"Dan Stovall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you, Jason. Focusing on 3rd parties, and Ron Paul aside, the
> problem and solution that Levi has presented is a Catch-22.
> Apparently, it makes no sense or difference to vote 3rd party in the
> general elections because by then it is too late. So, spend time
> between elections drumming up support. However, the money needed to
> educate the populace, the access to debates, even the access to the
> ballot itself, is often based on results from previous elections. So,
> all you have to do is convince people to vote for your 3rd party in an
> upcoming election to get those resources. But that makes no sense
> since your party has no chance of winning. So based on election
> results 3rd parties then have little to no resources with which to
> campaign between elections. They can only hope that the merits of
> their platform are enough to sway voters in the next election. But
> that makes no sense, since they have no change of winning. And on and
> on. In other words, the game is rigged to keep new comers out, and
> leave the field consisting only of 2 parties that as Levi said, aren't
> that different in full political spectrum.
You're missing the 'push for voting reform bills' play that can take
place in non-election years, if you really want third parties to be
able to have more influence. Congress votes every year, not just
election years.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
