It is really the bi-partisam system that polarizes (destroys) America. How would a multi-party system work in this country and how would we elect our oficial to over see it.
Could we rely on just a popular election?
My idea of how it would work:
Many parties running for office–the top two parties get the candidates in the elections. By top two I mean a popular vote of the parties. No candidates run just parties. Then a final election of the top two candidates from the two respective parties. NO ELECTORAL VOTES.
I think this would create the most moderate government that everyone is screaming that they want.
You started with this on another thread, so I’ll re-ask the question here.
What do you mean by destroys?
We still have our infrastructure. Our economy is still the best in the world. Our Military is second to none. And everyone is guaranteed a high school education.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You started with this on another thread, so I’ll re-ask the question here.
What do you mean by destroys?
We still have our infrastructure. Our economy is still the best in the world. Our Military is second to none. And everyone is guaranteed a high school education.
Hardly destroyed. Just run by Republicans now.[/quote]
No I think its bad that only two opinions are heard. I don’t really fit into any of them. I am largely independant with exptremly liberal values. Yet, I don’t like what democratic party has become. A party of winers. A party that won’t say what they believe because they are afraid of the “middle majority”.
I think that the reasons you stated above for why thid country is so great are largely relative to ones perspective in life.
I beleive that inorder to become a more moderate country we need more of an alternative voice. Meaning not just republican or democrat.
No I think its bad that only two opinions are heard. I don’t really fit into any of them. I am largely independant with exptremly liberal values. Yet, I don’t like what democratic party has become. A party of winers. A party that won’t say what they believe because they are afraid of the “middle majority”."
“The middle majority” that you scorn is what wins elections, no matter how many parties you have.
The key word there is “majority”.
Do you understand this? In a representative government, you have to win more votes than the other person to get elected. So the “middle majority” really does matter, and in terms of power, it matters more than anything else.
“I think that the reasons you stated above for why thid country is so great are largely relative to ones perspective in life.”
WHAT?
“I beleive that inorder to become a more moderate country we need more of an alternative voice. Meaning not just republican or democrat.”
Don’t worry. The democrats are turning into greens and people on the middle left may soon be served by a third party.
[quote]Cream wrote:
“The middle majority” that you scorn is what wins elections, no matter how many parties you have.
The key word there is “majority”.
Do you understand this? In a representative government, you have to win more votes than the other person to get elected. So the “middle majority” really does matter, and in terms of power, it matters more than anything else.
“I think that the reasons you stated above for why thid country is so great are largely relative to ones perspective in life.”
WHAT?
“I beleive that inorder to become a more moderate country we need more of an alternative voice. Meaning not just republican or democrat.”
Don’t worry. The democrats are turning into greens and people on the middle left may soon be served by a third party.[/quote]
Not scorning them–I just don’t agree with wuss politics. Too afraid of stepping on toes. Yes, reality is a bitch–I have to sell my position to the middle–so I lie instead of telling people how I really feel. Like that crap about how John Kerry is pro-choice but catholic so pro life–which is it? There should be a party for those who can’t decide–oh wait–there is it’s the democratic party.
What I meant was that the reasons why this country is great (as stated above by RainJack) are a matter of perspective. this country not “thid”
Typing and thinking at the same time…
meaning–a poor person isn’t gonna care how great our military is.[/quote]
That’s cool. I thought there was going to be some “third world” superiority point in there…
Also, rainjack’s list is not exhaustive. There are plenty of reasons this would be the #1 place that I would like to be poor in. Mainly, in that my opportunity is undeniably greatest here compared to anywhere else.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not scorning them–I just don’t agree with wuss politics. Too afraid of stepping on toes. Yes, reality is a bitch–I have to sell my position to the middle–so I lie instead of telling people how I really feel. Like that crap about how John Kerry is pro-choice but catholic so pro life–which is it? There should be a party for those who can’t decide–oh wait–there is it’s the democratic party.
[/quote]
I would argue that the problem with the democrats is that they’re putting forth leftists parading as centrists. They could fix this by actually running guys that weren’t on the fringe. They exist. Contrary to popular belief, there are principled democrats that could resonate with moderates.
But look what happened when a relative conservative like Joe Liebermann ran – he was booed off the debate stages! What does that tell moderate America about the state of the party?
You couldn’t run Bill Dobson or Rick Santorum as a moderate, no matter how much the Republicans wanted them to win. You can’t disguise john kerry enough, even with the help of much of the media, to convince anyone that can read that he is anything less than a radical. Granted, a lot of people felt that that was better than W., but not nearly enough.
