I believe that the electoral colleges should be done away with and ONLY popular vote determines our future. Not hanging chads and supreme courts.
This we agree with. I think the EC thing is just downright stupid. And I think public elections are a joke until the EC is destroyed. There is no valid reason to vote at a general election. Primaries maybe.. but not the general.
ETA: I should specify I am also against the bi-polar system as well. It shouldn't be about which "side" is funding what.. people should run for president, show what they believe, and whoever wins, wins. Party having nothing to do with it. It breeds segregation, hatred, mal-content, and supports idiocy. People who "just vote the party line" and have no opinion for themselves do this country no good.
I'm for a two party system because with a lot of parties, it would be too difficult for voters to seriously look at the performance of individual parties and measure their performance. There is a rough calculus that voters have followed with the two-party system -- when disaster strikes, vote out the party in power and give the other party a chance.
I'm for a two party system because with a lot of parties, it would be too difficult for voters to seriously look at the performance of individual parties and measure their performance. There is a rough calculus that voters have followed with the two-party system -- when disaster strikes, vote out the party in power and give the other party a chance.
Hmm, I wonder who that calculus would favor now?
2 parties isn't enough for true checks-and-balances. It fosters eventual collusion-- witness our current situation where the 2 parties only differ substantially in rhetoric (and even there not so much). Simply adding one more party to the mix exponentially increases the opportunity for fairness in the system and process. Look at the scare Ross Perot once threw into the works. We had a brief bit of accountability-- and then the 2 parties met behind closed doors and specifically excluded others from the game.
As any chess player knows, there are many ways of setting things up, and most of them are sound. It took hundreds of years for chess players to figure that out, though; even 50 years ago, players had a very exaggerated idea that there was an extremely narrow range of correct play. Now, anything goes.
The same goes with government -- many kinds of government can work. It's the total system that counts. This goes for two-party vs multiple party system, for example. They both can work.
The advantage of the two-party system is that a majority or near-majority almost always rules. A party that believes in abortion but really doesn't care about other issues is not likely to take power here, and that is just an example.
The two parties are similar because they are both trying to appeal to the majority of the people, and only certain ideological mixes have a chance to win the vote. It is more or less impossible for a Communist or Nazi party to be viable.
The electoral college of course existed to begin with because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the American people all the way. It was a kind of escape hatch if the people went crazy, or against the interest of the propertied classes, which is who the Founding Fathers were primarily interested in.
Cases in which the electoral college is important are quite rare. We have had a few recent examples, but in the long run it is a very minor issue. I am not sure I would rather an election be determined by the electoral college or by the fact that certain states happened to have rainy days and thus turnout in those states was low.
I think 2-party collusion is inevitable. Sure, it can work in theory, and even in reality for some time, but collusion to avoid competition is in our nature. It takes that "third eye" to introduce objectivity.
A party that believes in abortion but really doesn't care about other issues is not likely to take power here, and that is just an example.
How does your 2 party system work for the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and also are Pro-Choice.
Or Pro-Life anti-gunners?
Or people who agree with the war; but want stronger environmental regulations and laws?
Why must I be forced to pick a candidate backed by a party with a very specific set of stances across the board?
And I know.. we aren't "forced" to pick a party.. but the fact of the matter is with the EC it doesn't matter if this entire country voted for Mickey Mouse.
The Red states would vote Red. The Blue states would vote Blue. And the independent states would vote whatever they wanted. You still end up with either a Red, Or Blue president.
2 parties isn't enough for true checks-and-balances. It fosters eventual collusion-- witness our current situation where the 2 parties only differ substantially in rhetoric (and even there not so much). Simply adding one more party to the mix exponentially increases the opportunity for fairness in the system and process. Look at the scare Ross Perot once threw into the works. We had a brief bit of accountability-- and then the 2 parties met behind closed doors and specifically excluded others from the game.
I agree with you about the two party system, however I think these candidates are not close on many issues. And if McCain would stop repeating Obama's slogans people would be much less confused about actual issues. I know nobody wants to talk about issues, they want to talk about lipstick and other non-issues.
McCains plans for healthcare will cover about 5million new people out of 45 million, Obama's plan covers about 37million out of the 45million people without health insurance.
I am not saying that either one is better than the other but there are DEFINITE differences between the candidates. These are not Moe or Moe. More like Curley or Shemp.
With the two-party system, people are basically forced to ally themselves with people they disagree with. This is fortunate, because forced compromise is a good thing, it's called "tolerance". People aren't tolerant because they are innately good, but because tolerance is sensible.
