We're better off with a mix of moderate Republicans and Democrats in the govt.

[Nitro Express]

Many thought Republican control of the executive branch and the congress would pave the way to better govt. reform. Many hoped the Republicans would cut the wasteful govt. spending, make the govt. more efficient, lower taxes, create a more free economic system that would grow US jobs, cut red tape.

Now what we see is if Republicans run the govt. they run up higher govt. spending than the Democrats do. They invade Iraq so a handful of Republican supporters can bennefit from rich oil deals and govt. contracts. Haliburton and the Carlyle Group reap huge rewards as the average American pays for it in blood and in the pocketbook.

The Republicans haven't reduced govt. beurocracy. They have increased it adding new govt. agencies like the Dept. of Homeland Security which is not only incompetant but corrupt. Many Republicans feared Democrats because they thought Democrats were about big govt. and against individual freedom. Read the Republican Patriot Act and see how Republican rule errodes your freedom. If you are suspected of being a terrorist, your Constitutional rights do not apply. Now the govt. can drag anyone out of bed at night, ship them off to Guantanamo Bay without notifying anyone or having a free trial. Basically, the govt. can come into your house without a warrant and arrest you and hold you in prison indefinately with no trial. Nice. Thank's Republicans!

Are the Democrats really any better? Probably not.

What we really need in the US is more than two major political parties but historically, we have always ended up with two major parties. So the best thing to do is elect both Democrats and Republicans to office. Both parties do have good, moderate people in them. What we have learned from the George W. Bush era of Republican rule is once they have nobody in their way, they don't do what they promise, they abuse the power. We would roll into a dictatorship mighty fast if we didn't have those checks and balances.

By voting both Democratic and Republican and putting moderates in office, we can still pass good legislation and reform the bad legislation without the abuse that majority rule brings. The founding fathers got it right. It's better to have inefficient govt. than a efficient govt. that is constantly tempted to abuse it's majority rule of power.

So don't vot for the party. Vote for the candidate. We need both good Republicans and Democrats in the govt.

[binnie]

That was interesting, opposition does make government stronger.

Gonna have to think about that one for a while.

[FORD]

What we need is at least two more parties in the mix, and since the existing ones have the right wing covered, the new parties should come from the left. i.e the Green party, and maybe some new labor union based party, since the DLC has shit all over the unions.

The problem with the terms "moderate" and "center" in the current political climate is that they have become distorted by the corporatist fascists who dominate the Republican party and are trying to take over the Democratic party through the DLC.

Dennis Kucinich would be considered a moderate centrist in any other representative democracy on earth. Hillary Clinton and the DLC would be the hard right, and the neocons would be way off the map. Even Reagan era conservatives are afraid of these psychos, and that was just 20 years ago.

We would need a good 20 years of solid leftist extremism in this country just to bring the center back to the actual center. Barring that, the involvement of a larger range of parties is the best way to go.

And that's my #2 political goal at the moment.

#1 is removing this criminal regime from office.

[binnie]

It seems to me (as an outsider, so please correct me if I am commenting on things about which I am misinformed) that a party which represented the interest of the different ethnic groups in the US (not necessarily exclusively) but at least let their concerns be heard, would really fire up politics.

I mean, what percentage of african Americans, and other significant minorites actually vote.

There could be enough support found amongst those groups to make a real difference?

I am interested to hear your views on this.

[thome]

There are enough assholes in the two party system why bring in other parties filled with more assholes.

We could have 5 Billion parties and there would be 5 billion assholes
running for office.

[binnie]

Originally posted by thome
There are enough assholes in the two party system why bring in other parties filled with more assholes.

We could have 5 Billion parties and there would be 5 billion assholes
running for office.

So is apathy what rules the day?

Or mistrust?

[FORD]

Originally posted by binnie
It seems to me (as an outsider, so please correct me if I am commenting on things about which I am misinformed) that a party which represented the interest of the different ethnic groups in the US (not necessarily exclusively) but at least let their concerns be heard, would really fire up politics.

