I hear people complain about the two party system... (1 Viewer)

Thorin

Idle
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
7,800
Reaction score
960
Age
51
Location
Shreveport, Tx.
Offline
... but look at this list, it's always been this way. There has never really been a viable third party contender candidate for the presidency. Just an observation, I know that hopefuls didn't walk the hard party line agendas back then as tightly as they do today, but still. No third candidate really got a close percentage since 1800.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
 
Good catch, I missed that one. Such a rarity though.

Was an exception that proved the rule anyways. Roosevelt, of course, was a Republican who split to independent when Taft got the nomination. His "success" of course gave Wilson the election, thereby proving the rule (there's only room for 2 parties so you're better off stepping in line and getting behind the candidate closest to your values rather then splitting the vote and handing it to the guy all the way on the otherside of the isle).


But a different way to think about is there is room for a third party, just not with any staying power.

As the Taft/Roosevelt example proves a third party is a great way to play "spoiler" and therefore force your "party" to pay attention to a core constituency in it. Wallace's "American" party in 68 is an example, Nader in 2000 a much lesser example, and of course there still exists the potential for a Social-Conservative spoiler this year as well.

PS This thread can't go anymore posts without mentioning Ross Perot. So "Ross Perot".
 
I see nothing wrong with the two party system.

If you want out of Iraq then you have to vote to raise taxes, increase the size of government, socialized medicine, increased foreign aid and many other excellent policies.

/sarcasm, lots and lots of sarcasm
 
So because it's been that way for upteen years....it makes it right? I hate the idea of choosing between ONLY two candidates.....with the same tired platform.

Liberatarians RISE!!!!!!!!!!!
 
In my opinion we do not have a two party system. We have one single party with two factions. This one party has a monopoly in the Congress that destroys the possibility of any reasonable competition. The Republicans and Democrats both want the same thing: to confiscate our money and spend it. The only thing they differ on is how to spend it.
 
As I said in another thread, I'm for the National Radical Meadow Party:

bill3cl.jpg



:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

Seriously, I wish there would consistantly be a legitimate third party contender. I think it would make both other parties focus more on providing a good candidate who will deal with the true issues, and less on providing a cookie-cutter, good Democrat/Republican candidate with the same old tired agendas.
 
So because it's been that way for upteen years....it makes it right? I hate the idea of choosing between ONLY two candidates.....with the same tired platform.

Liberatarians RISE!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not? It's working SO well now.


/sarcasm

If it's broke, fix it. But, of course they won't let that happen. They'll continue to suppress anyone that isn't "with" them. Look at Paul. Anything to keep the guy off the airwaves.
 
With no parties, you judge a candidate by what he/she says and eventually by their record of service. Candidates don't get any votes just because they're a member of a certain party. Nice and simple.
 
With no parties, you judge a candidate by what he/she says and eventually by their record of service. Candidates don't get any votes just because they're a member of a certain party. Nice and simple.

True. Look at McCain. There wouldn't be so much indecision about his stance on certain subjects if he weren't labeled a Conservative or Republican. Get the confusion of labels (parties) out of the equation and let them run as individuals.

What's in a party anyway? When one party is elected, they dog the other. I equate this to the Sunni - Shiite issues. One party doesn't like the other. So now, instead of having just one person representing themselves with their individual views on what they deem important, you have an entire party pressuring you into decisions that you may not agree with therefor compromising your entire agenda and individual campaign.

Peer pressure is not a healthy tool for decision making. An advisory committee, yes. An entire party telling you what to do and think, isn't.

You're supposed to be elected more on your individual goals, ideals, and visions, etc or for the party they represent?
 
Last edited:
In my opinion we do not have a two party system. We have one single party with two factions. This one party has a monopoly in the Congress that destroys the possibility of any reasonable competition. The Republicans and Democrats both want the same thing: to confiscate our money and spend it. The only thing they differ on is how to spend it.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I hadn't thought of it that way, but when I do, I agree with you.

I'd prefer a "no-party" system, where the candidate runs on their merit/platform. If a majority like what you stand for, you're in........none of this ***-kissing coalition crap where you say whatever you have to in order to get what you want. I'm sick of it...

At heart, I'm an anarchist, but I'm also practical enough to know that SOME rules are good, even if you don't like them. So, along those lines I've also wondered, if NOBODY voted, does that mean NOBODY wins, and the country is leaderless by default? Then, can we start over and rebuild from scratch and get it RIGHT this time?!

I'm sick of white collar criminals and their cronies running the show for their own personal gains and agendas. What's it gonna take for the message to get through?!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom