Question Of The Week, 8/13/06
Good morning. I'm a little tired right now so I'm going to make this as short as possible. An August 10, 2006 Washington Times Commentary, Winds of disenchantment, By Donald Lambro leads me to believe that some American voters are finally getting fed up with politics as usual. Sounds like some die hard supporters of both party's have had enough. So this weeks Question Of The Week is. Could the next election be the end of the so called two party system? Could this disenchantment be just what was needed to get some Independent or "Third Party" candidates elected?
I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
posted by David Schantz | 1:35 AM
8 Comments:
Great question, David. I've linked to this QotW from the relevant post at the GTL. Blog ON, brother!
This could be the last conventional election....I sure hope so. Getting the same garbage painted two different colors year after year is a luxury we can no longer afford.
I'd sure like this election to be end of the 2-party system as we know it. "the same garbage painted two different colors" -- that's an excellent description.
Unfortunately, both major parties are experts at perpetuating their existence. Millions of voters (myself included) keep voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I've voted Libertarian a few times when the Democrat and Republican both seemed totally useless.
I hope there'll be enough public outrage so that some new blood gets in. Even if 3rd party candidates don't get elected, the upcoming debates need to include 3rd parties and a wider range of issues. This should take away some of that sterile scripted quality of the "debates" when it's confined to just the 2 major parties.
Could the next election be the end of the so called two party system? Could this disenchantment be just what was needed to get some Independent or "Third Party" candidates elected?
Possibly, but I'm more inclined to believe that the vote could be sufficiently split so as to throw the election into the House of Representatives. I think that provision still exists in our Constitution.
Our Founders didn't like the two-party system. We're seen the worst of that system today!
typo = we're seeing
Ugh!
I would have to say no.
It seems to me that by portraying each-other as insufficient or just plain wrong they perpetuate their own existence.
Every election the parties tell you to vote for them to save you from the other one. This is a powerful argument to the short sighted. No one wants to "waste their vote."
I would love to see the end of the two-party system. Unfortunatley, without proportional representation I do not believe that any fundamental change can take place.
First I want to thank you all for stopping by to answer this weeks question. I think it could be the end of the two party system if we could get people over the idea that they are throwing their vote away when they vote for a (so called) Third Party or Independent candidate. I'm not pointing a finger, a lot of people feel that way. I feel like I'm throwing my vote away almost every time I vote for someone with a D or an R in front of their name. When someone tells you your throwing your vote away ask them how many times they have voted for someone with that D or R in front of their name and then been mad at their self for doing it within three months. To me that is throwing your vote away. I feel there are also people that watch the polls (polls are usless) and then vote for the predicted winner. That needs to stop, we're not betting on a football game, we're electing our leaders. I feel that if enough of us vote for Third Party/Independent candidates every time there is an election the powers that be will eventually allow our candidates to take part in the debates. Then we will be on the road to taking our country back.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
What I want to see is a country where people vote for politicians who have their platform, not a party's. Right now, if you don't "adopt" another party's ideals, you're done for. There is practically no choice.
The party system is often what leads to broken promises, a politician will say they support this party to get votes, only to do something else. Without parties, politicians might be at least somewhat (though never completely) freer to stand up for their own beliefs, it is up to the people to decide whether they agree or not.
Yes, basically, I'm against parties, their main purpose is to provide resources, how much money you have shouldn't affect how many votes you get.
Post a Comment
<< Home