If we are bound to vote for the lesser evil. Shouldn't we all vote for the American Solidarity Party?

[Erikaspirit16]

Voting for a third party will allow your neighbor to choose for you. This is short term thinking. We have to think long term. The more people vote third party, the less dominance the two major parties will have. In time we can get away from this two party domination. It will take time but we have to take the first step and take action now.

In the end we vote with our conscience as a guide and to me the Solidarity party is the party for me.

Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t make a 3rd party viable. ASP got about 22,000 votes. Trump got about 71 million, Biden 75 million. Or to put it in other terms, Trump got 3,227 TIMES as many votes as the ASP. Sounds like the definition of futility to me. Short term, long term…same fate awaits 3rd parties.

If you want to get rid of the two-party system, you have to make drastic changes. States are in a position to make changes–for example Nebraska and Maine don’t just total up their presidential vote and give it to whoever got 50% + 1. Or states that are introducing a ranked choice system of election–you vote for your 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices.

Best of all is scrap this nonsensical presidential system and go to a Parliamentary system. First, there would be a lot more viable parties–Canada for example has Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Parti Quebecois, Greens, etc. all of whom have significant local support in different regions. So you would have more choice. The downside is that a minority of the vote can elect an undesirable person because the opposition vote is split. See Rob Ford or his brother Doug. And the second advantage is that the winning party can actually get something done. They may have to make some concessions to another party if they have to form a coalition, but that’s a small price to pay to actually pass legislation. Third advantage is that because of so many parties, it’s relatively easy to replace an MP with someone from another party, unlike the US where congressmen are almost never defeated. Wilson wanted to switch to a Parliamentary system.

As for conscience, it seems to me that by abstaining (or voting a 3rd party) you then have to accept responsibility for whoever wins. If you voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, you have only yourself to blame for the Iraq war. It’s like standing and watching a baby drown because you once swore an oath not to swim. You can say “I followed my conscience,” but there are consequences in the real world.

 

[Sarcelle]

I will continue to follow my conscience and vote third party.

I don’t think voting for the Solidarity party is sin.

 

[StudentMI]

As for conscience, it seems to me that by abstaining (or voting a 3rd party) you then have to accept responsibility for whoever wins. If you voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, you have only yourself to blame for the Iraq war. It’s like standing and watching a baby drown because you once swore an oath not to swim. You can say “I followed my conscience,” but there are consequences in the real world.

Oh give me a break. Don’t pin the whole ‘you’re responsible’ line on those who didn’t vote your way, or on people who don’t vote. The USCCB issued guidelines and even said not voting is a legitimate option.

 

[otjm]

If you want to get rid of the two-party system, you have to make drastic changes.

Having watched the last few elections, I don’t see any of the third parties making any inroads to changing the essentially 2 party system.

However, the Republican Party has morphed from the party of big business to a party in a significant part, representing workers - laborers, including union and nonunion. That comes from the Demopcratic Party paying less and less attention to them.

And the Democratic Party has now a wing which is far, far more “liberal” (sorry, I have a hard time saying that Communists are “liberal”) which is pulling the whole party to the left. The major phone call after the election has shown some serious discord, as have statements since by the for left section.

It would not surprise me at all if there was a disintegration within the Democratic Party, to form a centrist party and leave the socialists and the Communists to their own devices; and a centrist party could pick up people who feel that Trump and any residual from his administration (aka the “trump haters”)moved in a direction they cannot tolerate, and might move over to join them.

Meanwhile, I am hoping that someone like Nikki Haley might start a move for 2024. Very intelligent; has been a governor, and has had significant exposure to international relations and is fearless.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

However, the Republican Party has morphed from the party of big business to a party in a significant part, representing workers - laborers, including union and nonunion.

That’s an interesting point of view, but it doesn’t match reality. All of the economic indicators were simply following the direction they were going under Obama–Trump had a negative effect on all of them, but not significantly. But there is one where Trump made a huge difference. If you guess “corporate profits” you win. Trump and his “party” increased corporate profit immensely.

Meanwhile, I am hoping that someone like Nikki Haley might start a move for 2024. Very intelligent; has been a governor, and has had significant exposure to international relations and is fearless.

