|
Why the Lesser Evil?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cristalclair |
Americans are supposed to have extensive liberties and choices. So when it comes down to it, why do we only have TWO choices when it comes to electing the president? And actually, how different are the Democratic and Republican parties? Both are leaning so far center that they are about to fall over! Why do we love trance? Because it is specialized! Choosing Bush or Kerry, Republican or Democrat, is like choosing whether I want to listen to N Sync or Britney Spears for the next FOUR YEARS.
I am a Libertarian in that I believe in less government interference with both the economy and the lives of citizens. However, I end up voting democrat because individual liberties win out over the economy for me. And I'm just one of many people who would vote for a third party if they actually thought it had a chance. So my question is, what would it take to create the critical mass needed for alternative parties to challenge the dominant ones?
I think both the Democrats and the Republicans have become too entrenched, we need something new, something that will combat the political apathy that faces so many people and forge a new path. So why the lesser evil? Why not have the ability to choose the Good? How does everyone else feel about this? |
|
|
| jonSun |
| Get Jesse Ventura to run. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Other choices would be the best thing ever to happen to democracy here. Right now you have to pick a party with a bundle of ideas or another one with the opposite. More parties would mean people who are libertarians and progressives and populists could all have their own stake in government.
The problem is the system is a winner-take-all election. It's the case with Nader this year or Ross Perot in the past, if it is uneven and there are 2 conservatives/liberals against 1 on the other side, they will split the vote and elect the other person. In the old days, there have been cases where 3 groups have split the vote and no one got a clear majority, so the Congress electedthe President.
A plurality system would have to be in place like many European and Asian countries have, where there is a prime minister and he is the head of the majority coalition. This would be a system where if the libertarians get 30% of the vote, they get 30% of the seats, rather than in our current system where they would get nothing if under 50% +1. |
|
|
| smokeape |
The platforms only lean to the center during election time. They tend to lean opposite afterwards and the folks who follow politics outside the campaign rhetoric already know that. Kerry's voting record in Congress for instance should have been a clue.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
The platforms only lean to the center during election time. They tend to lean opposite afterwards and the folks who follow politics outside the campaign rhetoric already know that. Kerry's voting record in Congress for instance should have been a clue.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
No, the point is there are more than 2 ideologies that people have in this country and there are only to major parties to choose from. |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
No, the point is there are more than 2 ideologies that people have in this country and there are only to major parties to choose from. |
You can vote for the tird one if to doesn't suit your fancy. Are you from the south too?
:D
[[[smoke]]]
Paul van Dyk - Crush (Vandit Club Mix) |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
No, the point is there are more than 2 ideologies that people have in this country and there are only to major parties to choose from. |
The Founders set up the American political system to benefit the existence of two parties, and two parties only. The Supreme Court, since the 1800's, has favored the two party system as well. There's a reason - it's inherently more stable than a multi-party system. I'd say their intent played out pretty well, seeing as the US has the world's oldest written constitution, by far.
There is also something to be said for the nature of people's political thought. There have been many states that have tried PR systems for state elections, but after one or two election cycles, they have all reverted back to winner-take-all. Nobody liked the results. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| More stable yes, than some countries, though British Parliament is fairly stable for example. There is a lack of opinions though. And yes,you can vote for a 3rd party candidate, but it isn't a viable option in most cases in a winner-take-all system. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
The Founders set up the American political system to benefit the existence of two parties, and two parties only. The Supreme Court, since the 1800's, has favored the two party system as well. There's a reason - it's inherently more stable than a multi-party system. I'd say their intent played out pretty well, seeing as the US has the world's oldest written constitution, by far.
|
Havingg an old constitution really doesn't say anything about the stability of the system. The cause of the constitution being old could just as well be ascribed to necligence and stubborness. In Denmark we have loads of parties, and we are not as divided as you are. When a PM I didn't vote for is in office, I certainly wouldn't say that he wasn't *my* PM.
IMO the US has idolized its own constitution to a point where it is very hard to challenge it. This is a problem in the world of today, where superior democratic models have shot forth elsewhere, and ought to be evaluated and maybe adopted in part. One thing is your two party system, which rests on a "black and white"-world view, but you should also look into voting alliances, which allow people to vote for whomever they want with no fear of their vote being wasted. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
but you should also look into voting alliances, which allow people to vote for whomever they want with no fear of their vote being wasted. |
I've always been a fan of that idea since you first mentioned it. It's such a good idea :(. It forces parties to make choices to compromise other parties if they so choose to. I don't blame the founding fathers for not anticipating the situation of the current electorate, but come on! We need to change with the times. |
|
|
| icyhandofcrap |
| Hmm I have been told it is harder to govern with a multi-party system (such as in many European countries), is that true? |
|
|
| josh4 |
| Because the average American is too stupid to answer a question more complicated than True or False , Yes or No. |
|
|
|
|
