OT: Two parties

One of the letters to the editor in our newspaper yesterday brought up an interesting point.

We currently have a 2 party system where the sole job of the Outs seems to be to oppose anything and everything that the Ins propose. Doesn't matter who's in and who's out.

The letter pointed out that a multi-party system with 3 or more parties is the norm in most of Europe. There has to be cross-party cooperation because one party seldom has a majority by itself.

He has a point. I can think of both advantages and disadvantages, but we sure have a problem now. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from all here.

In order to have a viable 3rd party, it'd have to something between the other two. We could call it the Festivus party :-).

Reply to
Larry Blanchard
Loading thread data ...

Aren't the Independemts a third party of sorts?

They elected Obama and more recently Brown for Teddy's old senate seat.

Both parties argue that the independents are fickle and unreliable. Which just shows that they are totally out of touch. The number of independents are growing each year. This "nonparty" is the fastest growing party of all.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

Larry Blanchard wrote: ...

Interesting subject; wrong forum...

--

Reply to
dpb

"Lee Michaels" wrote in news:00dda89d$0$17033$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

There is a big problem with coalition governments. It takes a lot of negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition, and when one of the parties starts to feel slighted, they can pull out at a moment's notice. Poof goes the coalition, and another few months are needed to form a new one. But then, Churchill already said that democracy is the worst form of government except there is nothing better. Or something in that vein.

One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a republic, and not a direct democracy. Whether that is good or bad is unknown (to me). The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is that greed and selfpromotion is the basis for the structure of our elected representation, and that whoever can buy the most Congresscritters will win. How the recent Supreme Court decision on free speech by corporations is going to "help" anyone is going to be interesting to find out, especially in the context of Facebook etc.

May you live in interesting times .

Reply to
Han

He marked it clearly OT, therefore you can deal with it yourself. i.e. learn to filter if you don't want to read it.

Reply to
FrozenNorth

The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all.

He has no say in who the candidates will be, no input into the policies, platforms, or promises of the candidates, and, after the election, no influence with the office holder.

If you've worked for the winning candidate for, say, city council or if you've donated to his campaign, and there's a pothole in front of your house, you have POWER.

Further, when the candidate gets to Washington, it matters little whether he's a conservative, moderate, or liberal. What counts is which side of the aisle he sits on! Consider the poor "moderate (conservative)" Democrat. His VERY FIRST vote in the House of Representatives will be for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The Speaker controls all committee assignments and chairmen and they, in turn, control what bills even come up for consideration.

In my view, one should pick a party closest to one's philosophy and get involved with that party or its candidates. Donate money, time, networking. Whatever.

Reply to
HeyBub

IIRC, there were 33 parties in The Netherlands back in the 1960's and the 5 biggest could not form a government. You had your Farmer Party, your Christian Farmers Party, your NOT-so-christian Farmers Party, The Left, the Not-far-to-the-Left I don't recall all the names and numbers but it was a mess. I have no clue what it is like these days, but you have to be careful that a minority-fringe party suddenly doesn't hold the balance of power. That tie-breaker vote can be mighty powerful.

Reply to
Robatoy

Not only is it a republic, but it is a republic with the purpose of governing a union of otherwise self-governing states. The federal government was not really originally meant to govern people, it was more meant to govern the relationships among states and manage some functions outside of individual state's interests (i.e. relationships with foreign governments).

Reply to
dhall987

I'm all for it. We do, in fact, have a couple of other parties but they have never been able to attract enough mainstream type of people to proper and be heard. I'll consider joining the Libertarians because I can go along with most of their ideas, but they tend to have extremists while I'm more moderate. I will remain an independent until they, or some other party, gets better.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

They are not going to get "better" if everyone waits until they get "better".

Reply to
LDosser

Not unless someone actually runs as an independent. Otherwise they wind up voting for one of the two existing parties and get the in vs out results.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

The Shas (ultra-orthodox) party in Israel has never garnered more than six seats in the 60-member parliament. Yet the party has always held at least one ministerial portfolio.

The two party system works. It's easy. When a member of the opposition speaks, you need only cry: "Shame, shame!" (or "you lie" or "not true"). Whereas when a member of your party speaks, you cry "Hear! Hear!"

Nothing to it.

Reply to
HeyBub

dhall987 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes. Everything is in flux. But the origin of the US was in times before iPods, iPhones, and iPads. We do have to go with the flow. IMNSHO we all live on Earth, and the welfare of the whole may sometimes be detrimental to a few.

Opinions, opinions ...

Reply to
Han

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

There is this little thing called the Constitution. I know you don't believe in it, but some of us do (and all should).

Reply to
keithw86

" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

I do believe in the Constitution. However, it is written in English (mostly 18th century English) and so it requires interpretation. While you and I might agree that individual freedom is the greatest thing, how to interpret what can be done as individuals or not is again open to interpretation.

Suffice it to say that respecting someones opinions may not mean supporting them.

Funny thing is, the other grandfather of my granddaughters is so far to the right that I am perfect center (my opinion). Nevertheless, we ultimately agree on most things, although we arrive at it from different directions. Maybe because we're both human.

Reply to
Han

- snipped-for-privacy@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Obviously you don't, since you believe it's up for such "interpretation". It really is clear in its meaning and there is ample documentation to go along with it in case its meaning isn't clear.

A red herring.

Reply to
keithw86

Belief: An opinion with nothing to back it up. GB Shaw

The existence of the Constitution is a fact. Perhaps you meant "I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution."?

Pedantry out of the way, times do change. A document designed for a sparsely populated agrarian society may need some adjustments for an overpopulated post industrial society.

Or do you also obey all of rules in the Old Testament? Which, BTW, *is* a proper subject for "belief".

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Like the ten commandments?

Reply to
Swingman

Nonsense.

Believe it is the highest law of the land. To be obeyed. Important. Means something.

...and the FF fully appreciated this and left a means of change. It's in there.

I haven't killed anyone, if that's what you mean. Note that the country does not state the Old Testament as law.

I thought you had all you pedantry out of the way?

Reply to
keithw86

It may. If that is the case the correct solution is to amend it, not ignore it. It contains a clearly defined procedure for such amendment, which procedure has been applied a number of times.

There is no amendment procedure in the Old Testament.

Reply to
J. Clarke

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.