Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts

Saturday, June 11, 2016

A surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"

I couldn't think of another word for 'viable,' for what I wanted to say. And although I have been recently unhappy with Google search results that now seem to favor ads and 'reviews' by anyman, a surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"

I will choose one to comment on here because it too surprised me by going more in depth into the difficulties of overcoming a two- party system, where that system comes from, and interesting psychological studies. Finally, the writer found sound changes a-brewing!

The source is Newsweek on-line:  Why Third-Party Candidates Are Doomed—At Least This Year
By

I know, the title doesn't exactly ooze with optimism...nor does it have my word 'viable'. And it's long, but worth finishing, as there is more and more information, instead of more and more repetition (another pet peeve of mine as of late).

One item that is an aside, but surprised me is that Democrats tend to be more urban and Republicans more rural. I guess the bias I have is where I personally come from rather than where the parties as a whole come from, but it is interesting in the context that the stances of the parties, over the long term, have 'switched' several times. The most obvious, and seemingly forgotten, that it was the Republican Party that fought for the abolition of slavery, and the Democratic Governor Wallace of Alabama who set the fire hoses and dogs on Martin Luther King and his partners in non-violence was a Democrat. And now many people of color consider it the Democratic party that speaks for and represents them. With surprising voting choices of both parties in these primaries, perhaps some kind of change is in the not so distant future.

Let me throw out another aside from PBS's American Experience - George Wallace both started out and ended as a "Liberal" embracing integration, but saw it wouldn't win during the Civil Rights era. An opportunist? A Flip flopper? Who knows,but in a history I NEVER heard about, he apologized to African Americans - after an assassination attempt and partial paralysis - and got much of their vote. WOW!   People and Events: George Wallace  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande05.html

Back to the original article commentary by yours truly. Much of voter behavior decision making is tied to a combination of WINNING and SELF - ESTEEM and not what is best for the country overall. They never use the term 'voting your conscience,' possibly because, so the research goes, it rarely happens because psychologically, and especially in more polarized environments - like now - there is a fear of throwing votes away. How 'sad' that my own conscience repeatedly has tossed away votes, apparently in a psychologically aberrant manner with no regard for my own esteem, LOL!

The following paragraphs all the way near the end stood out as really saying something new and indicate and exciting movement! first a process is described that could get us at least not 'afraid' to throw away a vote, and instead vote more with what we believe, or at the very least against what makes us uncomfortable (or cringe). I confess to not being a huge consumer of news, but the following does not seem to be out there and known. In fact even in ths article it is way at the end. Yet, promising for the future.

"There are changes afoot to break down some of these barriers at the state and local level. Cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota; San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley California, now select some local officials via  what’s known as “rank choice voting,” where each voter ranks their top three choices for an office, and if no candidate win a majority of first choice votes on the first ballot, then the number of second and possibly third choices are added in, until someone reaches a majority. That eliminates the concern about “wasting” a vote on an independent candidate, because if they lose in the first round, your votes goes to your second choice pick."

What is nice is that it is not just a 'concept" but being tried in a few places, though not enough to make a difference in 2016.

 "This November, Maine will vote on a ballot initiative that would implement rank choice voting statewide. California, meanwhile, has begun using a nonpartisan voting system for state and congressional contests, in which the top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party, compete in the general election. Other states, like Louisiana, hold run-off elections for state office if no candidate wins a majority in the first round."

The ultimate conclusion is probably true, but not to my liking (do I confess to much...this constant vote thower-wayer?).  "“I think that the dam will break at a certain point,” says Ritchie. “I don’t think it will do it this year.”

Even if the change does not come about this year, perhaps the unhappiness with the results of the current two-party powerhouse, or the surprising power of the supposed outliers (Sanders and Trump), will be exactly what is needed to make the change happen in the future.



The HUGE question seems to be WHO for a third party candidate. Here is my choice, and although she has said she would never run, Condoleezza Rice fits, NoTrump, Bush Money (I know, not necessarily a good thing to be tied to his Presidency and policies), strong foreign policy experience, Conservative Republican with Female and African American as leaven in the bread of hope. How can we convince her to give up that darn “NEVER”.  (A quick Google search says I am not alone in this hope!)


P.S. A resource that goes more into detail on the specifics of trying to create another valid candidate outside of the two party system, even given the green and Libertarian parties existence.

