Do you believe that Americans could form a voting revolution?

Better start at the state level. If you tried to bypass the states, you would probably eventually see the second American Civil War.

that’s what I was thinking, it would take millions to do it but the question is, could it be done?

Via social networking? No. There are too many voters (actual voters, not people registered to vote but don’t when the time comes) who can barely turn on a computer, much less take advantage of the power of social networking. Similarly, a great chunk of the people who really use social networking a lot either aren’t old enough to legally vote or too apathetic to do so, especially beyond voting for a presidential candidate and perhaps a legalize pot referendum.

Yes, might be.
If you know that ‘only’ around 60% of the people vote, which leaves 40% that doesn’t, maybe 50% of those have Facebook or Twitter.
They can maybe be mobilised.

Nope, too much apathy, plus we’re all working and can’t afford the time off.

We just couldn’t agree on what we wanted them to do.

Why fall when you can fly?
Why swim when you can scuba?
Why vote for politicians
When we get Jeruba!!!!!

@filmfann I’d vote for Jeruba.

Me, too.

I think write in campaigns for all of those positions is way too overwhelming. I mean, how would enough of us even know anything about the vast majority of the candidates, if they weren’t actively campaigning and known to us before hand? We’d just get people voting for their uncle Joe, Mickey Mouse, or some such.

@josie There will not be second civil war, but what there will be is a second revolutionary war. The largest army in the world are the American hunters and gun owners, and with over 80 million gun owners owning over 800 million guns, Washington had better watch out. I own 27 of them.

^^ That is a scary thought. I think it’s a little early for a violent revolution…

See what I mean about not agreeing!

What third party?

I am so sick of this goddamn pipe dream! Face the facts: there is no third party that has sufficient appeal among the electorate to win against the Democrats or the Republicans. Libertarians? Green? Most Americans do not agree with their ideology. The reason Dems and Republicans exist in the first place is largely because they have established broad coalitions (often fractious coalitions: look at populist evangelicals vs. libertarians in the Republican party).

America is based on a two-party system. And most importantly one of those parties is demonstrably better than the others. Instead of wasting our time bitching about our political system and trying to remain “above the fray,” we should be supporting the one choice out of the two we have that will make our situation better.

And everyone needs to realize that voting in this country is not about you. Too many Americans seem to think that if a politician compromises or doesn’t reflect over 90% of their policy preferences, it is somehow “dirty” or “dishonorable” to vote for them. Guess what? Any politician who gets elected is not going to be your goddamn clone, unless you yourself are running for office and happen to win. Democracy works through compromise. Your job, as a voter, is to figure out which politician can win with the least harm and the most benefit, and vote for that person.

And if you desperately want to reform our electoral process, do so while supporting the party that isn’t batshit crazy in the meantime.

@rebbel, you said:

“If you know that ‘only’ around 60% of the people vote, which leaves 40% that doesn’t, maybe 50% of those have Facebook or Twitter. They can maybe be mobilised.”

No, they really can’t. Not to any single purpose or cause. Because independents and non-voters are not remotely a monolithic voting bloc. To say nothing of the fact that most nonvoters are nonvoters precisely because they are either ignorant of politics, have no interest in politics, or both.

@Pustic2, good luck making war on a nuclear-armed military. I’m sure your hunting rifles will be very useful against drones, guided missiles, and spec ops.

I also think it’s sick that you feel the need to make such a threat. However shitty our political system is—and I think it’s plenty shitty—it’s a long, long way from justifying a violent revolution.

@Pustic2 You assume that all of us weapon-owning Americans will be on the same side. I sincerely doubt it.

@Qingu The term “third party candidate” means “someone who isn’t running under the banner or the Republican or Democratic party” in the context of this question. Asking “what third party?” is, therefore, to miss the point. It would be sufficient to satisfy the question that a single individual who was not the official candidate of either major US party ran for president and was popular enough to win. It wouldn’t matter if there was some party behind the person or not. The candidate could just be someone who endorses every mainstream opinion from each side.

Moreover, the question is about the mere possibility of this happening. It assumes that we have already banned together and picked someone to support. So I ask you: if everyone in the country cast a write-in vote for the same person, and that person was not a member of either major party, would that person win?

It’s a meaningless hypothetical without a real-world example or template.

I think the more pressing question to ask is why there are no real-world examples of such broadly appealing third party candidates, rather than if such a person existed would they win (which is almost a tautology).

You don’t have to like the question, but it is what it is. As for a real-world example, Teddy Roosevelt did pretty well. He beat one major party candidate, though he obviously didn’t beat both. Personally, I think Jeruba seems like a pretty good candidate for these modern times. But alternatively, we could just take someone from Hollywood who isn’t reviled by either side and fill him full of platitudes. It worked for Reagan, after all.

I don’t disagree with being strategic with one’s vote. I vote for third party candidates when there’s no chance my preferred major party candidate is going to lose (or, in the case of presidential elections, will lose my state). I also vote for them when they have a real chance of winning, which has worked out well for me at the local level, or when neither major party candidate is offensive to me.

I also agree that democracy works on compromise. I’m not at all offended by someone I voted for doing something I disagree with, especially if I knew upfront that s/he might do so. That said, I see no reason not to support people I agree with even more or policies that make it possible for them to participate in the process. A two party system is a travesty in any country and contrary to the basic sentiments on which the US in particular was founded. I accept that it is presently a reality, but that doesn’t mean I have to help perpetuate it.

I’m not sure Reagan is a good example…

And I agree with you. If there’s a third party candidate who is better than the Dems or Repubs and has a chance of winning, vote for them! I just don’t think such candidates exist beyond the local or (rarely) state level, and I think this nonexistence is structural in how parties function as broad coalitions. And I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with parties functioning as broad coalitions, and I hate it when people spend so much time and energy hyping up a third party revolution instead of supporting the Democrats in national elections, because the Democrats aren’t perfect.

Fair enough. We’ve hashed through this before, and I don’t think we disagree significantly. But if parties wish to operate as broad coalitions, they must build their coalitions. No one owns votes but the voters. If the Democrats have not convinced people to join their coalition rather than voting for a third party candidate, that is the Democrats’ fault. Same for the Republicans (mutatis mutandis). Nor will calling people who choose to remain independent egotistical help matters at all.

And yes, Reagan was a satirical example.

I agree with a great deal of you. As far as 60/40 goes, the 40 are the ones I am talking about.
I work with a program that releases trustees for 5–6 days a week , I have hundreds a year go through this program, I ask each one if they have ever voted and it floors me that maybe 1% vote.
I agree with some of you that say ignorance is a factor, this is true to a certain level. What I hear the most is that it is intimidating to them.

Make note to self, distance myself from @Pustic2, that Jelly is not on the Homeland Security watch list, oops I think I seen the feds planting bugs already…..

Hehehehehehehe My guns will be aimed towards the enemies of America, no matter who they are, the rest of you, I could care less.