Those who voted "third party"....

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

One tends to favor the system one has grown up in, or at the very least need lots of time to get used to the new system.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

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?

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

I have to disagree here Steve. In many areas - like NC where I live - the rules are so restrictive if your not blessed and sanctioned by one of the 2 parties, you have very little ability to compete. Not just in fund raising - but in every aspect. Even getting on the ballot is a challenge - you have to have a huge number of signatures (which takes organizing and resources). The 2 parties have made it a "semi-closed" system. They don't want competition (something I find ironic regarding team R - since they are all for it as long as it can't hurt them!).

We are supposed to have an open system. We SHOULD have an open system. Yet in many parts of the country, the 2 parties have collaborated to make it a head to head contest while effectively shutting everyone else out wherever possible. They want a head to head, controllable matchup with a referee and judges (the voters) that can be bought. They don't want a wide open cage match where they can't try to rig the outcome with massive spending. That is one reason why neither party is really interested in getting rid of partisan elections. Their power is more important that what is best for the citizenry and the country.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have to disagree here Steve. In many areas - like NC where I live - the rules are so restrictive if your not blessed and sanctioned by one of the 2 parties, you have very little ability to compete. Not just in fund raising - but in every aspect. Even getting on the ballot is a challenge - you have to have a huge number of signatures (which takes organizing and resources). The 2 parties have made it a "semi-closed" system. They don't want competition (something I find ironic regarding team R - since they are all for it as long as it can't hurt them!).

We are supposed to have an open system. We SHOULD have an open system. Yet in many parts of the country, the 2 parties have collaborated to make it a head to head contest while effectively shutting everyone else out wherever possible. They want a head to head, controllable matchup with a referee and judges (the voters) that can be bought. They don't want a wide open cage match where they can't try to rig the outcome with massive spending. That is one reason why neither party is really interested in getting rid of partisan elections. Their power is more important that what is best for the citizenry and the country.

Spot on. I think this is one discussion where the two parties are in perfect agreement.

[vienna]

So, you think you might have a problem explaining to your boss an expense that had a poor to zero rate of return? Spare a tear for poor, little Karl Rove:

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-str...002109469.html

The GOP famously hammers away at the notion the Dems try to solve problems by throwing money at them; seems they don't quite fully understand the notion themselves...

<O>

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.


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?


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.

Steve, i am quite obviously aware of many of the other independent parties. I am quite aware that it isn't a true "2 party system". But the other parties make up a very small number of voters, 3 percent of voters. This means that 2 parties make up the overwhelming majority of representation in this country, making it a de-facto 2 party system. This doesn't mean that one election year could show an unprecedented rise in voters going independent, of course not. That doesn't mean that in the future an independent party could rise to victory. No, it only means that that is unlikely this will happen.

I may think the general public is, as a whole, ignorant and misinformed about how their country works, i recognize their votes. If they want to be represented in the overwhelming majority by democrats or republicans, so it shall be. With this era of information, nothing is stopping anyone from getting the information they need about independents nor is there anything preventing them from voting for independents. I wholeheartedly understand that a fundamental reason the two parties dominate is because their funding is exponentially greater than independents. I am also usually the person to first point out how easily manipulated people are by advertisements, falsified information, and the like. But the people have voted. the people still vote in large majorities for either Democrats or republicans. The people still want 2 parties to represent nearly the entire united states (im glad to know that a few independents have made their way into the house and senate). And that is their choice to make.

Unfortunately that choice is often skewed, manipulated, misinformed, or not informed at all. But that doesn't mean their vote is invalid. Our founding fathers (most of them) wanted everyone to get a say in how they're governed. And their vote, however poor of a choice it may be, is still a vote. and 97% of American voters have said they still want democrats and republicans to represent them. therefore the de-facto two party system is still just as effective as a de-facto 50 party system because our two parties are, according to the people, representing them.

That doesn't mean you put up a very valid point, and i do agree that having 2 choices that actually have a chance is ridiculous given the amount of corruption and similar traits between democrats and republicans. I also agree that psychology plays a HUGE part in people's choices, mob mentality and the fact that the two parties get the most publicity and ad time while not necessarily being the best choices. The whole party system is kind of ridiculous to me too, people sometimes abandon logic because of what party they affiliate with. But i was trying to say that it doesn't matter how many parties (including having no parties, always a good option) you have as long as the people are represented according to their own choices.