Just got my sample ballot- who are all these people?

"I have never even heard of some of them!"

Sorry to hear that.

"Where have they been?"

The corporate media picks our candidates. It is VERY undemocratic.

"Wouldn't it have been nice to see a debate with all of these candidates?"

Yes it would, maybe we could have actual debates instead of infomercials for CleanCoal and fake universal healthcare.


"I know it's probably not feasible but it would be interesting."

It's feasible all right, they do it all over the world.

Because we have to have two teams. Red and blue.

Keep it simple for the masses.

It's a sporting/ratings event!

---

snafu, I think they already are.

---

Got mine a day or two ago.

Somebody named "Write-in" is running for everything!

"Somebody named "Write-in" is running for everything!"

LOL

It's a shame we don't have at LEAST one debate with all applicable contenders.

---

Don't worry, Pab. You will not be denied!!!

---

It may be a joke, but it's OUR joke!

---

edited.

Updated On: 10/18/08 at 02:43 AM

Suportivemom, I think several could be:

Ralph Nader/ Mark Gonzalez (Independent)
Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party USA)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green)
Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root (Libertarian)
Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear (Socialism and Liberalism)
Roger Calero/Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers)
Ted Weill/Frank Enulty (Reform)
Dr. Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution)
Charles Jay/Thomas Knapp (Boston Tea)
Gene Admunson/Leroy Pletten (Prohibition)
Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrborough (America's Independent)

It would be very nice if a lot more American start thinking more than just the Democrats and Republicans as political parties--and think outside the box in many other things. We have a population of 305 million+ and we're far too diverse than just those two. Don't feel too bad, many in the mainstream media, who charge high fees to make sure just those two only get in the major politics discussion and earn constant attention in the mainstream media, so that the public won't think about others. Perot managed to get through largely because he had the money to buy his way. Both the SP USA and Liberalism and Socialism have black male VP candidates. People never bring up Cynthia McKinney's electorial quest as the first black women VP. Tomorrow, a presidential debate will involve Nader, McKinney, Barr, and Baldwin hosted by Amy Goodman, who IMHO should've been in the debates as the moderator because she can ask the tough questions, at Columbia University at 7pm (CST) on C-SPAN. No Socialists invited though in this. I've said this in the debates thread: things would be a lot more democratic and livelier.

Just as LPF says, the electorial structure is more designed to favor Dems and Republicans. But it should never have to be this way. I favor more of the electorial structures like IRV, and proportional reprsentation like in many other Western nations.

To answer the earlier question, John Anderson ran as an independent and got approximately 10% of the vote.

I agree that our system isn't "the best" (not that there is such a thing) and needs improvement, but, in France, for example, you can have 7 or 8 candidates and the "winner" only needs, like, 20% of the vote to become president...and then he's in office for a minimum of 7 years (and it's always been a "he")

In the 3 decades I have visited France, no one has EVER been happy with the current president. Yes, they have universal healthcare and a good educational system, but they pay about 60% income tax, unemployment is really high, and inflation is an on-going problem. Not to mention the all the other problems they have (like homelessness, alcohol abuse and sexism) that they like to sweep under the carpet.

There's good and bad in every political system, in every society and in all cultures. Remember, we can vote for ANYONE. I can write in "Pee Wee Herman" if I want to (and I think he would be a fabulous president), but it's not going to help the country much if Pee Wee only gets one vote!

---