Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.
So a third party candidate was not needed.
|
A third (and fourth and fifth) party candidate is most definitely needed. The more choices the better, especially when the two major candidates are more alike than any of their supporters want to admit.
Quote:
|
The citizens of the U.S desire 2 major parties
|
Not really. The citizens of any country by and large vote for the choices they are given. They see the ads, they (like you) think the major candidates are the only viable choices, and they ignore the rest.
We don't have a "two party" system. We have an open system that is dominated by two parties, mainly because they are the only ones who can raise the money. A real "two party" system would have the number of candidates limited by law. Is that what you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
On average your probably right. Still - we don't need more "parties" - we need less. We have a 2 party system. We need a 0 party system. As a country, we need to stop playing "partisan" (on both sides) and make ballot access open. Doing this - simply removing party affiliation from the process - would go a long way toward making the candidates more responsive and open to the public.
|
Hear! Hear!
The Founding Fathers decried the idea of parties, yet one of my favorites, Thomas Jefferson, found himself creating the first US party in spite of himself. After that it was all downhill.