I think this is barnaby2341 best thought out posts to date.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=209823

Barnaby claims to be an anarchist and only registers as a Communist because there is no "anarchist" box for him to check.

Anarchism runs deep in American thought, but not necessarily action. Thomas Jefferson thought that the tree of liberty needed to be refreshed by the blood of patriot at frequent intervals. (paraphrase) Jefferson, however, didn't practice this, especially in the years 1801-1809.

In reviewing barnaby's posts, I agree with him - he's more an anarchist than a communist. Certainly the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, Cuba and elsewhere didn't tolerate anarchism. Marxist theory is another matter.

Would it be possible to add categories for "out-of-the-box" thinkers like barnaby?

The possibilities include "Other" and "None". My guess is that an Anarchist belongs to no political party. In fact, that's the definition of an anarchist.

The existing categories cover about 99.9% of the American political spectrum. This is "America's Debate", is it not?

Should add foreign parties as well? How many parties is enough? I think we have things fairly well covered.

Had a bad day?

Good point, I didn't really consider that when I hit the drop-down menu. I didn't see anarchist and just chose the only option that was as far away from the American model as I could possibly get. I shall changed my affiliation to None.

This has been asked and has been considered in the past. Amlord is right, we have to draw the line somewhere.

We don't have set-in-stone guidelines for adding new parties to the list, but in general any party that is added must be putting forth an actual effort to get candidates elected to office. They should have a website, and give the appearance of being an official party. My inclination is that they should also have had at least one candidate on an official ballot, and also that single-person parties don't count.

I did a search and couldn't find any official Anarchist party (with a big 'A'), but did find a lot of anarchists (with a little 'a') who like to party. I also found some neo-Nazi anarchist parties, but those obviously won't be added.

If you have a link to the official Anarchist party website, send it my way.

Mike

Another consideration might be that some simply don't fit on the list. Take the: Libertarian National Socialist Green Party Obviously the name is far to long to fit and LNSG sounds more like an illegal substance than a political party (no this is not a slam on any group it is an actual party, at least according to Politics1 (though they have reservations about it as well) ) ).

I've always wondered about the Independent listing in the Party Affiliation. There is the Independent American Party - http://www.usiap.org/. Is this the party referred to? I chose none because I am undeclared. Perhaps an Undeclared selection would make this clearer.

Independent made the cut because many states (such as Alaska, Maine, Delaware, and New Hampshire) allow their citizens to register as independents.

Undeclared would be covered by None, Other, Private, or Undisclosed.



Mike

Alaska does not have an option to register as "independent". It does have an option to register as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. You can also choose to register as either Undeclared or Nonpartisan.

Maine does not allow you to register as an Independent. It does allow you to register as a Green Independent, but that refers to the Green Independent Party. You can register as Other. You can also choose not to enroll in a political party. There is no choice for simply independent.

Delaware has an option to choose the Independent Party of Delaware. If you choose not to be affiliated with a party, you may choose Unaffiliated.

I can't get access to an example of New Hampshire's Voter Registration options. But given that, in 3 of the 4 states you mention, independent refers to a specific party (are these parties affiliated with one another?), I'll ask the question again.

Does refer to these various Independent and Independence parties with that choice or does it mean unaffiliated? If it means the latter, I think that might not be clear. Is Party Affiliation supposed to reflect party affiliation? Would an unaffiliated independent not be considered None?

Is Overland Sailor an unaffiliated independent? Or is he a member of the Independent American Party of Missouri? Are you a member of the Independent American Party of Georgia?

On the National Voter Registration Form, it specifically requests that you do not write in "independent" if you choose not to be affiliated with a party because it might be confused for an Independent Party in your state.

Seeing as 12% (227) of our members who have a listed party affiliation list themselves as Independent, and also that this has been an option for over four years, it is not changing.

Clearly our members affiliate themselves with Independent parties of some form or another.

This is really insignificant. If you disagree with the choices, pick Undisclosed, Other, None, or Private.

We're not wiping out 12% of our stats. It's not changing.



Mike

First it's because many states allow citizens to register as independents - which I assumed meant unaffiliated (little 'i' and all). Now, it is clearly because these people must belong to one of the various Independent parties. Obviously no confusion there.

Crystal clear. And what Independent party are you affiliated with, may I ask?

I made my choice when I signed up. I am not affiliated with a party, so I chose "None" as my party affiliation. I merely stated that some members who are unaffiliated may be choosing Independent as the party affiliation because Independent is a buzzword for those who choose to be unaffiliated. I mean, Overland Sailor has Independent as his Party Affiliation... there isn't a single official party in Missouri with Independent in the name. Perhaps he meant Constitution Party... or maybe the Reform Party (after all, Perot ran as an Independent, didn't he?). So clearly there can be no confusion.

When Lieberman lost the Democratic primary he decided to run as an Independent. Did that mean that he ran as a member of one of these various Independent parties? Did he run as a member of the Independent American Party? No. A party was created specifically for him.

There are sites such as independentvoting.org that mention that 35% of Americans identify themselves as independent - meaning unaffiliated with a major political party.

Party Affiliation says something about a members beliefs... their values. You may find that to be insignificant, but I disagree. I believe this is why people believed barnaby might have communist beliefs... because he chose Communist as his Party Affiliation. So what common beliefs do these various Independent parties have that they get their own distinction as opposed to being simply None or Other?

What values do the Green Independents in Maine have in common with the American Independents in California?



I was under the impression that statistics were only valuable if they had some degree of accuracy. And by the by, eliminating or clarifying the Independent Party Affiliation category does not wipe out stats... it may shift them to other categories, thereby giving a more accurate representation of the members. But it isn't my site... so...

Jawohl. Maintaining a particular statistical number in one particular category is more important than accurately reflecting what that statistic is supposed to represent. Keeping a confusing category that might be leading to inaccurate statistics simply because it has existed for over four years is equally important. Especially when the option refers to multiple parties that may not espouse the same basic values or beliefs - which, one would think, defeats the purpose in declaring a party affiliation. And, besides... confusion when it comes to party affiliation is insignificant, so I'm told. I stand corrected and apologize for bringing such insignificance to your attention.

Long live your 12%!



12% uber alles.


*edited to fix an error regarding Lieberman.

Entspeak, I hate to have to be so harsh, but learn when to pick your battles.

Trying to peg me into a corner over something that I have stated will not change is not going to be effective for you.

If you don't like the stats or the options or the color of the page, remember that we are only one of what has to be hundreds of political debate sites.

I guess it's good that, at a successful site that has been around for nearly five years, the largest criticism is that one of the options for one of the profile fields seems inaccurate to you.

If you want to discuss this further, PM me.



Mike

Edit:

I want to point out some dishonest editing on Entspeak's part. He edited his post of 9:03 at 9:29, after my post of 9:27. In his next post, he "edited to fix an error regarding Lieberman," but failed to add that he also edited it to add a snide remark, "Long live your 12%!"

We call this dishonest editing, and it is not constructive. That means it is against the Rules:

§A. Post Requirements
I. All posts must be constructive and on-topic. Off-topic or non-constructive content will be edited or removed.

I'm closing this topic. If anyone wants to discuss this further, we are certainly open to honest, constructive discussion. We do not, however, tolerate creative editing where the intentions are to mislead other members and make the site look bad.

Those who take this route and intentionally violate the Rules do so with full understanding that rule violations result in strikes being issued, and restrictions placed upon their accounts.

The edit window is a courtesy to allow members to make spelling and grammar corrections, and not to change one's position or supporting facts after a response had been posted. Members who abuse the edit window will permanently lose the ability to edit.

Mike