The dems are not going to be able to disguise hillary clinton as a moderate either, even though she has suddenly started going to prayer meetings and speaking loudly on being pro-defense while voting against important defense measures.
If you look at where the money comes from and the candidates themselves, there really isn’t a two party system in America.
All of these damn politicians have a basic cookie cutter image that they must conform to or the press will rip them apart. There is a whole segment of America that the stereotypical politician does not represent. That is why we have such poor voter turn out.
I doubt we will ever really move beyond a 2 party system and I can MAYBE see an independent candidate one day making a solid run for the presidency. If U.S. citizens were really so strongly interested in have something other than a 2 party system, then other parties would rise to the forefront. However, we have an incredibly stable government, hence the need for something as fractious as what you find in Germany or Italy (which is just mayhem at times… I mean, they elected a porn star to parliament several years back) is just not going to surface.
If you look at the political spectrum of the parties in the U.S. compared to some of our European counterparts (Great Britain aside), we are far more centrist as a whole. To us it might seem like Republicans are way on the right and Democrats way on the left since it’s what we’re used to.
Sifu wrote:
“If you look at where the money comes from and the candidates themselves, there really isn’t a two party system in America.
All of these damn politicians have a basic cookie cutter image that they must conform to or the press will rip them apart. There is a whole segment of America that the stereotypical politician does not represent. That is why we have such poor voter turn out.”
I’ll tell you part of the fix. Let’s cut back the power of the media.
I’m serious. Less grandstanding for the cameras. More responsible journalism. More accountability for the trash that they write.
The media has run wild since Watergate. They think they “create” the news. Too often they think it’s about the “reporter.”
If you can’t tell I’m pissed off. After a year of made up liberal drivel (CBS) and outright lies (newsweek), I’ve had enough of them being unaccountable.
The post about where money comes from hit it right on the head. Money wins elections; money gets your politics to the masses; money makes your party more respectable (valid).
This is a huge factor in why we can’t have multi-party politics in this country–people want a right and a diametrically opposed left. So they they contribute money to winning political view-points which is the status quo. Dems and GOP have been standard fare in this country for over 100 years and people feel comfortable with them.
Knowing this helps me solidify my opinion about needing stronger third party contributions.
Most forward progress is made by radical men unwilling to accept the status quo. Moderate men settle and compromise. Passionate men further their ideals and attain goals.
Do you want to be led by a moderate man…from either side?
The founding fathers didn’t make a deal with Britian they tossed them out.
I don’t like FDR’s policies but he could lead. Loved Reagan’s policies and even the Liberals had to admit the man could lead.
I don’t care for Liberal politics but I respect someone who is passionate about it. Might not agree with them but at least they give a shit about something.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Most forward progress is made by radical men unwilling to accept the status quo. Moderate men settle and compromise. Passionate men further their ideals and attain goals.
Do you want to be led by a moderate man…from either side?
The founding fathers didn’t make a deal with Britian they tossed them out.
I don’t like FDR’s policies but he could lead. Loved Reagan’s policies and even the Liberals had to admit the man could lead.
I don’t care for Liberal politics but I respect someone who is passionate about it. Might not agree with them but at least they give a shit about something.[/quote]
Wouldn’t this be a fairly sound argument in favor of our current leader?
Many disagree with him, but few would say he leads as a moderate. He is strong of conviction. He is definately a leader with passion. And he certainly gives a shit about his policies.
forget labels. liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, moderate, middle, left, right…who the hell cares anymore? i know i don’t care about labels, i care about issues and what people believe in. would it be so wrong to completely get rid of all parties and labels in politics? what would happen? just vote for the freakin guy that appeals to you. he doesn’t have a party or affiliation, he/she’s just a person that will lead.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
hedo wrote:
Most forward progress is made by radical men unwilling to accept the status quo. Moderate men settle and compromise. Passionate men further their ideals and attain goals.
Do you want to be led by a moderate man…from either side?
The founding fathers didn’t make a deal with Britian they tossed them out.
I don’t like FDR’s policies but he could lead. Loved Reagan’s policies and even the Liberals had to admit the man could lead.
I don’t care for Liberal politics but I respect someone who is passionate about it. Might not agree with them but at least they give a shit about something.
Wouldn’t this be a fairly sound argument in favor of our current leader?
Many disagree with him, but few would say he leads as a moderate. He is strong of conviction. He is definately a leader with passion. And he certainly gives a shit about his policies.
Possibly?[/quote]
Yes, I would argue that GWB ran as a centrist but times have demanded a different leader. Old strategy will not work and bold and radical strategy and action was called for.
I would not say that GWB is a fringe politican since so many agree with his ideals. However his war on terrorism is a new innovative stratgey and is bold.