Sick of the political parties in this country

[Benzoate]

Eradicate all political parties in this country. They do not served the interests of the people


I for one am sick of the monopolistic two party system. I'm talking about the political party system I mean choosing between the candidates representing these parties is like choosing pretend paper or plastic. If it was not for the Republican party and the corporate news media, Ron paul would have a chance to become a prominent presidential candidate.

I'm not trying to promote ron paul or anything, but why do we settle for two potential candidates to run for the presidency , chosen by political parties that do not served the interests of the people but rather corporate interests. We should have a wider selection of candidates to choose from that should range from one candidate to at most 250 million candidates.

And do not say you need money to run a campaign for president because you their are ways to promote your issues to potential candidates that do not cost anything.

 

[BobG]

There's over 300 candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. That's a pretty wide choice. Of course, at least 95% of these candidates don't have a chance of getting enough people supporting them to get on even one state's ballot.

It does take a pretty big organization to get a candidate on every ballot in the US, so you're never going to have a free for all Presidential race. To expand the race to 3 or more parties takes nothing more than getting enough people to support one or more of the smaller parties.

I do think ballots should omit the political party of the candidates. At least that would prevent voters from throwing votes for someone they've never heard of just because he has the 'correct' letter after his name. Voters would actually have to know who they're voting for.

 

[Astronuc]

And do not say you need money to run a campaign for president because you their are ways to promote your issues to potential candidates that do not cost anything.

e.g. spamming?

How would one promote one's position on the issues? An internet site (website)? How would one get the attention of those on the internet?

Certainly, one could publish an opinion in the local paper - maybe - if the paper's staff/editor were inclined to publish it.

Otherwise, one does have to buy access.


Policitians advertise, which afterall is an attempt to manipulate the opinions of the voters.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I agree, Fascist dictators ftw.

Seriously though.

Democracy ensures that you are governed no better than you deserve.

George Bernard Shaw.

If you don't like it stop voting in corporate lackies and money/power obsessed neo-cons/crazies, change the system. Learn not to trust everything your government does, and try to insert a healthy skepticism into your patriotic leanings. Works for us, we all think TB was a toady and despite his good points managed to alienate most people in this country on the issue of the war in Iraq, and we didn't come to that realisation four years after that. If it wasn't for our first past the post system, where a majority needs to be overturned, and the woeful showing of the conservatives in the 90's I'm sure he'd be out of power by now. We like many of the worlds countries, were not convinced by the propaganda, neither at the time nor now. An unpopular war then, a very unpopular one now.

I realize that we have also shot ourselves in the foot, but would like to point out, we realize this.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I for one am sick of the monopolistic two party system.

Me for two, but it beats the duopolistic one party system.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm not trying to promote ron paul or anything, but why do we settle for two potential candidates to run for the presidency , chosen by political parties that do not served the interests of the people but rather corporate interests. We should have a wider selection of candidates to choose from that should range from one candidate to at most 250 million candidates.

Actually the US has a lot more choices than any of the countries that follow British style politics. In Canada we don't get to vote for the leader of the party. They're chosen behind closed doors and we vote for the local representative of the party we want. Whichever party has the most representatives wins. The leader is the winning party is called the prime minister, but the "head of state" is appointed by some method that probably nobody understands. Britain's head of state is the queen.

The US already has more democracy than Canada/UK/Aus/NZ/others, so the election process itself isn't the biggest problem. If Ron Paul ran for office in Canada, nobody would even know he exists since the party would decide behind closed doors that he should not be the leader.

A lot of people will place blame for your farce election on the media and how they spin things, but it's really the population itself that is to blame. Reporters wouldn't ask stupid questions like "do you believe in god?" unless the audience actually cared about the answer. I'm not sure what the solution to that is. Maybe kick the red states out of the union?

 

[Benzoate]

There's over 300 candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. That's a pretty wide choice. Of course, at least 95% of these candidates don't have a chance of getting enough people supporting them to get on even one state's ballot.

It does take a pretty big organization to get a candidate on every ballot in the US, so you're never going to have a free for all Presidential race. To expand the race to 3 or more parties takes nothing more than getting enough people to support one or more of the smaller parties.

I do think ballots should omit the political party of the candidates. At least that would prevent voters from throwing votes for someone they've never heard of just because he has the 'correct' letter after his name. Voters would actually have to know who they're voting for.

you see, I would have never known we had 300 candidates running if I only focused on the candidates the corporate media presented me. Why when I go to the ballot to vote ,the ballot only lists two possible candidates. Why in the debates, they only focus on at least 10 people and then they boiled down their 10 people to only two possible candidates.

You see , if you are not a republican or a democrat , you have no chance of winning the presidential election because voters in the electoral college always vote for the candidate who was nominated for their party . Even if you are a potential republican or democrat , you still have no chance of winning the election because you party has to nominate you.

I think they should get rid of the electoral vote because it serves know real purpoose in the election and it isn't always represented of the popular vote. I think the influence corporate media(i.e, CNN , FOX news , CBS , ABC) Will die a natural death as the age of internet media become more mainstream. So the focus will shift to more minor candidates who are potentially great candidates for President.

There will be no longer be just a choice between a douchebag and a turdsandwich

 

[Benzoate]

Actually the US has a lot more choices than any of the countries that follow British style politics. In Canada we don't get to vote for the leader of the party. They're chosen behind closed doors and we vote for the local representative of the party we want. Whichever party has the most representatives wins. The leader is the winning party is called the prime minister, but the "head of state" is appointed by some method that probably nobody understands. Britain's head of state is the queen.

The US already has more democracy than Canada/UK/Aus/NZ/others, so the election process itself isn't the biggest problem. If Ron Paul ran for office in Canada, nobody would even know he exists since the party would decide behind closed doors that he should not be the leader.

