Why just the "Big Two" political parties ? (1 Viewer)

[massive_attack]

Is it just me or is almost every (98.9%) election dominated by the "Big Two" (read: republicans and democrats) ?

Yes a few independent or libertariens are out there but the "Big Two" seem to run the show, the whole show.

The course of history shows us people from both of these parties lie, cheat, steal and otherwise abuse their power. So why should the public continue to trust anyone running under these two flags ?

Is it even possible that only two parties can encompass the vast political opinions of our "melting pot" nation ?

Isn't a system dominated by only two parties subject to more abuse ?

It's not like we have options. Chose criminal #1 or criminal #2. That's a choice ?

Could this be why a stunningly low amount of Americans bother to vote at all ?

I think our country would be / could be healthier if there was a little more third party action to keep the "big two" on their toes. Dare I say, even doing their jobs.

And then let's talk about who these "big two" are. A lot of them are the social and economic elite. The economic elite is "about" 1% - 3% of this nations populus. So we are basically only left with one option : the elite. How is it the elite came to "represent" the middle class, the poor and the homeless (try not to laugh at that part about "representing") ?

Yes you and I have one vote. But special interest groups get to vote ALLLLL YEEEAAAARRRR LONG BABE ! They vote on the golf course with our "representative", the club house, the ski resort. Then it's the same old song and dance. Election time comes around and our "representatives" tell us how much they care, the awesome job they've been doing and how they love us and how they are "fighting for us".

Aren't these analogies fitting :

1. The political battle field has become a lot like a man trying to "hit a home run" on a first date. It's all good news and "I love you". Then as soon as we the public give them what they want - BAM - no more phone calls, no more "Im looking out for you". That is of course until they want it from us again.

2. The political battle field has become a lot like WWF. They bang podiums, give moving speeches, denounce corruption and the other party. Then they all (read: republicans, democrats, special interest) go back to the club house have a 200$ steak and a good laugh.


Right about now you may be saying , "well what do you really think massive_attack?"

Here it is : I think it's a game of divide and conquer. We have this "false choice", democrat or republican. Then they paint any outsiders (3rd parties) as "crazies", "communist", "earth first nuts" and so on. They promise us the world then get into office and do exactly what they said they wouldnt. Don't get me wrong, Dubya is just another in a long line of political abusers but I'm using him as my example. Dubya ran on a platform of responsible government and take a look where that has gotten us. Responsible government ? Not one veto during his ENTIRE TERM ! Responsible government ? Two words : Hurrican Katrina. Yes there is a VERY LONG LINE of people responsible for what happened there but Dubya is steering the ship, the buck stops with him.

So they divide us with this "false choice" and conquer us by keeping a strangle hold on political power.

It's a trap I tell you, a trap.

Remove special interest from politics !
Have the government finance campagins, no more of this "the richest man wins" crap ! Everyone gets equal money and expose.
Don't let these peolpe give themselves raises !
Don't let these people live above the law !

The two party system has FAILED US !

:2wave:

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that most Americans are too lazy or weak to fight for a better America.
Also the DEMS&REPS have Rigged the political system pretty good, so only
a DEM or REP can win.

Remember:
Gore had more votes and Bush won

Ross Perot had 18% of the peoples Vote and 0% of the Electoral
College vote!

Clinton had 48% of the Peoples Vote but got 70% of the E.C.'s Vote


FYI this is a glaring sign of a corrupt political system! No matter if your
a REP or DEM!

 

[massive_attack]

Ya this whole "every vote counts" thing is TOTAL BS.

Sure , we "count" every vote (supposedly, since the advent of "electronic voting" there is no way to verify this and the machines have been proven prone to fraud) but does every vote really count ?

At best 50% of America votes.
Then someone wins by 26%.
That other 24% no longer counts, have a nice day, do not pass go, thanks for playing.

There are other voting systems out there and we should look into them.

One is called the Condorcet method and it goes a little something like this.

Four people run for the same office.
Voters rank from who they most want to who they least one.
Count them all up, the winner gets the office, the runner up gets the VP and so on.

So in this case we'd have Dubya as president and al gore as VP.

Every vote would count.

I know, I know. It's crazy.

 

[MSgt]

Ross Perot had 18% of the peoples Vote and 0% of the Electoral
College vote!

I wasted my vote on Perot.



Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Salvador Allende, and even Nixon are among those leaders who have been elected without a majority of the popular vote. It's not just an American thing.

 

[Thorgasm]

I wasted my vote on Perot.

Gunny, you didn't waste your vote. It is not a horse race. If you believed in Perot, then you didn't waste your vote. Did the people that voted for Dole waste their votes? I voted for Nader in 2000. I didn't waste my vote. It didn't even affect the outcome of the election.

 

[MSgt]

Gunny, you didn't waste your vote. It is not a horse race. If you believed in Perot, then you didn't waste your vote. Did the people that voted for Dole waste their votes? I voted for Nader in 2000. I didn't waste my vote. It didn't even affect the outcome of the election.

Yeah, but Perot dropped prematurely and my vote could have been used against Clinton instead. I'd feel different about it if he actually went the distance and then lost.

I only liked Perot, because he was different and a self made billionaire. It would have been interesting to see what he might have done.

 

[Thorgasm]

Yeah, but Perot dropped prematurely and my vote could have been used against Clinton instead. I'd feel different about it if he actually went the distance and then lost.

I only liked Perot, because he was different and a self made billionaire. It would have been interesting to see what he might have done.

I understand what you mean about Perot dropping out.

There is no such thing as a self made man though. Everybody gets help from someone at some point.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I wasted my vote on Perot.

I think you voting for a non-REP-DEM did a lot for America or at least the
"Spirit of America", well maybe the Original America!

At least now American can see that "OUR" voting system is Very Flawed!
What the American people do about that is another story!

If you read the Declaration of Independence and Look at what
the DEM-REP Monopoly is doing to America, I think the only
conclusion you can make is that our forefathers would have
revolted against our current government!

Semper Fi

 

[Jeteraus]

The problem with a viable third party stems from the fact that those in opposition to the two ruling parties cannot agree. Many people would love a third party to vote for, but these people hold wildly varying political viewpoints.
The people dissatisfied with the Democrats and Republicans need to band together on their common issue, voting against the two elite parties. Whether a third party candidate wins or not makes no difference, if a large percentage of people voted for a third part candidate, any candidate, a democrat or republican would still win the given election, but the voters will have sent a clear message, we want change. And, some of the issues near to the hearts of third party candidates would draw some much needed attention. (check out voteother.com if this idea appeals to you)

Jeteraus

 

[scottyz]

The two big parties work hard to keep a 3rd, 4th or 5th party out of the picture. It's one of the issues the two big parties can always agree on.