Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
|
The Republican party is only 150 years old, and started as a third party. Go figure.
In our two party system, we see more smear campaigns, we see more campaign contributions leading to pandering, we see less minorities, we see the adopting of similar goals between the two parties, and most importantly, we see an affront to factionalism. Factionalism is key to a free society. Without represented factions, a society or population is not accurately represented. In other words, a two party system is a two dictator system. That's hardly something I can support. Right now we have a powerful dictator everyone hates, and a weak dictator people are generally apathetic about.
I didn't sign up for a dual monarchy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Our system works better than any multi-party system, and the thought of many parties has no appeal to me at all. 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 common issues to create a false majority.
|
Our system does not represent the people in any meaningful way, so I'd not say it works any better than any other representative republic or other republic system operating in the world. We're certianly no better than the UK. We're probably worse than Germany and France. Considering the election fraud over the past few elections, we're in line with Mexico and some of the worse dictatorships.
A false majority is all bush haters joining one party.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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 80 divided between D and R.
|
I'd say it would be a great start. If a viable third party could be nurtured over several elections, we could see true representation in 20 years. That's the political landscape I want to leave for my posterity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
And Perot was a phenomenon driven mostly by his own personal fortune and did nothing for the Reform Party.
|
That's what it took. In order to really slow the attempts of both Dems and the GOP to squash a third party option, it took millions and millions of dollars. It makes me sick to my stomach.
If I wanted to run (if I were over 35) as a Green candidate, it wouldn't matter what my platform was. I'd have no chance of success without billions of dollars.