Two Parties

So tell me, how's that two party system working out for you? I see that dissent and opposition has sort of chilled out, which has let the current political steamroll to carry on and on.

I just hope that people will not go back to sleep for a few years till the next election cycle. Look at what that has done for us so far, Created a huge system bent on wasting tons of money when the solution is so simple. In fact, the answer is simplicity.

Kind of ironic, don't ya think?

Let's get all ballot accessable parties into the debates, if no other change is made in how we choose representatives in a frickin 'democracy', let's have all candidates on enough ballots to win, to be in the debates.


Anonymous said…
What makes you think we have a two party system? We have as many parties as exist. It's just that fringe parties are just that... Fringe. Should any political party be allowed into any debate? If so... Then you and I should form a new politial party and we could get you, as our candidate, into the debate... Along with the million other people who would form two person political parties.

So, if two people is too small for a political party, then why don't we cut it off at say... 5% So, only political parties that have the support of 5% of the population are to be included. Oh wait. That'd be what we have already. :)
Anonymous said…
When only two parties get 95% of the media coverage in this country, then with the smallest exception, it IS a two party country.

We live in a society that is supposed to naturally provide choices (free market breeds competition?!?), yet we constantly move towards a larger governemnt at the helm. . . this pendulum swinging (D) and (R) game.

Sure, we have many parties. And many may be there for no good reason.

But if the viewing public can handle American Idol whith the long list of 'candidates' I see no reason some device can be created for the mass media to display all the 'candidates' that are on enough ballots to win.

Understand that there were only a few, besides the (gasp) two party guys, that actually were on enough ballots to win.

And furthermore, if the media does not cover the candidates, it will take much longer to ever get your comfort zone five percent.

Now, if you can commit to keeping this to five percent, perhaps we can build enough to get into these things.

But how sad is it that we waste air time on such crap throughout the year, and when it comes to the important issue having a candidate that actually represents your views, you have to choose from the (don't lie and say you did not hear this last election) 'lesser of two evils!!!'.

Bi-partisanism, two party system, or whatever you want to call it (or in denial NIT call it) has taken hold and become the strongest polarizing force in this country every election cycle.

And the system just grows, and we pay the blank check.

You make it sound like the only way any of us should act is within the two parties that actually get airtime.

How does it make you feel that these two agreed (the Bush/Kerry campaign) NOT to debate third party candidates?

I think it shows their inferiority complex. I say, 'bring it on!'. They say. . . nothing.

Their plan is to ignore the alternates entirely.

So what does that tell dissenters here in America, You will not be heard.

Anyway, keep playing the games that keep you happy.

Just be sure that the things that empower you, don't devour others.

This should be a free country.

How many things in my life do you wish to control?

Where I send my children to school, who I marry, what items I have in my home. etc.

In a free country, who decides?

In this country, the powerful decide, and I can no longer sit and be satisfied with that hypocracy.

I'm sorry to see that you can.
Anonymous said…
Yep, in this country there are many laws deciding things that should really not be the government's business.

But many are content to let the system grow till it affects them personally.

I think that is pretty selfish.

It's about time we respected people enough to decide from all the candidates.

Not just from the big two.

What do you have to fear from having the green and socialist and libertarian candidate in a debate with the big dogs?

Or sheesh, just have them alternative candidates debate each other on a major media channel to get to the final round with the big two. {do something new!!!}

To ignore the third party candidates is no way to provide a choice. It is a bad choice for all in this country who care about it.

Your tolerance level. . . zero.

Your vote is your choice.

My vote is equally important.

Isn't it odd that I vote for who I really respect and you vote against a candidate.

The countless people I spoke with like you* before the election said they would be voting against someone, not for someone.

What motivates your vote?

*Like you, meaning not able to see beyond the two party sham. Ever see the wizard of oz?
Scott said…
Fringe candidate?

A party that holds all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as crucial. (not just lip service like the current office holders)

A party that believes something has gone wrong in DC.

A party that pledges to not initiate force to achieve political ends.

A party that opposed the war and whose presidential candidate swore to end the aggression in Iraq immediately.

A party that is pro-choice on every issue that involves consenting adults.

A party that did not take tax dollars for its last campaign, even though it qualified for it.
(The repubs and dems took tens of millions)

All these points and principals should mean something in this society.

The Libertarians, amongst a few other 'alternate' parties, actually have some great ideas. SHould their dissnting voice be heard?

Not in your world.

Without a good agent and selling out to the dark side, they don't appear to mean squat.

But I will never vote repub or dem again so long as they keep hogging the punch.

Miss America, we watch as they choose from many.
The Olympics, we watch ALL competitors with great anticipation.
And yes, AMerican Idol whittles the contestants down from tens of thousands, and we watch with glee.

