Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the recent issue of Time, Ron Paul summed up the current system pretty well:
If people are so frustrated with a two-party system, why has there been so little success in coming up with another real contender? —Erika Groff, Troy, N.Y.
Because we don't have a two-party system. We have a one-party system. Both parties endorse the welfare state and corporatism. Both parties support interventionism overseas. But they also write all the campaign laws. So they have made it virtually impossible to break into the monopoly. If I had run on a third-party ticket I wouldn't have been in the debates.
Then why does Ron paul claim and use funding for his congressal campaigns from one of the two parites.. Why ;because he wants the advantage he otherwise would have to do himself which he can't. Its like takign moeny from the mob in his own view ;yet he does it.But he is right in a sense ;that no one but discontents want hsi type of 1950's states rights ;George Wallace politics back.If you read during the campaign newweeks quotes on balck form him ;he sounds just like george wallace.
Then why does Ron paul claim and use funding for his congressal campaigns from one of the two parites.. Why ;because he wants the advantage he otherwise would have to do himself which he can't. Its like takign moeny from the mob in his own view ;yet he does it.
He tried changing things from outside the system as a Libertarian candidate 4 years earlier but because of the mob-like stranglehold the Dems/Repubs have on everything, he decided he could be more influential from within the Republican Party. And he is.
I think you people are looking at the problem wrong. It isn't that the two-party system in this country is flawed, its that the election process in this country is flawed. If we want to fix the system we should be looking at how Europe elects its parliaments. The members of parliament are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote they garnered. So if the libertarian party can only muster 10% of the national popular vote, then they would be allotted 10% of the delegates in congress. So if you look at 535 congressmen, then we could have about 54 libertarians in congress right now. Instead, we have basically one(Ron Paul), who actually runs as a Republican.
There are certain parties that exist today that may have great ideas, but unless they can win a majority vote, they will never have any decision making power. Right now the only power minority political groups have, is lobbying congress, or abusing the media.
Change the elections system, and we can get rid of the two-party system for good.
I think you people are looking at the problem wrong. It isn't that the two-party system in this country is flawed, its that the election process in this country is flawed. If we want to fix the system we should be looking at how Europe elects its parliaments. The members of parliament are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote they garnered. So if the libertarian party can only muster 10% of the national popular vote, then they would be allotted 10% of the delegates in congress. So if you look at 535 congressmen, then we could have about 54 libertarians in congress right now. Instead, we have basically one(Ron Paul), who actually runs as a Republican.
There are certain parties that exist today that may have great ideas, but unless they can win a majority vote, they will never have any decision making power. Right now the only power minority political groups have, is lobbying congress, or abusing the media.
Change the elections system, and we can get rid of the two-party system for good.
Then why does Ron paul claim and use funding for his congressal campaigns from one of the two parites.. Why ;because he wants the advantage he otherwise would have to do himself which he can't. Its like takign moeny from the mob in his own view ;yet he does it.But he is right in a sense ;that no one but discontents want hsi type of 1950's states rights ;George Wallace politics back.If you read during the campaign newweeks quotes on balck form him ;he sounds just like george wallace.
"Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, raised an astounding $6 million and change Sunday, his campaign said, almost certainly guaranteeing he'll outraise his rivals for the Republican nomination in the fourth quarter and likely will be able to fund a presence in many of the states that vote Feb. 5."
Did the head of the Austin NAACP speak highly of George Wallace as he did of Ron Paul?
"Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment"
He takes money from anyone. His reasoning is they don't stand for what he stands for. They are donating money to fight against their own cause.
You've twice posted this silly 1950's garbage. You have nothing to back it up.
You people just can't seem to get that our election sytem is designed for a two Party system. 3rd Party runs are effectively impossible. It's a result of how our Constitution lays out the process for elections.
It has nothing to do with changing peoples minds, nothing to do with money in politics, nothing to do with "getting the world out"...LOL
You're spinning your wheels. They teach what I telling you in Political Science 101 - Election Systems.
If you want change, pick one of the two parties you most agree with and work to improve it from within.
wiki
"In the United States, third parties are doomed from the start. One can quibble about the Republicans replacing the Whigs, but actually that was the exception that proved the rule. The Whigs disappeared as most of their elected officials and voters became Republicans. Replacing an existing party is not the same as creating a viable third party.
The reason for the near futility of third party politics in the United States rests with the structural reality of the First-Past-the Post (FPP) or Single Member District/Plurality (SMD/P)electoral system. Used in Britain and former British colonies, this electoral system systematically disadvantages all but the two largest electoral parties. The result is a two party system or two party dominant system. Third parties either wither or barely hang on because voters respond rationally to the electoral system with strategic voting--choosing the lesser-of-two-evils within the two party system. Third parties are only viable where electoral systems disadvantage smaller parties less, like the more democratic nations in the world.
"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