Nikki proved herself to be a reliable puppet and mouthpiece. She is probably intelligent. She has a degree in accounting. That’s something, but not a lot. Fearless? She simply followed orders. Significant exposure to international relations? Just because you’re a UN ambassador for a couple years? Really? Back when Trump was going to appoint a Fox News blonde to be UN ambassador, I looked up the backgrounds of all the UN ambassadors of all the major powers. I invite you to do the same. They are all similar–academic backgrounds in inter. affairs from distinguished universities; many if not most were PhDs; all had extensive (25-30 years) experience in their own foreign offices, advisors to presidents, and other branches of the UN or aid organizations. To put Nikki in that category is ludicrous.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Oh give me a break. Don’t pin the whole ‘you’re responsible’ line on those who didn’t vote your way, or on people who don’t vote. The USCCB issued guidelines and even said not voting is a legitimate option.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that “not voting” isn’t a legitimate option. In some situations, I urge you to not vote! For example in primaries. I am a registered Republican for only one purpose: so I can vote in primaries for the most far-out, wacky person running. And since perhaps only 10-20% of people vote in primaries, my vote is therefore 5-10 times as decisive as it is in a general election. So go ahead, don’t vote–I’m more than happy to choose your candidate for you!

 

[StudentMI]

So go ahead, don’t vote–I’m more than happy to choose your candidate for you!

You think I’m a Republican? Because that’s what the context says.

It’s also nonsense to think those who voted for Nader are responsible for the Iraq war. That’s obscene. Lest we forget Democrats voted for that war as well.

 

[AlbMagno]

I am a registered Republican for only one purpose: so I can vote in primaries for the most far-out, wacky person running.

Sorry, but that sounds really dishonest.

 

[Fets]

You don’t vote for the candidate who aligns most with Church teaching, but for the “most far-out, wacky person running”? That sounds like a contradication of Church teaching to me. I’m sure there’s something in the Catholic voting guide against that.

1. Just because you vote in a Republican primary doesn’t mean you choose my candidate. I voted for the American Solidarity Party, so that wouldn’t be true for me, would it?
   It would not (assuming you don’t answer my question).

Also, you can’t really talk about reform. How does you voting Republican do anything to change the system? Voting 3rd party does something. To go closer to a Parliamentary system or whatever. Again though, monarchy served the Church very well for centuries, this is an indisputable historic fact. You cannot dispute it.

You keep talking about realities in this country. The Church doesn’t look to the reality of how many people use contraception or cohabitate, or smoke weed. The whole system is on the verge of collapse, and you can blame 3rd party voters if you want, but it won’t be our fault. The fault lies with Republicans, who have always let us down with Supreme Court picks. And if this 6-3 Court does not overturn Roe, which many people say it won’t, that’s it for me. For you, keep trying the same failed strategy of the last 40 years for the next 40 years. I get the impression that you’re of a certain age anyways though.

 

[CTBcin]

The American Solidarity Party got about 22,000 votes.

To put this into perspective, Kanye West and his “Birthday Party” got THREE TiMES as many votes.

In other words, if you voted for the ASP, you had as much effect as if you posted a Tweet or yet another post on this thread. Waste of a vote.

I “wasted” my vote on the ASP. I didn’t think that either of the two main candidates deserved my vote and I didn’t want to see either of them in office. So I voted third party.

Besides, Trump won my state by a fairly large margin. Would my single vote have made any more of a difference had I voted for Trump or Biden? I would argue that my third party vote does more because it is a rejection of the two-party system.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

What we need to bring back is allowing employers to give cost of living increases when a worker gets married and when a worker has children. It is unjust - from a Catholic point of view - to treat the single worker the same as the married worker with kids.

From a practical point of view, does this make sense? Who would you hire if you were an employer: married men? Married men or women? Single men? Single men or women?

If I were an employer trying to maximize profits, I know what I would do! I would only hire single men or women and then get rid of them as soon as they got married. Illegal? Sure, but that doesn’t stop employers from getting rid of older workers or any other class of worker they want–they just have to be a teensy bit careful.

My parents were married secretly in 1936. Why secretly? Because if my mother announced that she had gotten married she would have lost her job. Do we want to return to these conditions?

And of course if I got $20 an hour as a married person and $15 an hour as a single person–for the same exact job–wouldn’t that encourage marriages of convenience and / or fraud? What happens to the idea of equity–equal pay for equal work?

It seems to me that a lot of posters have lost touch with reality. This is not the Kingdom of God or anything like it. You can create a fantasy world and economy all you want. You can refuse to vote for the two main parties, but in the end one of them is going to win, and you are simply allowing your neighbors to choose for you.

I disagree because I never said it should be mandatory.

If paying married workers or workers with children more was mandatory, then what you say would be true.

But if employers were allowed to give the employees they want to keep marriage and/or child raises, it would allow employers a way to foster loyalty from their employees and help their family.

I 100% believe in the concept of equal pay for equal work at the entry level and when hiring a person.

