obama.
Bradley:
You may have a 20x disparity of respect, but you are penalizing both candidates the same. The Republican party loves you.
Whew, I think Mutt and Jeff need to meet for coffee somewhere and quit using this comment page for thier own gratification. I'm just glad I don't have anymore fliers and stupid commercials to contend with .
BChap..I respect your service and understand your position. As the son of a WWII Marine (second marine division) who wound up with PTSD after his duty at Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa, which affected our family greatly, I sympathize with you concerns about the troops. I do think that Obama is much, much less likely to get us in a war with Iran, etc. than Romney. By the way, my father considers wars to be a terrible waste of young men's lives (on both sides), typically for the monied interests (he calls them "big business"). By the way, I also think Obama has, and will continue to do more for veterans than the Republicans and Romney would. It has always amazed me that the Republicans give the troops more lip service, but do less in paying for programs and services for them.
Kenny Rogers :
I have made it this far without seeing or hearing any campaign commercials. I watched the debates on PBS and the radio in my car is only used if I am in a traffic jam.
Maybe they would have affected me.
I will never know.
I will watch the commercials this weekend. More interesting to me this way.
In reply to "notacon"; thank you for your post.
In reply to Kenny Rogers; without me saying exactly where, I'm sure you know what voting booth you can get off at!
A new american leadership miracle.
Fair economic policy !