I mean, what percentage of african Americans, and other significant minorites actually vote.

There could be enough support found amongst those groups to make a real difference?

I am interested to hear your views on this.

It would be an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if party by race is the best way to go.. Closest parallel I could think of to that would be the Quebec separatist party in Canada, which was created as a one issue party, namely the seccession of French speaking Quebec from the rest of Canada which is predominately (though not officially) English speaking.

Also, if a party was supposed to represent all "minorities" that might be a little tough to pull off. The immigration issue, for example, is gonna play a lot different in East LA than it would on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

[FORD]

Originally posted by thome
There are enough assholes in the two party system why bring in other parties filled with more assholes.

We could have 5 Billion parties and there would be 5 billion assholes
running for office.

So get involved and keep the assholes from being nominated.

[thome]

You gotta serve somebody....If your party looses you serve, If your party wins you rule along side, more parties more loosers.More disgruntled Idealists with a agenda.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Let's take it to the extreem, everyday, another human is President for that day, why not ?

[binnie]

Thanks for the feedback.

I didn't mean a party by race, I just meant parties that dedicate more time to ethnic issues.

But I take your point about it being difficult....

[FORD]

Originally posted by thome
You gotta serve somebody....If your party looses you serve, If your party wins you rule along side, more parties more loosers.More disgruntled Idealists with a agenda.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Let's take it to the extreem, everyday, another human is President for that day, why not ?

To extend your cooking analogy, a few different spices added to the broth can greatly improve its flavor.

Other countries do great with multiple parties. Canada has 4 or 5 in the mix. Same with the UK, I think. The last Israeli election had 8 parties (and those were the ones considered "major" parties)

Ross Perot was leading the 1992 Presidential race for a few weeks. If he hadn't abruptly dropped out, and then back in, he might have kept that lead. His Reform party should have capitalized on the success he did have and turned out their own candidates for the 1994 election. Instead, we got the Contract ON America gang, and look what a bunch of corrupt criminal cowards they turned out to be.

[thome]

As far as party representatives each political idealism (view) party
elects a rep and that person runs for president who is to say wich view get's the most real interest from the electoral system.

Should we list ten thousand representatives on each ballot?

Who is the one who should decide who get's on the ballot?

What if Somalia or Kajakistan or some other country should decide
americas free system is ripe for our country to sue for representation
on the presidential ballot?

Have i put to much thought into this ?

[FORD]

Originally posted by thome
As far as party representatives each political idealism (view) party
elects a rep and that person runs for president who is to say wich view get's the most real interest from the electoral system.

Should we list ten thousand representatives on each ballot?

If they all meet the legal qualifications to be on the ballot, then yes. Though I wouldn't expect anyone to read through all of them.

But that's how Herr Gropenator was elected Governor of Colleeforneea after all..... nobody wanted to read through 256 names on the ballot.

Who is the one who should decide who get's on the ballot?

What if Somalia or Kajakistan or some other country should decide
americas free system is ripe for our country to sue for representation
on the presidential ballot?

Unless there's a born American citizen living in Somalia or Kajakistan, the Constitution wouldn't allow that to happen.

Have i put to much thought into this ?

Probably.

[thome]

Sometimes i feel that if we are going to stick our nose in all affairs of this world eventually someone is going to say -You(USA) are world political party, so the world would like constitutional representation in US congress.

Perhaps it would be correct to imagine a separate political system
that governs America thru every country voteing on our domestic
affairs since the affairs of The USA effect every part of the world.

If we vote on a new highway system third world counties could recieve less funding for (insert program here).So this country would need
prior knowlege and the ability to veto this legislation in order to
not loose ther funding balances ..


Wouldn't that suk!

Pehaps a even tighter reign in is needed. don't let the ACLU read this .

Like i would assume, i was the first one to think this could happen..?