Sorry, Conservatives, It’s Likely Too Late for a Viable Third-Party Candidate. Here's why.
By Carl Zeitz,
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-donald-trump-third-party-213743  

And for a FASCINATING (yet complex) out of the box thinking sayin it IS possible, let's look to The Federalist, though this article is a little older and may no longer be as valid,These Numbers Say A Third Party Can Win The Presidency by Josiah Peterson  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/these-numbers-say-a-third-party-can-win-the-presidency/

Heather J. Kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk www.heather-kirk.artistwebsites.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

In Presidential Primaries that seem to be about Show Business, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

CAN I BEG YOU TO READ A LONG POST? THE WHOLE THING?

Most of you know that I rarely if EVER bring up politics on my page. But I will say this: 1) NEVER vote on one or two issues alone. Especially for President, he/she had better know about (and represent you) in MANY issues. 2) DO YOUR RESEARCH! Don't believe what a politician says automatically. Increasingly, and this year especially, debates have been about PERFORMANCES and not about truth. Just because someone repeats a lie over and over, it does not make a lie true...but somehow it gets it repeated by gullible voters (and media) as if truth.
     Here is one tool I found to use. Yes, on social issues, most Democrats tend to agree with each other, and most Republicans tend to agree with each other. Still a Voter's Guide can give info in other ways. Did they answer the questions at all? If not, is the info available from the Candidates Official Record and Resources.
     Let me start with Democrats because there is little variance - but still you should look at the citations. 10 social issues / questions are addressed. Neither Clinton or Sanders answered the survey, but they do agree on the issues that the Guide could find documented answers for. There is no citation provided (found?) as to whether they believe in interpreting the US Constitution based on current situations or the intent of the original creators. This is important - and unknown - because one of the first acts of our next President will likely be the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice. Go to the Citation sources and learn as much as you can before voting in the Primary. Sanders sources are all his own Issues page or Senate roll call. Three of Clinton's were not on her own site but available in articles or a PAC's page.

     Now for Republicans - I will go with top 3 only. Cruz and Rubio both answered all questions, and agreed. And here is where I want REPUBLICANS TO PAY ATTENTION! (Maybe I should have led with this...) Trump did not answer any of the questions. Because CAP (who puts out the voters guide) is a Conservative Agency (though they do no endorsing) Democrats tend not to answer and Republicans almost always do. So for a REPUBLICAN to not answer is a big RED FLAG. If I give him the benefit of the doubt because he has no history in politics and doesn't know better, or doesn't care, then let's look at what can be found - as is done for most Democratic candidates. The Guide could only FIND the answer to 5 OUT OF 10 questions - DISTURBING! And 3 of those 5 were found on his TWITTER page, not his website - SERIOUSLY DISTURBING! The other two sources were NBC News and Ammoland Shooting Sports News - I don't even know what to say about that... PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY!
http://azvoterguide.com/  Although this is from Arizona, it's about the President so helps everyone - including Independents. (The one thing I found difficult about the Guide is that



you have to hover over the number in blue to find out the issue being cited, and then it covers the answer. But do the WORK...it's our COUNTRY's FUTURE we are talking about.)

Heather J. Kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk www.heather-kirk.artistwebsites.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html

Friday, September 28, 2012

We know your vote counts - make sure it's logical too!

We know your vote counts - make sure it's logical too!

Political ad writers COUNT ON YOU TO NOT THINK FOR YOURSELF and to not know how your own government works. Here is my rant of the week - not against, or for, any candidate, but about putting on our thinking caps - and knowing what we are talking about before we speak!
An ad against Vernon Parker says he told Tea Partiers he wants to get rid of the Department of Education (yes, he did say this), and therefore Arizona will lose $800 million dollars in educational funding. This is NOT A LOGICAL CONLUSION!

The DOE basically says 'teach what we tell you to, or we won't give you federal money for education. We don't care if you want to teach to the needs of your students and your geographical area. No local control of curriculum allowed." (My own words.)
But if there is no DOE, the DOE can't take away our funding for not doing what the DOE says we have to do. (See how that works...)  So the claim is ILLOGICAL.

Later (not in the ad), it appears that to cover up for this lack of logic, the ad writers say there will be no Pell Grants for college without the DOE. Who says there will be no college grants without a DOE? Not Vernon Parker. In the video quoted, he says that the DOE educational rules have resulted in kids who can't read at a third grade level and don't know history - - responding to charts and a presentation obviously made before he started speaking, about poor test scores, something very few will disagree with.
Clearly the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, creators of the ad, did not learn critical thinking in school either.

Here's a link to a Press Release (not news, but Public Relations), accusations related to the quote, and oddly the entire video of Vernon Parker's speech, which does not support the accusation. I guess they are counting on you to not actually listening. http://azdem.org/news/releases/Vernon_Parker_Cuts_Education_AZ_CD9/

 Heather J. Kirk