I’m a Democratic Socialist. In 2000, I voted for Nader. The Democratic pundits had the nerve to blame me for the 2000 presidential outcome because their candidate sucked… why would I align myself with any party that deluded? You want my vote, don’t assume I’m going to compromise because you’re the lesser of two evils. Doing that guarantees my beliefs will never, ever be represented, so I’m never going to do it. You have to come around to what I want. Neither of the two major parties have made any effort to do so, and no third party had a chance. That doesn’t do a lot for your enthusiasm.
For those confused about the difference in the programs of the two dominant parties, I have undertaken an extensive and systematic study of their platforms, and after copious research and thought, have been able to offer this brief synopsis of the two positions:
Republican: Vote for us or something horrible will happen to you and your family.
Democrat: Vote for us because we aren’t as bad as the Republicans.
The latest election can therefore be interpreted as the triumph of fear over disgust.
“”""""In keeping with the OP, I assume you are referring to the (increasingly inaccurately named) two-party system.
Bicameral actually refers to the two-chambered system of our (and others as well) legislature, though.
Are you saying that there’s no difference between the House and Senate?""""""
Oh heavens no! I was using the term improperly. Hmmm… I do think there is a general bias about the ‘anarchy’ of a system where 30 some parties are on the ballot; and that certain measures are taken to ensure that this does not occur ‘by accident’. Clogging the political pipeline and effecting media and curriculum seem to be the tools of choice. I’ll admit that the worst fears in this regard would not be desirable; but there is quite likely something that became a bit muddled here that effectively cast a much starker line than imagined; possibly by the pokes and prods of special interests over the course of time; not to mention ideological zealots who manage to pass crazy stuff just because they can. To address your point though; I do believe there is considerable momentum and ideology and even rationalization of behavior from the belief that a 2 party system is best; maybe a third ineffective one for sugar coating to show how crazy those ‘commies’ are, and that we are a very free country with LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of choices. =)
Half the state of Georgia is still hungover from the celebration bash, and the other half is having a monumental attack of the vapors, so don’t expect to get much business done in the Greater Atlanta area today.
A lot of folks my age (mid-20s) do seem to feel that there’s little difference between the two parties, and that neither party focuses on issues held dear by younger folks. So they don’t vote. In the recent Congressional races here, so much of the emphasis was on Social Security and Medicare. I’m 24; what do I care about Social Security?
If the Democrats were smart, they would do a serious voter recruitment/education drive among young people. And really talk about environmental issues, the economy, affordable housing, and education. If they would pay attention to younger voters, I think younger voters would pay them back in spades.
Me, me, me. :rolleyes: Can you guarentee that if the Democrats adjust their platform enough to attract your vote, they won’t lose more votes somewhere else?
What exactly was it about Gore that ‘sucked’ in comparison with Bush? And that’s the only comparison you can make. How much more clearer can it be made to you that when Democrats lose, Republicans win. Do you want the Republicans to win or don’t you?
The ‘lesser of two evils’ is a workable system. Let’s say that the Democrats are less evil than the Republicans. So the Democrats win. The next election cycle, in order to win, the Republicans have to make themselves less evil than the Democrats, and so on. So evil gets less and less. But if a 3rd party on the left splits the vote, the R’s will have no need to abandon the far right, and the D’s will have to move toward the right to make up for the lost votes. So evil gets more and more.
Like RickJay I’m a Canadian observer and I see very little differences between the two parties in the fifteen odd years I’ve paid attention to US politics.
As a question Is the US a Two party system only or are there any other parties represented in Congress or the Senate?
Yes, there are other parties represented, just not very well.
There is one independant (no party affiliation) in the Senate, and the House of Representatives has a smattering of Greens, Libertarians, Freedom (formerly reform), and I think even Reform. (A splinter group took over the Reform party and the Freedom party is made of the ones who bailed). Sorry, I’m too lazy to look up the exact numbers. The most notable non-democrat/ non-republican is Jesse Ventura, a member of the Freedom party and the governor of Minnesota.