Come election time, and we can not stomach seeing more than two political candidates?

That is a powerful state of denial that you are in.

The fact that you can not handle watching some debates with a little more excitment is troubling.

Where the two party homecoming king and queen (I'm getting sick of the same ones time after time, aren't you?) laugh all the way to DC, we lose out. We all do.

But I think the future looks bright for those of us working for change.

Enjoy your closed door party,

Anonymous said…
fringe - a group with marginal (not of central importance) or extremist views

So, is the answer to let anyone at all into debates? On what stations are these debates going to be shown? What radio program will broadcast them? CSPAN won't have the time and people will end up watching less politics on television instead of more.

I do find it interesting that Libs seem to be complaining that the free market society of media coverage is giving them the short end of the stick. Umm... Should the candidates be required to debate people they don't want to debate? There goes your freedoms. I think that Libs get more coverage than the numbers dictate. Feel free to raise a stink if the guy that you like doesn't get the coverage you feel he deserves, but also recognize that YOU feel that way. Other people don't agree. If they did your guy would be getting that coverage. It's how a free society works. People are free to ignore your guy.

Look at it this way... Should the minority of people out there be able to dictate who and what gets what? That seems to be what you're rallying AGAINST, but yet it's what you seem to be trying to get.
Anonymous said…
> Isn't it odd that I vote for who
> I really respect and you vote
> against a candidate.

Interesting. I voted in a way that I thought was best for the country. You voted for your candidate. That's pretty selfish of you. And its the lesser of 26 evils, or what have you.

You believe that Badnarik would be good for the country and I believe he would be bad. Very bad. Throw us into a civil war bad. Even more the rich get richer and the poor get poorer than Bush.
Scott said…
I voted for the person I thought best for the job too, we are so alike in that sense.

The diff is that my candidate knows and wants to implement ALL of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whereas the Kerry/Bush campaign only pay lip service to that.

I voted for who I respected, call it selfish or wasted if you want. If you respect the guy you voted for more than any other then you made the best choice for you.

Badnarik would have been best for the country and I challenge you to back up your comment with why he would not.

He wanted to end the aggression in Iraq yesterday. He wanted to free all non-violent drug offenders (a step towards ending the race war in our justice system).
He wants to stop our government from being the largest polluter on the Earth, the list goes on and on.

What would he have actually done that would cause the mayhem you suggest?
Scott said…
"fringe - a group with marginal (not of central importance) or extremist views"

You mean to tell me that radical idea of 'people deciding for themselves' is a fringe idea?

WHy do you feel the government must dictate our lives if we are not violating anyone else?

Are you supporting phone taps like Kerry and Bush did?

Are you supporting the ever increasing debt that both Kerry and Bush were proposing?

Libertarians believe that you should not initiate force to achieve political ends, obviously to you that is a fringe idea.

And YES, the answer is to have a debate that includes all candidates on enough ballots to win. (you could have them in the first round and keep the best as you go {gasp, Bush would not have made it to the next round})

That does not mean everyone actually on a ballot in any state. Understand? Just those on enough to score an electoral victory.

AND C-span DID have a debate last year, actually a couple, where ALL the candidates were invited to debate. Kerry and Bush did not show up.

They were free to decline. Yet I say it speaks volumes that they avoid almost ALL dissenting voices.

Karl Rove should be proud. (he is)

I honestly can't see how you think the America public can't take time to handle a debate with all these candidates together.

Why are the ratings for the debates going down?

WHy are the debates so scripted?

Debates was designed, in part, to showcase a persons prowess under pressure, as well as their competency. I'm sorry, but the last ones with Bush and Kerry showed a serious lack therof.

Try going to C-span and entering Badnarik in the search area. Watch his debate with green party candidate Cobb.

Better than all the Bush/Kerry ones combined.

By the way- Why do you think the libertarians should not have the right to complain about the lack of media coverage?


Look, you are happy with the status quo, I am not, enjoy the ride while you are on top.

I believe in unalienable rights for all humans on the face of this Earth.

I respect the environment, childrens education, diversity, personal freedoms and personal responsibility, and I am not a fan of a gigantic government.

I oppose the drug war, NAFTA, Corporate-loopholes/exemptions/pollution/abuse of employees.
I oppose the war in Iraq.

I oppose wasting tax dollars on consenting adults.

ANd we waste A LOT!!!

Why is that so hard for you to understand that I can not vote for most dem's or a repub's and consider it a good vote?

ANd in this land of choice, I make one that reflects me.

Best wishes,
Scott L
Anonymous said…
Bush and Kerry are the same
A vote for them is cast in shame

I'm a poet and I didn't even think I was.
Anonymous said…
What did you thinbk of the rural liberty article?

Popular Posts