A lot of people will place blame for your farce election on the media and how they spin things, but it's really the population itself that is to blame. Reporters wouldn't ask stupid questions like "do you believe in god?" unless the audience actually cared about the answer. I'm not sure what the solution to that is. Maybe kick the red states out of the union?

Well , our leader really isn't chosen for us either. I think the corporate media and government which I think is interrelated ,likes to think we are choosing a candidate for president. But in reality , its the electoral college that's choosing our candidates.

To me, Saying the US has more democracy than most countries in the world is not good enough. We should be reaching for a true republic , presented and outline in books and treatises, like by Platio with his republic and the framers of the constitution outline in the democracy.

What you are saying sounds like if their were all dictatorships in the world and England had a monarchy system , then England would be the closest thing to democracy. Comparable democracy isn't real democracy

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think possibly the US, England, France, Germany and a few others like the "Viking"/Finnish, Dutch et al have as close as you can get given the limitations to a modern universal democracy. Each has its flaws, but then democracy is not perfect any more than any other government is completely flawed.

When you have a turd sandwich and a douchebag though, in an ideal world you'd have a third choice, we do, but to be frank no one really sees the third choice as having a chance at government - although its number of seats appears to grow every year (think it has about 70 now) - this growth is more due to the turd sandwich and douchebag problem though. Remember your politicians are human beings, and in the case of George Bush, some people are more human than others.

By the way just because we are a constitutional monarchy, does not mean our figure head has any power, or the ability to affect policy, so no comparing us to a monarchy. I said this before: last monarch to try to quash a parliamentary law was queen Mary, in the Early 18th century, and they threatened to execute her, and then passed it anyway. so

In fact I have more power over who runs the country than the queen as I can vote, and hers is merely an advisory role. Well ok maybe not, but you get the point.

 

[Benzoate]

I think possibly the US, England, France, Germany and a few others like the "Viking"/Finnish, Dutch et al have as close as you can get given the limitations to a modern universal democracy. Each has its flaws, but then democracy is not perfect any more than any other government is completely flawed.

When you have a turd sandwich and a douchebag though, in an ideal world you'd have a third choice, we do, but to be frank no one really sees the third choice as having a chance at government - although its number of seats appears to grow every year (think it has about 70 now) - this growth is more due to the turd sandwich and douchebag problem though. Remember your politicians are human beings, and in the case of George Bush, some people are more human than others.

By the way just because we are a constitutional monarchy, does not mean our figure head has any power, or the ability to affect policy, so no comparing us to a monarchy. I said this before: last monarch to try to quash a parliamentary law was queen Mary, in the Early 18th century, and they threatened to execute her, and then passed it anyway. so

I think the reason why we never see an alternative candidate like Ron Paul having a serious chance of becoming presidents is because the ideals a particular candidate like Ron paul will not match the ideals and incentives of our two prominent political parties. And consequently , the focus is shifted away from a unconventional candidate like Ron paul to candidate who fits the 'norm'. Meaning, a candidate who has the same goals and objectives as their political party.

Sorry to correct you on this Schrodinger's dog , but the last I check, the United states is supposed to be a representative democracy, not a constitutional monarchy.

In fact I have more power over who runs the country than the queen as I can vote, and hers is merely an advisory role. Well ok maybe not, but you get the point.

you may have power in comparison to some of the citizens of other countries, but you do not have true power, compared to members of our electoral college who are affiliated with a political party and therefore would served the interests of their respective political party before serving the interests of their representatives.

Our democracy should be closed to ideal, like at least 90-95 percent of a true democracy. I'd say democracy in the United States is at least 50 percent of what a true representative democracy should be.

 

[Benzoate]

In addition , I do not understand why McCain won the republican nomination , if many conservatives and conservative commentators who our republican say his policies are more liberal than some of the policies of there liberal opponents.

For christ sakes , Bush endorsed McCain and Bush is not a very popular man right now.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sorry to correct you on this Schrodinger's dog , but the last I check, the United states is supposed to be a representative democracy, not a constitutional monarchy.

I was referring to England. Hehe, last time I checked you guys had thrown off the shackles of tyranny and unfair taxation and gone independent.

you may have power in comparison to some of the citizens of other countries, but you do not have true power, compared to members of our electoral college who are affiliated with a political party and therefore would served the interests of their respective political party before serving the interests of their representatives.

Our democracy should be closed to ideal, like at least 90-95 percent of a true democracy. I'd say democracy in the United States is at least 50 percent of what a true representative democracy should be.

I must admit I don't really understand the ins and outs of the electoral college, although it does seem to be drawing some widespread criticism.

50% well that's unnerving.

In addition , I do not understand why McCain won the republican nomination , if many conservatives and conservative commentators who our republican say his policies are more liberal than some of the policies of there liberal opponents.

For christ sakes , Bush endorsed McCain and Bush is not a very popular man right now.

Well doesn't the president endorse the candidate normally? I think the fact that he's democratic on some issues probably is the reason, not sure? Anne Coulter went on TV and said she'd rather vote Hilary than Mccain, that could of also had some effect.

 

[Poop-Loops]

There's over 300 candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. That's a pretty wide choice. Of course, at least 95% of these candidates don't have a chance of getting enough people supporting them to get on even one state's ballot.

It does take a pretty big organization to get a candidate on every ballot in the US, so you're never going to have a free for all Presidential race. To expand the race to 3 or more parties takes nothing more than getting enough people to support one or more of the smaller parties.

While true, it's like telling a crippled war veteran that they just need to get to work and they'll be fine.

 

[RobertR]

It is not the party system that is the problem, it is the all consuming power that government has assumed.