George Washington

[Kev_guy]

IT was George Washington that once tried to urge people in the United States to not make political parties because it would pull us apart.

Now I'm a very liberal type of person..I do know that the democrats & republicans are not the best parties to be there. I would love to see more independents. But I just have that fear if I vote independents I'm just going to throw my vote away & get a republican in office.

I just wish there was more of an independent movement in the United States but everyone is so much on party lines.

[firefox]

Let's look at it from a different angle. You know you don't like either Ds or Rs, so isn't THAT throwing your vote away? At that rate, why vote at all? Personally, I vote Libertarian to send a message. I don't expect the candidates to win (which is usually the case), but the LP is increasingly becoming a thorn in the side of the two major parties.

[NortheastCynic]

I vote Libertarian simply because I could not look at myself in the mirror knowing that I've voted for a Republican or Democrat [generally]. There are very few Rs or Ds that I would vote for [Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul (essentially a libertarian) and a few local Democrats here in MA (Chris Gabrielli in particular)]. I'm told that I'm "throwing my vote away" all the time, which is one of the few things politically that really angers me. Republicans and Democrats vote for who they want to for most elections, who the hell is anyone to tell me to vote otherwise? I understand the LP isn't going to get elected to anything Federal anytime soon, but it won't be because of my lack of support for them.

-NC

[speedracer]

I came to love the two party system through a conversation with an Israeli soldier that had been "stationed" in Houston for consulate security. I went on and on about the virtues of the parliamentary system and how I wish we had that kind of pseudo-enforced third party inclusion (mostly through my desire for the support of the Libertarians). It turned out to be a rad conversation. His point of view totally changed the way I see the American Republic vs. parliament systems. His points:

Governing stability is wildly underrated. Imagine the turmoil of an American governing system that could topple any government... now imagine that after 9/11. It would have been a bloodbath of stalemates and lack of inertia. Exhibit A: Olmert.

How many political parties (parliamentary) are truly worthy of governing? He pointed out the greens. Fine. You vote green because you want to save owls or something. But what about security? How can narrowly defined parties (present in every single multiple party system) ever hope to cobble together a working platform outside of their issue? What does that bode for governance?

Capitalistically speaking, the cream would rise to the top with the added level of competition, right? So why do multiple party systems (3 or more, obviously) result in significantly weaker choices for the "executive" than the two party American system? Granted, a case can be made that Bush sucks, Clinton sucked, raaaaawr, whatever, but have you looked across the pond lately? Yikes.

Just throwing that out there. I love the Libertarian party. I give money even though I'm not a straight libertarian anymore. But let's be real. Socially, they've got friends in the Dems. Economically, they've got friends in the Repubs. The trick is to find the way to leverage that potential support.

Anyways. That may or may not have answered the OP.

edit: Oh yes! The point. Anything that takes us away from the two party system is, whether we like it or not, going to result in the kind of horse trading, cobbling together, everything-we-dont-want coalitions that stifle parliamentary systems.

[NortheastCynic]

Great post, Speedracer. I defrinitely agree with you that the two party system is a thing of beauty that fosters stability. That is why I think it's important that the LP focuses on influencing either party by ways of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Freeddom Caucus respectively instead of fighting the unwinnable battle of becoming a major party.

-NC

[potter]

Great post, Speedracer. I defrinitely agree with you that the two party system is a thing of beauty that fosters stability. That is why I think it's important that the LP focuses on influencing either party by ways of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Freeddom Caucus respectively instead of fighting the unwinnable battle of becoming a major party.

-NC


A two party system would be OK if they were not both controlled by the same lobbyists.

There really has to be a difference between the two for that to work.

We've had the same two parties batting the same old issues back and forth for decades with no results. It's time to try a different approach.

I don't think a third party vote is a waste. It may not get you anywhere now, but eventually the base would build until you had a viable party.

[NortheastCynic]

Oh I'm certainly with you with regard to a third party vote being a waste, Potter, you're absolutely right. It's one of the few ways that we can voice our dissatifaction with the direction of the two parties in power. I, however blame the American people, not the lobbyists. Realistically, the only thing that separates the people from the lobbyists is the lobbyists are willing to lobby...Americans are among the laziest people on God's Earth and do not prefer to get involved in government. If we had an educated, civic-minded society most of our political problems would work themselves out.

-NC

[potter]

I totally agree.

However the lobbyists are paid to lobby, most common folks are pretty much up to their necks just trying to make a living. I'm not trying to make excuses, however the politicians do count on this factor when they ignore issues important to the general population....that they will be too busy (and apathetic) to put up much fuss.