TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Unity 08

Unity 08

www.unity08.com

Intresting idea. Hopefully it creates some results.

I fail to see how uniting two already clueless, populist parties is going to be of any help to democracy in the US.

McCain / Lieberman '08? I feel sick already...

this is actually a good idea!

We stop trying to get one party to rule the government for 4 years, then we can get some work done, instead of bullshit political games!

I'm signing up!

The idea and goal is to find and promote a viable third candidate for the 2008 elections. If sucessful, this person would be on the ballet in all 50 states and a real contender for the oval office. It's not about uniting the already existing parties. It's about uniting the people in the middle that get left out and giving them someone other than the lesser of two evils to vote for. It's about giving the people that feel left out a real voice in the election and not vote for A or B, or just don't vote.

God, if this ain't the truth.

quote:

Before publicly announcing, Unity08 authorized a study by Princeton Survey Research to test public attitudes toward politics, the parties and the idea of a Unity Ticket. The results were stunning. (For the methodology of the poll, click here.) 74% of Americans are �dissatisfied� with the way things are gong in this country. (That�s the highest in 13 years). 54% think �America�s best days are behind us.� Asked about their level of satisfaction with politics in America, 15% say they are satisfied, and 70% say they are dissatisfied. (Only 3% say they are �very satisfied� and 44% say they are �very dissatisfied.�) 82% agree that �America has become so polarized between Democrats and Republicans that Washington can�t seem to make progress solving the nation�s problems.� They were asked whether each of the following issues were �crucial to the nation�s future safety and welfare� or merely �important but not crucial.� The percentage seeing each issue as crucial indicates that some issues the parties use to excite their base are not seen as crucial as issues that Washington gives little attention. Quality of education of our children 72% see as crucial Threat of global terrorism 71% see as crucial Availability of quality health care 68% see as crucial America�s dependence on foreign energy 67% see as crucial Situation in Iraq 66% see as crucial The increasing national debt 62% see as crucial Corruption in Washington 62% see as crucial The issue of immigration 50% see as crucial Global warming and climate change 44% see as crucial Guns in our society 39% see as crucial Challenge of India and China 34% see as crucial Abortion 30% see as crucial Gay marriage 22% see as crucial 61% of Americans say the 2008 presidential election is �the most critical election in years.� A stunning 73% agree that �it would be a good idea for this country to have more choices in the 2008 election than just Republican and Democratic candidates.� Fully 64% are interested in learning more about the concept of �a national unity ticket that would feature a prominent Republican and a prominent Democrat as the candidates, one for president and the other for vice president.� (The order of the parties was rotated in asking the question.) While a majority doubt that even a unity team would be able to clear out the corruption and favoritism in Washington, 53% believe it would be strong enough to govern the country, and 59% think such a unity team �would be more likely to steer a middle course and avoid ideological extremes.� Even without knowing yet who would be on the Unity Ticket, fully 64% seem open to the idea of supporting a Unity Ticket in 2008. < < Back to Newsroom... Methodology: Interviews were conducted by Princeton Survey research with a nationally representative sample of 2,300 adults living in the continental United States, between April 19 and May 3, 2006. 1250 interviews were collected by phone and 1050 by internet. All data were weighted against a statistically reliable model of the US population. The margin of error for the complete set of data is plus or minus 2.4%.

http://www.unity08.com/pollsummary

dude, that's exactly the problem. I hear it all the time, "I'm not voting because both candidates munch my grundle".

Hopefully we will see a better turn out.

Hopefully this does get people to overcome their lack of interest with the status quo and get involved.

The fallacy here is the assumption that partisanship is the problem. The fact is partisanship isn't the problem it's merely a symptom of the problem.

In a system where only two parties have any realistic chance of being represented in government, this current state of affairs is inevitable. It isn't a true democracy, where the ideologies of the people are genuinely embodied by the representatives they elect, it's a pseudo-democracy, where one party only has to hoodwink a couple more percent of the population than the other party to wield, in effect, absolute power. In a representative democracy, a party that received 5% of the vote should occupy approximately 5% of the seats in parliament / congress - in the US, this just isn't the case. It's either the Republicans or the Democrats and both parties realise this - they don't have to aspire towards the "greater good" or even "competent governance" because they know that the only have to sell themselves better than the other team to retain power. That, as I said, is the inevitable consequence of an inherently partisan system.

