At the risk of being labeled the constant finger in the eye, it isn't a democracy its a republic. Republics tend to have less political parties because multiple parties can rarely generate enough support to constitute a majority. By way of example, see Israel.
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Another point. There is tremendous variation within each party. I've meet some conservative Democrats that make conservative Republicans look like Ted Kennedy. 
GB,
Good points, but I think that there are some here who may take offense to the idea that there are only two parties. There are more, not just in history, but now. Govenor Ventura, what party is he? I believe there is a senator as well, neither D or R designation after his name.
In a conversation stating that there are only two Presidential candidtates I pointed to a link listing some 200 names that will appear (at the time of my post) on Presidential ballots across the country come November.
So you say only two are really considered?
Well, then I ask...who makes it that way? Easily answered, those who are voting....us. We make it that way, thru our actions via support/political activity and voting.
So Jim, what I will offer up to WarC, our brilliant 17 year old (no sarcasm, I have been reading much of what he writes here), is that if you do not like only two parties getting support, check out some of the others. If you find one you like, help them. If you don't, you may understand why they aren't considered "major"
Also take a slice of TSG. If you are a Dem, you can expect to have your ideologies challenged by a Repub. (generally speaking) and vice versa. If you are a "third", or a moderate even, you can expect to be hit from all sides. Politicians can only put up so many walls of defense, and I believe that if one thing Dems and Repubs have in common, it is a realization of the saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Would it not be fair to say that the Reps and Dems did a fair job of squeezing out other people from consideration during the Dem primary run? Or when an independant or a Green or whatever spoke?
Good points, but I think that there are some here who may take offense to the idea that there are only two parties. There are more, not just in history, but now. Govenor Ventura, what party is he? I believe there is a senator as well, neither D or R designation after his name.
In a conversation stating that there are only two Presidential candidtates I pointed to a link listing some 200 names that will appear (at the time of my post) on Presidential ballots across the country come November.
So you say only two are really considered?
Well, then I ask...who makes it that way? Easily answered, those who are voting....us. We make it that way, thru our actions via support/political activity and voting.
So Jim, what I will offer up to WarC, our brilliant 17 year old (no sarcasm, I have been reading much of what he writes here), is that if you do not like only two parties getting support, check out some of the others. If you find one you like, help them. If you don't, you may understand why they aren't considered "major"
Also take a slice of TSG. If you are a Dem, you can expect to have your ideologies challenged by a Repub. (generally speaking) and vice versa. If you are a "third", or a moderate even, you can expect to be hit from all sides. Politicians can only put up so many walls of defense, and I believe that if one thing Dems and Repubs have in common, it is a realization of the saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Would it not be fair to say that the Reps and Dems did a fair job of squeezing out other people from consideration during the Dem primary run? Or when an independant or a Green or whatever spoke?
Same with me. I can't understand how people can live in a country that has snow up to their butts nine months out of a year.
No Jim, was referring to members who are Libertarians, for example. Though our registration process (if I remember my application correctly) only offers three choices, Rep, Dem, Ind., I think that, other parties, while not always "winning", have demonstrated their political force. Was just pointing out that these are not small groups, so discounting them could bring in, Ed, for example, with a bone to pick on the statement. (I believe he said he was a "card carrying Libertarian", if not, I apologize for using your name, Ed)
GB,
Also found in that other thread (maybe I can find it), I offered up the idea that, despite being a Representative Republic, we like the idea of majority rules. With 2 major candidates, you can, relatively speaking, do that. With three or more, you get winners with just more votes than any one other candidate.
People are concerned about Bush only having a 48% approval rating? Imagine if our President ran in a "real" 5 person race. We could well have a leader that only 20.1% of the votors wanted, with 79.9% not wanting that person! THAT is a real popularity rating issue.
You may blame it on a lack of imagination on political hopefuls, but I still hold us to creating it to be this way. As you said, no third has had more than 25% of the voting public....so would that not be a statement as to how the people feel on the matter?
(I believe he said he was a "card carrying Libertarian", if not, I apologize for using your name, Ed)GB,
Also found in that other thread (maybe I can find it), I offered up the idea that, despite being a Representative Republic, we like the idea of majority rules. With 2 major candidates, you can, relatively speaking, do that. With three or more, you get winners with just more votes than any one other candidate.
People are concerned about Bush only having a 48% approval rating? Imagine if our President ran in a "real" 5 person race. We could well have a leader that only 20.1% of the votors wanted, with 79.9% not wanting that person! THAT is a real popularity rating issue.
You may blame it on a lack of imagination on political hopefuls, but I still hold us to creating it to be this way. As you said, no third has had more than 25% of the voting public....so would that not be a statement as to how the people feel on the matter?
I know how I would react....thumbs down baby!
Lets put it to play. Use the upcoming election. I don't want to vote for either at this point (Kerry keeps ticking me off as I go his way...but I digress) so I utilize your NOTA option. I am not alone, and in fact, 33.4% also vote that way. We now have no leadership. We run another election? Does that mean we have no leader until a new crop runs, or do we keep Bush until someone, other than NOTA, wins at least 33.4%? So basically with no support, the incumbant can keep the job, so long as no real challenger comes along? Oh my, the conspiracies we could spin on that one!
See the worst case scenario? Scares me, given our political finikyness.
Quite right GB, but the idea is that that elected leader doesn't have the right to run the show himself. As you know he sits as the head of a council called the cabinet and acts as one of them. Of course when we end up with someone who sees himself as the embodiment of the US system, (fine in its place, (if you like that sort of thing)
), and hijacks the setup then the whole thing is bound to go awry.I'm genuinely surprised that you should think this a bad thing as it gave the world first Thatcher and now Blair, two Brits who I believe you do have a soft spot for?
gb I'm getting really tired of your hyperbole!
There's only snow here 8 months!
There's only snow here 8 months!
Ok CF, I don't even know what a Libertarian is! Apparently my brain (and arse) is froze solid for 3/4 of the year. Libertarian? Is that the lil ol lady that takes care of all those books in that big building downtown?
Me neither, really. (or at least, not to the extent that I could describe Democrat or Republican)
Where its a dry heat...........
like your oven on high!
Say it with me Jim, ARRRIIIZZZOOONNNNAAA
Where its a dry heat...........
like your oven on high!
\
Please read what I said again. I never said knowledgeable (that would eliminate all Repub.......)
, I said eligible.
...and the response (and the very insinuation with "select") to said precedent should be the answer to the question.
Besides, I think it far different to have or halt recount after recount (right or wrong), then to deliberately "pick" when the largest vote getter was "none of the above", a clear indication of not wanting any of the options, not just one of two (for a two person race example). Apple and orange, there is no precedent.
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
