The New York Times of October 15 has this story, which is mostly about Gary Johnson and partly about Virgil Goode. One deficiency in the story is that it doesn’t explain that Gary Johnson probably draws many votes from voters who would otherwise vote for President Obama. Another deficiency is that it doesn’t mention Jill Stein, even though she is on the ballot in more states than Virgil Goode.
And, even though the story says Gary Johnson doesn’t mind being called a “spoiler”, the New York Times ought not to use that word. It is demeaning to voters. No one forces any voter to vote for a minor party candidate. Journalists who label minor party nominees “spoilers”, whether they are conscious of it or not, are implicitly endorsing the idea that voters are passive automatons who can’t think for themselves and ought to have fewer choices so they don’t “spoil” the “legitimate” outcomes. In no other country would the mainstream press even hint that the existence of one party on the ballot is somehow illegitimate because its existence might affect the outcome. Other nations recognize that there are more than two points of view among political ideas and assume that every substantial point of view will be represented by a political party.
I’ve been told its 50/50 the LP takes from both D and R. The CP takes 70 percent from the Republicans, and the GP takes 70 percent from the Democrats.
#1
I’ve been told that there are only two legitimate and viable political parties to chose from. Ever.
Fasicsts (Republicans) and Communists (Democrats).
Does the above sound as about as faulty as what you’ve heard?
#2 – Corporate Imperialists and Corporate Communists, just different wings of the same corporatist bird of prey.
1 –
What percentage of LP voters, who vote LP when LP is on the ballot, would vote for no one if the only two options on the ballot are D and R? If your contention is that it’s a 50/50 “take” from both D & R, is the answer 0%?
How can it be that one party with a set of policies and philosophies that is presumably distinct from the policies and philosophies of D & R, each of whom have their own distinct policies and philosophies, can draw “50/50” from D & R? If it can, then R should draw from D and D should draw from R on a 50/50 basis, since apparently policies and philosophies mean nothing.
Rim shot…enter the Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dum Dums to tell us there’s nothing to separate the two parties of the duopoly. Nothing at all.
Oh…sorry…missed 3 above.
Section 3: Treason
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or “violating” the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that “there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”[12]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[13] In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that “[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.”[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not “work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person” so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered “tainted” by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quoted excerpt it was noted by lawyer William J. Olson in a Amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[15] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III “the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trial by military commission. As Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the United States’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.””[15]
#3
Yawn.
#6
Zzzzzz…….
Will the 2013 Prez be chosen by an EXTREMIST minority rule gang — due to the various third party folks ???
See the minority rule election of Prez Lincoln in 1860.
Result about 750,000 DEAD Americans in Civil WAR I in 1861-1865.
Civil WAR II in 2012-2013 ??? Stay tuned.
NO limit on the EVIL in the EVIL brains of the EVIL New Age top control freak MONSTERS in Devil City.
6 –
Do you have any good recipes for eggplant?
Thanks, bud.
After reading the article, my first thought was that it was a pro-Obama article, since the Ls are natural allies with the Ds. Considering the strong support by California Libertarians including chair Kevin Takenaga and others, for Reagan Republican Wayne Allen Root, and the total censorship and destruction of all other presidentail hopefuls within the Libertarian Party by their national committee, these facts lead me to believe that the Ls are pro-R and that would help the Ds by splitting off R votes.
* * *
There was no perfect algebraic equation for uniting political factions until Swiss physicist Hagenbach-Bishoff developed it in the early 1900s. A political party is like a free speech word by a person’s name. That’s good. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that they DON”T actually encourage their own members or others to utilize this liberty. I am highly versed on the Hagenbach-Bischoff method and I’ve been conducting such elections since 1995. They work extremely well. The results are as close to perfect as they can get. Google actually derived from my name in 1997 because of this. But I have been fighting the ignorance of those versed only in plurality elections, single-winner districts and lessor perfect equations for counting votes.
I’ve recently established a vote counting school and I’m happy to teach others about this phenomena:
http://usparliament.org/votecountingschool.php
The national L Party went all out for the pleasure of Republican former Governor MP Gary Johnson [Libertarian].
The national Republican Party should start supporting Green Party candidates, to help split votes off the Ds. Get it? It would be a positive development that should be encouraged.
The top two system encourages this strategy in my opinion.
@ Brad, people should be given the liberty to be what they say they are, and they should not be categorized as something they do not wish to be.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party, and all other establishment parties for that matter, do not encourage this liberty for its own members, much less for other.
They can’t handle free speech speech because they’re control freak dictators, it’s “my way or no way” with those types.
#1 you are correct
#6 and your point is …. what?
felony disbarment project
The idea that Johnson takes more votes from Obama than Romney is baseless.
It’s about equal according to actual studies.
Does the above sound as about as faulty as what you’ve heard?