Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Ron Paul Raises Over 3.8 Million ON Monday
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 266103" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Good for you vols! If about 15% to 20% of the voting public would take that stand and just vote anywhere else but republican or democrat, it's an excepted belief that electoral dynamics would change overnight. A revolution without a shot fired or a drop of blood spilt. </p><p> </p><p>It's also why the 2 parties are pushing harder and harder to broaden the number of voters and to get them out and voting because there is a growing base of discontent out there that is looking seriously at alternatives past the republicans and democrats. Perot, love him or hate him, shook up the status quo when he ran in 92' and denied the repubs and demos a clear majority in the general election based on popular vote. Had Perot carried a couple of States to earn their electoral college votes then I would contend America would be very different today. Both democrats and republicans spew hatred to the electoral college when it suits them but make no mistake, they both know it saved their game back in 1992' when Perot was a real threat.</p><p> </p><p>Imagine a Perot type personality in the close elections of 2000' or 2004' where the popular vote was so close. Throw a Perot like personality in there and then how does the electoral college breakout. Who would have really won Florida for example in 2000' had Perot been around like in 92'? Or what about Ohio in 04'? Would it have gone the other way or would the declared winner now have enough votes that no question at all could be raised? I don't have an answer either way, but I'd love to watch those fireworks.</p><p> </p><p>That 50% marker is all important and never doubt that at all. I saw a libertarian in 1992' take 3% of the general election vote in Georgia in the US Senate race that denied a clear majority for either the democrat or republican. A runoff was held but after the election the state Legislature wih a overwhelming democrat majority led a fight to amend the State election laws that would no longer require a clear majority but the general election winner with the most votes takes it all and also to change election laws making it very hard for 3rd party efforts because now the general election does favor more for a 3rd party than the old system. It was afterwards that they changed to a "highest vote getter" wins that they realize the pandora's box they had opened so they called a special legislative session in order to try and close that box by restricting ballot access for 3rd party efforts. And make no mistake, the republicans, what few there were, marched lock step with them the whole way even though they benefitted from the election outcome that forced this change. They saw the threat as well and they wanted to protect their turf in case they ever became the majority and they have now in this state!</p><p> </p><p>I learned firsthand just how afraid the 2 parties are of 3rd party efforts and what a threat they are to the stranglehold they have on American politics and public policy. The more people support maverick or 3rd party efforts, the more the 2 parties are forced to make room at the table so they can at least feed them from the scraps and hopefully keep them in check. Look what they did for the maverick Howard Dean and you can take it to the bank that the Clinton machine was none to happy about that as well as the DLC. </p><p> </p><p>It's these scraps is how you make inroads into their fortress and start destroying the base from within. The problem is keeping to the plan once they have you inside, sitting beside the warm fire and drinking lots of their fine wine. Ask Howard about that!</p><p> </p><p>JMO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 266103, member: 2189"] Good for you vols! If about 15% to 20% of the voting public would take that stand and just vote anywhere else but republican or democrat, it's an excepted belief that electoral dynamics would change overnight. A revolution without a shot fired or a drop of blood spilt. It's also why the 2 parties are pushing harder and harder to broaden the number of voters and to get them out and voting because there is a growing base of discontent out there that is looking seriously at alternatives past the republicans and democrats. Perot, love him or hate him, shook up the status quo when he ran in 92' and denied the repubs and demos a clear majority in the general election based on popular vote. Had Perot carried a couple of States to earn their electoral college votes then I would contend America would be very different today. Both democrats and republicans spew hatred to the electoral college when it suits them but make no mistake, they both know it saved their game back in 1992' when Perot was a real threat. Imagine a Perot type personality in the close elections of 2000' or 2004' where the popular vote was so close. Throw a Perot like personality in there and then how does the electoral college breakout. Who would have really won Florida for example in 2000' had Perot been around like in 92'? Or what about Ohio in 04'? Would it have gone the other way or would the declared winner now have enough votes that no question at all could be raised? I don't have an answer either way, but I'd love to watch those fireworks. That 50% marker is all important and never doubt that at all. I saw a libertarian in 1992' take 3% of the general election vote in Georgia in the US Senate race that denied a clear majority for either the democrat or republican. A runoff was held but after the election the state Legislature wih a overwhelming democrat majority led a fight to amend the State election laws that would no longer require a clear majority but the general election winner with the most votes takes it all and also to change election laws making it very hard for 3rd party efforts because now the general election does favor more for a 3rd party than the old system. It was afterwards that they changed to a "highest vote getter" wins that they realize the pandora's box they had opened so they called a special legislative session in order to try and close that box by restricting ballot access for 3rd party efforts. And make no mistake, the republicans, what few there were, marched lock step with them the whole way even though they benefitted from the election outcome that forced this change. They saw the threat as well and they wanted to protect their turf in case they ever became the majority and they have now in this state! I learned firsthand just how afraid the 2 parties are of 3rd party efforts and what a threat they are to the stranglehold they have on American politics and public policy. The more people support maverick or 3rd party efforts, the more the 2 parties are forced to make room at the table so they can at least feed them from the scraps and hopefully keep them in check. Look what they did for the maverick Howard Dean and you can take it to the bank that the Clinton machine was none to happy about that as well as the DLC. It's these scraps is how you make inroads into their fortress and start destroying the base from within. The problem is keeping to the plan once they have you inside, sitting beside the warm fire and drinking lots of their fine wine. Ask Howard about that! JMO [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Ron Paul Raises Over 3.8 Million ON Monday
Top