I had no idea there were so many presidential candidates

[ringmastery]

This is the complete list of everyone registered to run in the New Hampshire primary for president.

http://www.state.nh.us/sos/presprim%202004/list%20with%20photos.htm

[Newsjock]

1. That's because the media ...

... have done such an outstanding job of fulfilling their constitutionally-protected duty to inform the public.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. It's all a conspiracy to keep Lyndon Larouche down

;)

[jonoboy]

2. Harry W Braun III looks like an OK guy

[mikehiggins]

3. Join the Hamm-paign

We don' need no stinkin' ballot.

We can jes write him in!

If he'd been around for Watergate we'd still be talking about Hamm and yeggs.

Ouch.

[Strandpirat]

4. American opposition

Hello from Germany!

This is my first posting in this forum, please excuse me for using your thread for it, but I hope, its content sufficiently reflects your message. Yes, it is, hm...sometimes quite amusing for a european to notice, who is running for for presidency in the US, especially when they are dogs. Haven't there been dogs running for presidency in the past? I've heard so. Anyway, here is something, I have written in advance:

I am German citizen and I have some comments and some questions for you. Comments first:
There is a huge opposition in the U.S. against the policy of the Bush administration, but the only political power against that policy is represented by the Democrats. In the case of international security and foreign affairs, however, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are not so big as, for example, in inner-american affairs. It's even worse: The next democratic candidate against Bush will probably avoid international topics, they will only play a minor role in the next election campaign. The Dean experience, I guess.

So where is the great opposition against George W. Bush in the United States? If you want another US-Foreign Policy, who would you vote for? The Dems??? What do you expect from Wesley Clark or Kerry?
Isn't it an affront to you to hear the Dems say: You don't like Bush? How about a Namvet or an ex-NATO general? Okay, you might have some inner-american reason to prefer them, but that wouldn't change anything in your international role as a policeman of the world and a country that puts gazillions of dollars into its military.

Since decades the american people are governed by only two parties. Why? Why isn't there any relevant third, fourth or fifth party? Why don't you have a successful 'green party' in Washington? I really don't understand that. Can't you organize your environmental and pacifist networks? In Germany, it only took a few years, to get the Greens into the parliament, and two decades, to have the first green ministers: You easily identify their fingerprints in Germany's foreign policy.

Your comments?

[slinkerwink]

5. the reason why we don't have a strong third party is because our present

two-party system refuses to share the media stage with third party candidates such as Ralph Nader in 2000. I'd definitely vote for the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy because Democrats tend to operate on systems of multilaterism and cooperation.

It does bother me that the Democratic Party thinks in order to beat George Bush who went AWOL, and has the worst foreign policy ever, that we have to run candidates with a military background. That's why I'm backing Dean is because he doesn't have a military background, and that way, we won't accede to Bush by letting him frame the debate on military/foreign policy issues.

We can't organize our environmental and pacifist networks because of the special interests in Washington, D.C. It threatens their economic interests if they are forced to comply with regulations or rules suggested by environmental groups. That is why the special interests have free rein in Congress now because Bush lets them get away with raping the environment.

Anyway, I take offense to you calling our presidential Democratic candidates "dogs." Please do not refer to them as that.

[DemExpat]

6. I think that he is actually referring to real dogs.....

have there been dogs on the ballot for President?

:shrug:

(Question from another "foreigner".....)

:hi:

DemEx

[Strandpirat]

10. misunderstanding

Sorry for the 'dogs', I didn't mean any person. Maybe it's just a fairy tale or anecdote, but in the past I have heard of a dog that has been registered for election.

I can't share your opinion why you can't organize your networks/ non-parliamentary opposition because your establishment works against your interests. No.

In Germany, you need 5% and you are in the Bundestag. The Greens in Germany started with fundamental opposition, then worked themselves into political issues and at last became coalition partner in our government.

Don't you think you couldn't reach 5% of the american voters?

[library_max]

7. We don't have proportional representation.

We have "winner take all." That means that in any election, the candidate with the most votes wins. Some states and municipalities have runoff provisions if none of the candidates gets a majority, but there is nothing like that on the national level.

Because of winner take all, ideological third parties (left or right) do nothing but split the vote and throw elections to the major party to which they are most opposed. Green votes tend to throw elections to Republicans, for example.

[Strandpirat]

11. :(

Does that mean that minorities are not represented in the government?

( obviously...)

[returnable]

9. Simple answer: money

So far, no third party has been able to generate enough cash.

It's all about financing. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were able to influence a couple of elections because they had enough bank to make noise.

Unfortunately, no third party has been able to sustain that kind of financial backing over the long haul.