|
|
|
|
.jrjo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 900
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 04/10/06 - 11:50 Post subject: The problem with a two party system
is showing the opposite part is wrong does not make your party right.
That's what burns me out. I don't care which side of the aisle it's coming from, they're both as guilty. Just because you show the opposition is messed up, doesn't by default, make the home side of the aisle the ones with the answers.
It's probably just me, but more often than not, I see both Dems and Repubs as wrong.
/i'm talkin' DC here, not OT, btw.
|
|
|
|
|
j1miller
Puppy Love!
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 15447
Location: Lost on trail.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 12:42 Post subject:
The Libertarian party more accurately reflects my views. The more Republicans I talk to about this, it seems, that is the way it is with them as well.
The problem is this. The Libertarian party has a lot of crack pots running for office on the local levels.... and.... a lot of people will not vote for someone on the national level that they feel has no chance to win.
It's annoying.
But, when a candidate reflects my views, it sometimes is hard to vote for them when I know they have no chance.
I voted for Harry Browne in 2000
George W Bush in 2004 (because I felt voting for the Libertarian candidate was throwing my vote away.... and because of how close 2000 was.... and because I am in Ohio).
Long and short.... I agree with you, .jrjo
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 13:30 Post subject: Re: The problem with a two party system
| .jrjo wrote: | | is showing the opposite part is wrong does not make your party right. |
That's true. But a three-party system (or more) would be more about the ever-shifting alliances than anything else, so how would it be better?
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 13:32 Post subject: Re: The problem with a two party system
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | .jrjo wrote: | | is showing the opposite part is wrong does not make your party right. |
That's true. But a three-party system (or more) would be more about the ever-shifting alliances than anything else, so how would it be better? |
I'd go for as many libs as possible voting for say a green party or librarian party ...
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:12 Post subject:
The only solution is to enforce taxes only for those who voted for the winning candidate. Then you'd see A LOT of people voting for fringe parties - to the point where they would have as much of a chance as others.
/I'm only partly kidding. I think it's an interesting idea.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:20 Post subject:
I like Heinlien's voting
#1 only Citizens can vote Citizenship can only be EARNED through military service
#2 no person receiving money from the governmnet can vote
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:40 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | I like Heinlien's voting
#1 only Citizens can vote Citizenship can only be EARNED through military service
#2 no person receiving money from the governmnet can vote |
Uh, WHAT???? That is perhaps the worst idea I've ever heard.
For starters, I and so many others would forfeit the right to vote to not serve in the military. But if I don't have the rights of a citizen, I guess I have no choice but to join the service. But if it is just the right to vote being earned by time, then you'll end up with a very skewed voting group. And looking back at all the people I know who joined the military... I sure don't want that group being responsible for what happens in the country.
On to number 2. Where is the logic of this? You eliminate government workers (who know the issues better than most, not to mention having experience in government), students receiving financial aid (yeah, the smart students... now just the dumb ones are voting), and a disproportionate amount of minorities. Hey, whatever happened to that idea of everyone being equal, regardless of wealth (or lack thereof)? Ohh... I know the system you want... let's go back to having voting priveledges for only white male land owners.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:43 Post subject:
his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:48 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest. |
My point was that both of those are terrible points.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:49 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest. |
Hmm, a deduction on the mortgage interest or a vote. Tough call.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:49 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest. |
My point was that both of those are terrible points. |
I cann't help it if you're wrong
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:52 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest. |
My point was that both of those are terrible points. |
I cann't help it if you're wrong |
I just talked to Dad. You're out of the will.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/10/06 - 16:56 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | his point was citizenship had to be earned - everyone had the right to a term of service - and the gubbamint had to be a bit creative in finding service for some people.
his point in not allowing anyone to vote who was receiving gubbamint money was it created a conflict of interest. |
My point was that both of those are terrible points. |
I cann't help it if you're wrong |
I just talked to Dad. You're out of the will. |
they always did like you best
|
|
|
|