However, employers also need to have the flexibility to to assign a value to each employee. The truth is, some employees are harder to replace than others. Some employees have people skills that are difficult to replace and difficult to teach.

The problem with today’s system is simple- how many people today can get a raise for having a child? And God forbid, what if they unexpectedly have twins or triplets?

Today, they are most likely going to be paid the same because employers fear getting suited for giving an individual a cost of living, if word ever got out.

So we need a system where employers are legally allowed & protected (BUT NOT LEGALLY MANDATED) to give raises for getting married, and having children.

God bless

 

[phil19034]

I am a registered Republican for only one purpose: so I can vote in primaries for the most far-out, wacky person running.

If I knew of a conservative doing that in Democratic Party primaries, I would tell them that’s morally wrong.

BTW - I think that’s how we wound up with Trump. A lot of people who normally didn’t vote in Republican Primaries registered in order to vote for Trump in the Republican Primary.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I pray I’m making sense.

You aren’t. That is ridiculous. We live in different times now. Thank goodness.

It’s ridiculous to allow employers the legal OPTION to give a valued employee a raise for having a child or getting married?

Wow, I didn’t know being charitable was old fashioned

 

[JMMJ]

It is a matter of equity. Not giving someone else a raise because they don’t get married or don’t have a child, results in inequitable pay in the workplace. It has nothing to do with charity.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I disagree because I never said it should be mandatory.

If paying married workers or workers with children more was mandatory, then what you say would be true.

But if employers were allowed to give the employees they want to keep marriage and/or child raises, it would allow employers a way to foster loyalty from their employees and help their family.

I never said anything about it being mandatory either! If you were a single man working alongside a married man doing the same job, and he was given a raise because he got married, would you just smile and say “Congratulations!” or would you run off to the boss in a huff and quit? Maybe you personally would be fine with it, but I can’t believe 99% of workers would. I certainly wouldn’t work there another minute.

If I knew of a conservative doing that in Democratic Party primaries, I would tell them that’s morally wrong.

BTW - I think that’s how we wound up with Trump. A lot of people who normally didn’t vote in Republican Primaries registered in order to vote for Trump in the Republican Primary.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with joining a party with the intention of sabotaging it. It’s perfectly legal, and as far as I’m concerned, perfectly ethical. I didn’t create the rules, the Republican Party did. I’m simply using their own rules against them. So yes, I voted for Trump in the primary in 2016 in the hopes he would destroy the Republican Party. (So far, he gets A+ on that one.) And yes, I voted for him in the general election–not because I thought that in any way, shape, or form he was a good candidate, but because I realized that if Hillary won it be business as usual–the party machinery that had unfairly favored her over Bernie would go on to influence future elections. The “super delegates” would remain in place to ensure only candidates favorable to the rich and powerful would be allowed to win. Hillary lost, and poof, the party machinery changed, and poof, those undemocratic super delegates were relegated to tie breakers on any second ballot. The Democratic Party is better off because Hillary lost.

Now mind you I live in a very liberal state, so there was no way my vote would help Trump win. And, foolishly, I expected he would surround himself with at least semi-competent people instead of Ivanka and Jared and a bunch of Fox reporters and a bunch of lobbyists who were appointed to the very departments they wanted to destroy. And I foolishly wasn’t prepared for the daily barrage of lies starting on Day One.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The problem with today’s system is simple- how many people today can get a raise for having a child? And God forbid, what if they unexpectedly have twins or triplets?

Hello! Ever heard of that country up North? Canada? They’ve had such a system in place for at least 50 years. (As have almost all other developed countries…)

Canada child benefit (CCB) - Canada.ca

“The Canada child benefit (CCB) is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age.”

“OCB [Ontario Child Benefit–different provinces tie into the federal system with different rates] payments are delivered with the Canada child benefit in a single monthly payment. For July 2020 to June 2021, you may be eligible to receive up to $119.50 per month for each child under 18 years of age. If your adjusted family net income is above $21,887, you may receive a partial benefit.”

And then there is the matter of medical costs for children…exorbitant in the US of A, free in Canada.
Pre-school? Subsidized in Canada.

Or a personal comparison: One child born in Toronto General Hospital in 1972. Total cost? $40 for a private room. Another child born in Princeton NJ in 1978? $14,000+ with infinitely inferior care–delivery room was filthy and blood spattered (yes. literally). Anesthetist came in at 10 PM and said “Well, I’m off. It’s the end of my shift. Another anesthetist will be on duty tomorrow at 8 AM.” Delivery team = 1 doctor, 1 nurse–vs. a team of about 10 in Toronto. [And I’m mentioning Princeton simply because it wasn’t some backwoods place in the middle of nowhere. It was Princeton. The only hospital in Princeton.]