I don’t think so… the House has R, D, and an I, but no Greens et al. There are those, like Ron Paul (R-TX) who are de facto Libertarian, for example, but nobody in the house claims affiliation with Greens or Libertarians.
I think you are both wrong and right. I don’t know very few people that don’t vote who feel that the parties are basically the same. Most of my friends are non-voters and the reasons they give for not voting are two fold.
First. They are lazy. And I think this represents 90% of the non-voting public, frankly. I bug them about voting and they ask where they can find a brief overview of the candidates positions in one place that won’t take them longer than 10 minutes to read. And they don’t want to vote if they don’t have a clear understanding of what they are voting for.
Second, they think their vote doesn’t count. And not in the sense that both parties are the same so it doesn’t matter who they vote for but in the sense that no statewide or national election has ever been decided by one vote. It’s the tragedy of the commons.
Essentially, this country has an attitude problem. A big one. And I’m not sure what to do about it.
conservative: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”: views the relationship as more partner oriented, the whole being greater than the individual
liberal: “What can my country do for me, seeing as how I pay taxes” ; views the relationship as a boss to employee
Apathy? The demographics with the lowest turnout, ethnic minorities and the poor, do indeed tend to hold more consistently (economically) liberal views. But you think their low turnout is due to apathy? Internalized despair, perhaps, is a better description.
Yes, your green frowny-face reasoning has made me see the light. How silly I have been all these years, deciding who to cast my own vote for on the basis of my own beliefs and not the desires of others.
Look, it’s not my responsibility to approximate the views of all liberals and vote accordingly. I vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with my beliefs. If the Democrats keep losing, one would hope they look at voting patterns and change their platform accordingly to align more closely with enough voters so that they win an election. My trying to vote strategically just ensures my views are never represented, either in the form of an actual elected official or as a statistic Democrats (the viable party closest to my beliefs) should be paying attention to. As it stands now, the Democrats think they can get more votes by trying to appeal to Republican voters and not the Far Left… well, good luck! I’ll see you when you come back around to my side. Until then, I’ll be voting Green.
Anyway, can you guarantee that by not adjusting their platform enough to attract my vote, the Democrats haven’t lost more votes already? They did lose the presidential election in 2000, after all. Which should have been a walk in the park for them. Of course they refuse to consider the concept of being responsible for their own failure to appeal to the majority of the electorate… nevermind that that is what it actually means to win an election… it’s those damn Green party freaks! How dare they refuse to compromise their beliefs!
Hey, demonizing Republicans is great at parties. But I leave that shit at home when I go to vote. As RickJay astutely observes, the Democrats aren’t radically different from the Republicans. So your scare tactic won’t work on me. If you want to take the extreme short-term view when you vote, go ahead and cave to the Democrats. Live for now, destroy forever.
Obviously it’s not working so hot for the Democrats, is it?
Nice fantasy, the ever-downward two-party spiral of “evilness.” Which dreamy dreamland does this actually happen in? Your own mind or the mind of someone you admire?
Quote: originally posted by me: conservative: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”
Bwaahahahahah, FINALY!, I have been waiting for that. Thank you. Stoid, I am glad somebody finally caught it - you get the big plush gorrilla from the top shelf. After I alluded to it the first time, I thought about putting a foot note saying something like “yes, I know it was JFK, but still…” Instead, just because I just loved the irony of using JFK to descibe the conservatives, I decided to have a little fun and see if anybody caught it. It took 28 posts, and even then only when I alluded to it a second time. I even had to spell it out. Y’all are slipping.
Mind you, I wasn’t trolling here or playing some trick on you all (well, maybe a little trick by leaving out the foot note and waiting, but hey). I do stand by my first post. I never said anything I didn’t mean. I think that particular JFK quote, even though he was damn near socialist at times, describes the conservatives of today better than any one sentence I can think of. What can I say? I love irony.