So I ask you: if neither of these parties are fit to govern, then what good is a merger going to do? The problem isn't that the two parties are occupying some sort of diametric political extremes that need to be mitigated by a centrist coalition to function properly, it's that they aren't under any pressure to represent any sort of coherent political position at all. The Republicans aren't a bad administration because they're right-wing conservatives (although, admittedly, that certainly doesn't help their cause ) it's because their primary aim is to obtain and then to maintain power - the only problem here is that they don't know what the fuck to do once they attain it! Karl Rove and the GOP sure know how to win elections, but do they know how to govern? Do they need to, given that they only have to portray themselves as slightly less undesirable than the alternative once every four years in order to stay in power?

Everyone with even a basic grounding in economics recognises that competition, in the market place, forces the need for administrative competency and that oligopoly, conversely, will necessarily breed contentment and maladministration - why can't people recognise that this is exactly the flaw that we're witnessing in the current US political system (and many other democracies around the world)? The US doesn't need a convergence of political ideas, it needs an expenasion of them. Until the system is reformed, though, this sort of "partisan hackery" - to quote Jon Stewart - is an inevitability that a "united" party just will not be able to fix - more to the point, in fact, I'd argue that any coalescence of the two major parties would just make things worse.

By the gods, I think that's the worst idea I've ever heard, and I've heard some bad ones.

I understand all of that, I really do. I've been calling for the death of the two party system ever since the 2000 election. I'm a strong believer in my idea that what this country really needs is a coup. I understand entirely what's going on, and that this idea isn't perfect and isn't going to create the solution to the underlying problem because no matter who is in power they're always going to do what it takes to stay in power once there.

However, I also think it's better than just allowing the status quo to take place. This is a movement to get people involved and nothing more. It's a way for normal everyday people such as myself to do more than just sit and watch. It's a way for people to get interested again and feel like they really have a say. Whether or not the goal of having the candidates the people involved choose for their representatives and ultimately the next President and VP is realized, it gets people involved and interested. That's the underlying goal of all of this. Hopefully, out of this a third party will blossom. I'd love to see that happen during this process, but it most likely won't cause not enough people are open to the idea yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter By the gods, I think that's the worst idea I've ever heard, and I've heard some bad ones.

Any reason why you think it's a bad idea?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Any reason why you think it's a bad idea?

It will help the two parties get things done. Problem is, all the things they want to do are bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It will help the two parties get things done. Problem is, all the things they want to do are bad.

Things... What things? Educate me.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Things... What things? Educate me.

Well, both parties like to think they know what's best for everyone, so they have a bad habit of trying to put their opinions into law.

The Republicans for example often try to implement "moral standards" of questionable justification into law: an idea which is inherently bad regardless of what those standards are. Issues like abortion, gay rights, standards of obscenity in the media are examples of issues on which the Republicans feel justified in forcing their opinion on everybody else... which I couldn't agree with even if I shared their opinion.

On the other hand the Democrats seem to spend a little too much time and effort trying to pander to various minority "groups" by giving them various protections and privileges which are supposed to promote vague ideologies like "equality" and "diversity" but really only serve to reinforce the idea that society is a set of groups which are in competition and, by extension ought to be antagonistic towards each other.

If the two parties were to work together instead of working against each other, I think that the area that they would find most agreeable is telling people what to do and what not to do, since that's what they both seem to specialize in. So I would expect lots of new restrictions and laws telling people how they should act and very little substantive improvements to any public services, since neither party has a coherent view on how to do that anyway. As far as I can see that's a bad thing, at least the current hostility between the parties stops them from carrying out some of their dubious ideas.

this is getting some recognition!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6060201543.html

I really can't see how moving towards a single party system could be considered good by anyone. Just having a system that basically supports only 2 big parties is pretty bad, and anything that would go in the direction of a further decrease of options could only be considered worse. Admittedly, a single party system does have the advantage that it needs not be concerned with temporary popularity and can get big and unpopular but necessarry projects done. Still the obvious disadvantages are a big rise in corruption and bureaucratization, as well as that such systems usually tend to regulate things too much.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.