Forums | MacLife

Didn't they do this last election, too?

I remember Ralph Nader discovered lots of newfound Republican "friends" when he ran. And I bet Lieberman will get help to become a third-party spoiler when he loses the Democratic primary

More loopholes in the campaign finance system we have. If you can't give more than $2100 to one candidate, giving money to a third party candidate that will draw votes away from him is just as good.

Say it with me: Publicly-financed campaigns.

I heard something, awhile back, that the Green Party in Canada was taken over by neo-cons. 

e.g. http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5414/1/221

However, far from offering a left-wing alternative to Canadians, the GP under Harris � a management consultant and former Conservative Party member � has become a pro-market, �small government� party. The party�s economic and social platform borrows heavily from neoconservative thought.

Could something similar be brewing in the USA?

And, there is some sort of anti-immigration thing with the Sierra Club as well... 

Perhaps the Greens (etc.) are closer to the Trotskyism (etc.) of the recent iteration of Republican Party than might be expected from their name?

Just throwing that in the ring...

I guess giving Bush the 2000 election was only worth one term as a Rep.

Hear, hear!  I'd prefer immigration requirements on par with Norway or Finland: you have to have a college degree and money to invest in American advancement before you even come in the door.

Environmentalism != open the borders to the flood of human sprawl.

Last edited by Metacell (2006-08-03 11:36 am)

Back on topic, even if for a moment:   

Justin Rood wrote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001263.php

This morning I spoke with the Halliburton lobbyist who gave $1,000 to the Luzerne County (PA) Green Party.

"It was my wife" who made the contribution, Bill Wichterman told me. Wichterman, a well-connected GOP lobbyist, presumably backs Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), his onetime employer.

.... I asked Bill if his wife was a Green Party member.

"I'm not going to answer any questions about it," he replied.

Well, would your wife be willing to discuss the contribution?

"No, she wouldn't."

There's an outside chance that Wichterman is a wife-beater, if his wife made a sincere contribution to the Greens.

More likely, Wichterman is lying.   http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001257.php 

A Halliburton lobbyist giving money to the Green Party?

That's right, folks, you have now officially heard everything: A $1,000 donation to a local Pennsyslvania Green Party chapter came from Bill Wichterman, a senior lobbyist at Washington, D.C.'s Covington & Burling.

If he's not lying, then why does the above quote not mention his wife ?

I would think the non-conservative, non-small government Republican party would have the most to lose on that front.

resedit wrote:

Jaligard wrote:

More loopholes in the campaign finance system we have. If you can't give more than $2100 to one candidate, giving money to a third party candidate that will draw votes away from him is just as good.

Say it with me: Publicly-financed campaigns.

That would be cool - even more candidates to take votes from the dem party.

Because Libertarians don't take votes from Republicans?

Farmerkev wrote:

Jaligard wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And that would do what exactly?

It would lessen the reliance on money from politicians who run for office.

The 3rd party guy drawing away votes from your preferred guy would still be there.

I don't particularly mind third party candidates. They don't pull as many votes as people think and it gives people who don't want to vote for two people they hate someone to vote for.

resedit wrote:

Jaligard wrote:

More loopholes in the campaign finance system we have. If you can't give more than $2100 to one candidate, giving money to a third party candidate that will draw votes away from him is just as good.

Say it with me: Publicly-financed campaigns.

That would be cool - even more candidates to take votes from the dem party.

It would be cool, for at least two reasons:

1. It would show that Republicans are desperate enough to squander their political and real capital on anything they think will allow them to retain their tight grip on the reigns of power.

2. It will force the Democrats to realize that they actually have to be a viable alternative if they don't want genuine people based parties (e.g. Libertarian, Green, populist anti-corporate parties) to write the period at the end of their sentence in the history books.

This is why I support approval voting. It's the only system nearly as simple as what we have right now. Instead of choosing one candidate, you just circle every candidate who you're okay with. Like our current system, the candidate with the most votes wins.

Approval voting would mean that similar candidates wouldn't spoil each other's chances, and it would mean that there would be less need for primaries if there were more than one viable candidate. It would mean more choices in elections, including giving greater power to non-major-party candidates, and would mean a greater chance that the person who won elections would be someone the majority were okay with.