Guardsman Bass on Jul 27 2008, 03:20 AM, said:
The two parties stand for party preservation, corporate interests and nothing more. What happened when the Democrats regained control of the House? Oh yeah, that's right, the war appropriations went up by 50 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi was adament about ending the war. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats have done nothing of the sort. Congress's approval rating is at 22% with some polls putting approval as low as 9%. Bill Clinton didn't exactly do a stellar job as president, and need I mention Jimmy Carter? We need more of a reason to vote for a candidate than simply their loosly defined party affiliation.
First of all, Gore won the election, it was stolen from him. If an investigation had been undertaken, Gore would have been president. Secondly, are you forgetting the thousands of left-wing voters that voted for Bush? How about we blame the voters that chose Bush and drop this leftist propaganda BS? Why blame the only candidate that stood up for justice and democracy? Third, the supposition that Al Gore would have been a better president is unfalsifiable, so drop it. It's wishful thinking. Clinton bombed Iraq too you know. Fourth, Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. He "lost" it on his own. Gore didn't even win his home state.
Let's get a few things straight. Our country was not founded on a two party system (our founding fathers hated the idea of political parties).
Every candidate has an equal right to run (although the current system has warped to the point where the system is unconstitutionally slanted towards the two major parties).
Either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is.
If you are against third parties, you are against democracy. To attack the idea of third parties is political bigotry, plain and simple.
Just for the record, I was a tentative Obama supporter a few months ago, so drop the Nader fanatic label. Nader's policies, plans and positions on issues appeal to me much more than Obama's do. As a matter of fact, polls show that Nader's positions are in the majority, not the minority. The only thing preventing people from voting for him is that "he has no chance to win." That's nothing more than a propaganda scare tactic. You should vote on principle, not popularity. More than half of Americans don't even vote because they are so disenfranchised by the whole electoral process. If only a fraction of these American citizens decided to participate, it would be a much different story. In addition, Obama's stance on the war in the middle east coupled with his poor voting record have turned me away indefinitely. I hadn't looked into third party candidates until after I became dissatisfied with Obama's empty promises. If a third party candidate such as Nader was not in the race, I would not vote. Then again, that's what people like you want.
Why choose between Hitler and Stalin when George Washington is available? Just because Hitler and Stalin are more "popular" (a direct result of corporate influence translating into slanted media coverage) and thus that poor Washington "doesn't have a chance" doesn't justify the stance that everyone must vote for Stalin so that we elect the lesser of the two evils. That's not how democracy works. If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil. If you vote popularity over principle you are not voting responsibly.
In any case, a single-district, single-voter system encourages the formation of a two-party system, since third-party candidates don't get the "50%+1" votes to actually win seats. If you don't like it, then campaign for a Parliamentary system - stop b****ing about how wrong it is that the system is dominated by two parties when it was designed that way.
Third party candidates have won elections at the state level before. If they were given fair, proportional representation at the national level, we would have a tighter race. The fact of the matter is, very few voters even know Nader is running, let alone have they even as much as heard the names "Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney or Chuck Baldwin." Corporate media bias in favor of corporate party candidates? Go figure. Anti-corporation dissent cannot be tolerated.
What you are saying is, don't stand up for what you believe in, because you don't have a chance. If you have that mentality, perhaps you should move to China. America doesn't need your pessimistic view obstructing the democratic process.
Face it, you got self-indulgent; 8 years of Clinton Presidency left you thinking that it didn't really matter if you chose the lesser of two evils, and, hey, if Bush wins, well, a little "shock" to the system would be a good thing, right?
I'll stick with actually working for a solution rather than glorifying in my All-Mighty Ability To Do Nothing While Feeling Self-Righteous About It. Is it comfortable up there in the clouds?
Your implicit solution: Eliminate all third party competitors (even though both major parties have proven inadequate).
I think Jesse Ventura put it well when he answered a question concerning how he feels about the two party system: "I think the two-party system is phenomenal. We get one more choice than Communist Russia did."
Edited by AstroPro, 02 August 2008 - 07:04 AM.