election fraud?

[davar55]

Hello.........................................................................................................

Is Yahoo illegally using e-bots?
Is Yahoo committing election fraud?

Yahoo has a problem. Freedom is a right,

I've tried to post the following to Yahoo ! Answers:


The two-party system in America is now and historically a strong force for consensus. We of course allow third and fourth parties -- that's protected by the rights we share -- and the Libertarian Party places personal freedom as its highest joint value to pursue, which we can all agree on . However, if every small group could form a party and thereby get national publicity and automatically get included in the televised presidential debate there would be chaos. Yes? There must be rules, and 15% in the polls is reasonable. If the Libertarians can get that high, they should be included in the public debate. If not, then they should consider why they entered the political forum. If it's to further the cause of liberty, our most cherished right, one that members of the major parties and other independents such as the Libertarians all respect, then the pursuit of this cause should not deflect them from choosing between the now-down-to two major party candidates. If the choice is between the two major party candidates, and you know either the billionaire builder Donald or the former secretary Hillary will win, then the best way to spend your vote is not to vote for a decent candidate who won't win but involve in selecting the candidate who will win.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

The two-party system in America is now and historically a strong force for consensus.

There are those who would disagree very strongly.

In a number of European countries the presence of several political parties with significant representation means that they must be governed by consensus because no one party can force through their policies against the others' opposition. In the US and, usually, UK the majority party can govern with only a small majority's consent.

Please note that I am not arguing for or against coalition governments, only reporting the situation outside the parochial world of US politics. Don't shoot the messenger!

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

There are those who would disagree very strongly.
In a number of European countries the presence of several political parties with significant representation means that they must be governed by consensus because no one party can force through their policies against the others' opposition. In the US and, usually, UK the majority party can govern with only a small majority's consent.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against coalition governments, only reporting the situation outside the parochial world of US politics. Don't shoot the messenger!

Shoot the messenger? I wouldn't do that. When you're right, you're right.

I was only referring to the U.S.'s version of democracy, which was not the first
in the world (it started in ancient Greece, Athens I believe). Our system evolved
from its roots in your UK through our colonial period through our fight for
independence, especially with our Declaration of Independence and original
Constitution, with the Articles of Confederation and then the Federalist Papers
as guideposts along the way.

Coalition-based systems may be appropriate for countries such as UK or Israel.
In those more politically splintered nations, it's nearly impossible for one group
to consistently or nearly consistently get a majority. Hence many smaller parties,
hence a different method of aggregating votes to determine leadership.

Our system became two-party early on, and though the parties have evolved
as the country evolved, our current two major parties command most of the
electorate's attention. This engenders consensus for us, in that ultimately
all our issues get thrashed out in the public arena (freedom of speech) and
in the media (freedom of the press). When we vote in November this year,
regardless of the third or fourth party candidates whom some may vote for,
it is evident already that either Trump or Clinton will win and be the next president.

In my submission to Yahoo (see OP)

The two-party system in America is now and historically a strong force for consensus. We of course allow third and fourth parties -- that's protected by the rights we share -- and the Libertarian Party places personal freedom as its highest joint value to pursue, which we can all agree on . However, if every small group could form a party and thereby get national publicity and automatically get included in the televised presidential debate there would be chaos. Yes? There must be rules, and 15% in the polls is reasonable. If the Libertarians can get that high, they should be included in the public debate. If not, then they should consider why they entered the political forum. If it's to further the cause of liberty, our most cherished right, one that members of the major parties and other independents such as the Libertarians all respect, then the pursuit of this cause should not deflect them from choosing between the now-down-to two major party candidates. If the choice is between the two major party candidates, and you know either the billionaire builder Donald or the former secretary Hillary will win, then the best way to spend your vote is not to vote for a decent candidate who won't win but involve in selecting the candidate who will win.

I was trying to suggest to the Libertarian Party, perhaps our most respected
third party, that they could do the most good not by expecting their candidate
to win but by getting their own act together, by getting their own philosophical
house in order, and through their candidate Johnson and their own public
discussion to impact the public arena by entering the debate of ideas rather
than the fights over persons or personalities.

I had some trouble posting to Yahoo Answers, and thought there was some
electronic obstacle to certain of my postings but not others, this one in particular.
So I posted it here instead.

Perhaps you could change the title of the thread from my original title
to "recent online election issues" so as to undo any irregularity question.

[Dubslow]

The two party system is an artifact of the "first past the post" voting system, nothing more, nothing less. It is not especially conducive to consensus or compromise, and in recent times the parties have become nothing more than machines which are an end unto themselves, and whose personnel have little interest in what's actually best for the country -- only in "beating the other guys".

Both Clinton and Trump are terrible candidates unworthy of election, and this preposterous "choice" has been foisted upon us by the two party system, which in turn is largely due to the voting methodology.

Most countries with more than two parties also have different voting systems where it actually makes sense to have more than two parties.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

The two party system is an artifact of the "first past the post" voting system, nothing more, nothing less. It is not especially conducive to consensus or compromise, and in recent times the parties have become nothing more than machines which are an end unto themselves, and whose personnel have little interest in what's actually best for the country -- only in "beating the other guys".

Most countries with more than two parties also have different voting systems where it actually makes sense to have more than two parties.

The UK is rather strange in the global arena. It has a multi-party first-past-the-post system.

In England there have been three significant parties for the last century --- Conservative, Labour and Liberal (now called Liberal Democrats). In parliament there is also significant representation from the Scottish Nationalist Party, their Welsh counterparts (Plaid Cymru) and several Northern Ireland parties which split largely into two camps according to whether they favour close integration with the UK or not.

Only rarely do we have a coalition government, most recently in 2010-2015 when neither Labour nor Conservative managed to get a majority of the seats and the Lib Dems won an unusually large number. Prior to that was 1940-45 when party differences were put aside to help deal with a little problem in Europe.

Occasionally one of the major parties is replaced by one of the minor ones. The Liberals were overtaken by Labour back in the 1920's, for instance. Coalition government was particularly bad for the Lib Dems and they now have a very small number of seats, being greatly outnumbered by the SNP.