You want social programs to help families? Simply look North–or to any other developed country. Of course I’m being charitable saying “any other developed country” because that assumes the US is “developed.” It’s not. It many ways (infant mortality…) it sits firmly in the ranks of 3rd World countries.

 

[Sarcelle]

Here is a video on the two part system that we are currently stuck with.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Best of all is scrap this nonsensical presidential system and go to a Parliamentary system. First, there would be a lot more viable parties–Canada for example has Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Greens, etc. all of whom have significant local support in different regions. So you would have more choice.

I’m going to expand on my previous post with actual random examples from the 2019 federal election in Canada.

Let’s take Trois-Rivieres in Quebec for the first example:

Liberal 15,774
Conservative 15,240
NDP (Socialist / leftist / labor) 10,090
Bloc Quebecois 17,240
Green 1,492
People’s Party (an offshoot of the Conservatives) 565

The Bloc Quebecois won. But as you can see, there are 4 viable parties. In the previous election the NDP won, even though it came in 3rd four years later.

One other example, from Ontario: Vaughan-Woodbridge, a northern suburb of Toronto and my former home.

Liberal 25,810
Conservative 18,289
NDP (Socialist / leftist / labor) 3,910
Bloc Quebecois —
Green 1,302
People’s Party (an offshoot of the Conservatives) 852

More of a two-party system, but it illustrates how splitting the left vote (Liberals, NDP, Green) can easily lead to a Conservative victory.

In all, about 63 districts flipped to a different party–19%. And this in a relatively dull election. This percentage is unheard of in Congressional elections where it’s standard that 98% of Representatives are re-elected. It’s much, much easier to flip districts in Canada.

And also note that five parties have seats in Parliament: Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Quebecois, and Green. And the NDP has formed the provincial governments of BC and Ontario.

Now of course if you say “Neither of the two parties represents my views” you might also say “None of the six parties represent my views.” But there certainly is a much better chance one will come closer to agreeing with your views.

 

[phil19034]

Here is a video on the two part system that we are currently stuck with.

I would be happy to have a multi-party system. However, I just don’t see it happening as long as our elections are winner takes all.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The problem with today’s system is simple- how many people today can get a raise for having a child? And God forbid, what if they unexpectedly have twins or triplets?

Hello! Ever heard of that country up North? Canada? They’ve had such a system in place for at least 50 years. (As have almost all other developed countries…)

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...y-benefits/canada-child-benefit-overview.html

“The Canada child benefit (CCB) is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age.”

“OCB [Ontario Child Benefit–different provinces tie into the federal system with different rates] payments are delivered with the Canada child benefit in a single monthly payment. For July 2020 to June 2021, you may be eligible to receive up to $119.50 per month for each child under 18 years of age. If your adjusted family net income is above $21,887, you may receive a partial benefit.”

And then there is the matter of medical costs for children…exorbitant in the US of A, free in Canada.
Pre-school? Subsidized in Canada.

Or a personal comparison: One child born in Toronto General Hospital in 1972. Total cost? $40 for a private room. Another child born in Princeton NJ in 1978? $14,000+ with infinitely inferior care–delivery room was filthy and blood spattered (yes. literally). Anesthetist came in at 10 PM and said “Well, I’m off. It’s the end of my shift. Another anesthetist will be on duty tomorrow at 8 AM.” Delivery team = 1 doctor, 1 nurse–vs. a team of about 10 in Toronto. [And I’m mentioning Princeton simply because it wasn’t some backwoods place in the middle of nowhere. It was Princeton. The only hospital in Princeton.]

You want social programs to help families? Simply look North–or to any other developed country. Of course I’m being charitable saying “any other developed country” because that assumes the US is “developed.” It’s not. It many ways (infant mortality…) it sits firmly in the ranks of 3rd World countries.

I think you would be shocked to hear that Republicans agree with the general idea of what you are proposing here.

However, we only disagree with who should pay for it.

Conservatives don’t want the Federal Govt involved with this stuff, as conservatives want the Federal govt involved with as little as possible, domestically.

Conservatives want (1st) the private sector to fund these things, and if it’s not possible for the private sector and needs to be the public sector, then we want the city, county or state govts paying for the services.

Most conservatives view the Federal govt’s role to be primarily dealing with international policy & assisting with inter-state disagreements.

Conservatives feel that domestic policy should primarily be handled by the States, counties and cities, with little involvement from the Federal govt.

(cont)