Unity08 on the issues.

[°Leprechaun]

I vote somewhere in between.
In a nutshell I always like more alternatives to the
two parties system, but this idea is seriously flawed
for a number of reaons. Nevertheless, I wish them luck.
They'll need it.

http://www.unity08.com

http://www.unity08.com/believe#5

[°Leprechaun]

By the way, if you count those who choose not to vote, even though
their 'votes' don't 'count', has any president ever gotten a TRUE MAJORITY?

That is to say has a majority of ALL POTENTIAL voters ever voted for
the winner in a Presidential election?
If so, when was the last time this happened?

[MODU]

I've always viewed it as a nice attempt, but really, you are still stuck with democrats and republicans.  What makes it worse, you end up with one party as President and the other party as Vice President, leading to a duel executive office when polarizing issues arise.  If the candidates would disavow their party labels all together while in office, there might be a slim chance that it would work, but not likely.  The best bet is if they were to simply leave their party and become independent.

[°Leprechaun]

You make some good points, and I especially agree with your last sentence.
We need more independent minded people running. 1/3 of voters, roughly, I believe, are registered that way.

[MODU]

You make some good points, and I especially agree with your last sentence.
We need more independent minded people running. 1/3 of voters, roughly, I believe, are registered that way.

Just think of how many non-voters might be brought back into the process if we got rid of the two-party dominated system?  I'm sure a good portion of that group would vote if they knew that if they voted for a third-party candidate they might have a chance of winning.

[°Leprechaun]

You make some good points, and I especially agree with your last sentence.
We need more independent minded people running. 1/3 of voters, roughly, I believe, are registered that way.

Just think of how many non-voters might be brought back into the process if we got rid of the two-party dominated system?  I'm sure a good portion of that group would vote if they knew that if they voted for a third-party candidate they might have a chance of winning.

The direction in which we have been heading slowly ----  toward the point
where the only option in some places other than D or R is to write in a candidate ----
should be a major concern to all freedom loving people everywhere.
   But obviously it is not. Voting for the lesser of two evils may sound logical if
you don't think long and hard about it. But a vote for the lesser of two evils is part of the
problem --- it means that we will continue in the direction where only two choices are allowed.
How can anyone support such a system? And yet by voting D or R, you in effect are supporting
a system that is totally Undemocratic. In theory, the right to write in a candidate, makes the system
democratic, but *not* if those votes are not counted --- and are we guaranteed that they will be?
Ballot access has become, and unfortunately should be, an important issue.

And Yes... We tend to forget about the non-voters, don't we? Without a majority of *all* potential votes, does a winner have a "true" majority?
I have come to the conclusion that as long as the write in option is there we should all vote.... many of those who don't vote, just don't care, and might not vote unless voting becomes mandatory, but who really knows how many people would vote if more options (for example NOTA) were permitted?

[MODU]

A long time ago I saw a sign that showed a ballot with two check boxes, next to the boxes were a D and a R.  The text said something like:  "The last time I checked, D 'n R meant "Do Not Resuscitate."  hehehe . . . I thought it was clever, but oh so true.

[StateBoiler]

I'm a delegate and just received their Draft Rules for candidates.

See here: http://www.unity08.com/draft_rules

[StateBoiler]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=3020804&page=1

ABC News article on a couple of the bigger guys in this movement.

[zorkpolitics]

This may end up as the path Bloomberg/Hagel take.

If Bloomberg spends $billion it is possible he could win

[True Democrat]

This may end up as the path Bloomberg/Hagel take.

If Bloomberg spends $billion it is possible he could win

As I've been saying for a while, Bloomberg and Hagel can't run on Unity08 together, right now.  The rules don't allow two people from the same party to be on the ticket, so I'm guessing that one of them will become an independent.

[Verily]

This may end up as the path Bloomberg/Hagel take.

If Bloomberg spends $billion it is possible he could win

As I've been saying for a while, Bloomberg and Hagel can't run on Unity08 together, right now.  The rules don't allow two people from the same party to be on the ticket, so I'm guessing that one of them will become an independent.

Bloomberg might switch back to being a Democrat. As some of you might know, Bloomberg changed his party affiliation to run for mayor solely because he stood no chance in the Democratic primary.

[True Democrat]

This may end up as the path Bloomberg/Hagel take.

If Bloomberg spends $billion it is possible he could win

As I've been saying for a while, Bloomberg and Hagel can't run on Unity08 together, right now.  The rules don't allow two people from the same party to be on the ticket, so I'm guessing that one of them will become an independent.

Bloomberg might switch back to being a Democrat. As some of you might know, Bloomberg changed his party affiliation to run for mayor solely because he stood no chance in the Democratic primary.

I really don't think Bloomberg will switch back.  Part of his appeal is that he is a liberal Republican and not a Democrat.  If he switches to Democrat, then he'll lost a ton of liberal Republican votes, especially in the Northeast.

If they run, Bloomberg will be at the top of the ticket.  He's simply not willing to be VP.  And, he'll stay Republican.

Hagel will continue to blast Bush on Iraq.  He'll announce that he's not running for Senate in fall of 2007.  Then he'll be able to distance himself even more from the President.  He say something like "The Republican Party has left." and "I don't think the current Republicans have the audacity to fix America's big problems."  He'll then switch to an Independent, but probably still caucus with the Republicans.  This will enable Bloomberg/Hagel to get the Unity08 endorsement.

[Verily]

Possibly, but I thought Unity08 required specifically a Republican and a Democrat.

It's not as if Unity08 is a large or powerful organization. I don't see how a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would really benefit from their endorsement.

OTOH, Hagel might get kicked out of the party just for running as an independent.

[defe07]

What are the chances of Unity 08 for the Presidential election? Could they possibly do something like get over 10% of the national vote or win a few states? I seriously think that if they do well, they should become a national party and field candidates for Governor, U.S. Congress and state legislatures as well. Anything's better than having only 2 choices

[True Democrat]

Possibly, but I thought Unity08 required specifically a Republican and a Democrat.

It's not as if Unity08 is a large or powerful organization. I don't see how a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would really benefit from their endorsement.

OTOH, Hagel might get kicked out of the party just for running as an independent.

You don't need two people from differnet parties.  Unity08 just can't have two people from the same party.

The endorsement can't hurt.  Unity08 is working on getting their name on the ballot, so maybe Bloomberg and Hagel would have to spend less time on that part of the campaign.