Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Are you willing to take responsibility for the next 200+ years of a two party system?
|
I'm hardly in a position to take responsibility, but IMO, our two party system, along with the system of checks and balances between branches of government, has served us pretty damn well for 200 years, including getting the country through many major crises.
I may have minor complaints about the Democratic party but not with the two party system. If it serves us equally as well for the next 200 years, I will feel confident about the future of our country.
Quote:
|
Now think about a USA where we have many parties spanning the broad spectrum of ideals that is the population. Imagine that instead of voting against someone out of what you see as necessity, you vote FOR someone. Imagine voting for someone. That's the directing I'm taking. And you can be sure that it's not only the road less traveled, but it's nearly impossible. When it comes to making the right decision, I don't care if it's difficult or popular.
|
Our system works better than any multi-party system, and the thought of many parties has no appeal to me at all. In fact, quite the opposite, I think the result would be chaos in Congress and, in the worst case, the possibility of the smaller parties representing the fewest and most narrow constituents joining together on selective issues of common interest to create a false majority.
Quote:
|
As an aside, I've converted about 35 people to Green from Democrat and Republican in the past year or so. Cobb had about 118,000 votes in 2004. 35 times that is 4.13m just from the greens who voted. 305,000 people in the US are registered Green. If each of them converts 35 a year for the next two years, then you'll have 21,350,000 votes. Bush won with about 60m votes in 2004 (if you're a sucker and believe that), and Perot managed to get 20% of the votes in 1992. Let's stop pretending it's impossible.
|
Sure, your scenario is possible, but so far from plausible that I really cant take it seriously.....but even accepting the wildest possibility of it occurring as you laid it out, 21 million votes would still be a distant third place,with the other 90 million divided between D and R. And you dont even know who the Green Party candidate would be, so you're hardly voting for someone, you're voting the party.
And Perot was a phenomenon driven mostly by his own ego and funded by his personal fortune and did nothing for the Reform Party.