Two-party political system
From WhyNotWiki
Contents |
[edit] It's time for a third political party!
| “ | The only thing Republicans and Democrats do well together is ensuring that no third party can gain enough prominence to be a threat. | ” |
|
—Will Lewis, Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real |
||
| “ | Republicans and Democrats are content with the status quo | ” |
|
—Will Lewis, Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real |
||
| “ | I want politicians to concede to some of my demands in my lifetime, so I had better start voting for someone who isn’t a D or an R. | ” |
|
—Will Lewis, Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real |
||
Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real
...
I am disconcerted by the thought of public representatives who waste time and money on issues of negligible import. This is not a vital issue. Besides Jeb Bush, only two classes of people care whether or not he receives an honorary degree: the academicians who do not wish to cheapen the status associated with the honorary degree and the Republicans who feel slighted by the rejection of a prominent member of their party.
I do not mean to accuse only Republicans of this gang-warfare mindset. Democrats are just as easy to offend and could easily retaliate in a similar manner if Rife Bible College in Texas refused Al Gore an honorary mass communications degree. The Texas Democrats would be tripping over each other in their rush to the grassy knoll to set things right. Or, rather, they would if they cared about Al Gore.
Al Gore is not the important issue, however. The gang mentality inherent in the two-party system of government is detrimental to the nation. The only thing Republicans and Democrats do well together is ensuring that no third party can gain enough prominence to be a threat.
In other words, Republicans and Democrats are content with the status quo. They know that if they lose prominence, they only have to bide their time until the opposing party makes a mistake, and they are right back in there. For example, the Democrats really seem poised to pounce on the 2008 election. Their behavior suggests the Republicans have already made a big mistake since they were able to consolidate the majority of the power.
I disagree with the Democrats, though, since I think this new Iraq war is as much their responsibility as it is the Republicans’. Most members of both parties caved under the pressure after the 2001 hijackings and agreed on war in Iraq once it became evident that our country wouldn’t be able to catch bin Laden. Both parties are responsible for deploying US troops to Iraq.
We could argue over who lied and who supplied the faulty intelligence reports, but the fact is, Democrats voted along with the Republicans to roll into the Middle East with a half-cocked plan to accomplish vague goals. As a result, we helped set up a government in [Iraq that hates us (category)]. [The U.S. invasion of Iraq (category)]
On the national level, I do not think I will be able to, in good faith, vote for another Republican or Democrat for a long time. I’m giving the third parties a chance, and I encourage you to do so as well.
I won’t try to sway you toward a particular third party. I think the most important thing for 2008 is to send a message. The more voters who refuse to support the current dual incumbency, the better. Voters won’t get more variety until they demand more options. I want politicians to concede to some of my demands in my lifetime, so I had better start voting for someone who isn’t a D or an R.
The incumbents are campaigning hard already, so find out which party your philosophy matches up with now. If you really want to go crazy, third parties always need help, whether you actually call them up and volunteer, or just let your loved ones know you have found another option.
[edit] Question: Is voting for a 3rd party just "throwing away your vote"?
Will Lewis argues in Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real that it is not a waste, because it can "send a message".
Source: Will Lewis: 2007-04-12: Republicans keep it real
I think the most important thing for 2008 is to send a message. The more voters who refuse to support the current dual incumbency, the better. Voters won’t get more variety until they demand more options. I want politicians to concede to some of my demands in my lifetime, so I had better start voting for someone who isn’t a D or an R.
[edit] Discussion
Well, I for one am sure tired of Democrats and Republicans who think they can get away with anything, even if it's not what voters want. It might be "throwing away my vote" in 2008, but if "both candidates" are equally evil in 2008, I think it just might be worth it to use my vote to send a message (to D's and R's, that we want our government to be accountable to us and not vice versa, and to the independents/3rd-parties, that it is worth the trouble to keep trying and to keep running for election.)... —Tyler (2007-04-22 18:09)
