LastManOut

I hear folks say they are "voting for the lesser of two evils." WHY vote for EVIL at all.
A write in vote or a vote for your conscience is better than casting a vote for someone you only think is better than X candidate.
If this cycle a third party candidate gets 20% of the vote and the next cycle the 3rd party gets 30% the Republicrats will have to take notice and possibly reconsider their failed positions.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
www.ConstitutionParty.Com

Bob The Great

IRV would indeed be better than what we have now. Combining it with the electoral college would be tricky, but it's a move in the right direction.

Like voting for a 3rd party candidate and expecting the major parties to "wake up" and select him next time around?

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Tom G

This comment is like saying I won't do anything which is what the opposition hopes will happen. If you do not vote you might as well give up your rights. A lot of people vote for the (Cute) canidates and don't care what the canidates true values are.

SelfDefense

I have read here and elsewhere many that are discontent with the two party system. The fact is that the two party system is what makes our nation great and above all others.

The Founders knew very well about the two party system. Although political parties are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the unique balance of powers and the method with which we elect the President encourages a two party system. It is part and parcel of our democratic republic.

It has been shown twice in the last two decades that a strong third party candidate will cause a more disliked candidate to win an election. This is expected. But the most important fact is that if there are more parties then more people ill dislike the winner. For example, if there were one hundred candidates, each with views that exactly match their constitutents, then 99% will dislike the winner. In a two party system, with the parties pretty much equally divided, about half the electorate does not like the winner. It encourages candidates to the middle, which necessarily causes changes to move slowly. That is a good thing for a stable society.

But even this analysis is too simplistic. A multi-party system creates a more parlimentary type of government. In order to gain power coalitions must be formed. If you think there is corruption in government now, consider the problems that would be created with those of dissimilar beliefs vying for the votes of other elected representatives by courting the [multiple] opposing parties. Further, the minority parties, those not in the ruling coalition, will simply be crushed with no voice whatsoever.

The two party system is an electoral methodology that ensures the minority will retain some power. And this nonsense of bi-partisanship is similarly misdirected. The party in power should implement their policies. A perfect example of bi-partisan failure is that 'comprehensive immigration' policy. It was created in a [smoke filled] backroom and the public was not included in the debate. The result was legislation that was despised by both parties. The liberals wanted complete open borders and the conservatives wanted border enforcement. Neither was accomplished and a grass roots effort by ALL Americans put a stop to the damaging policy.

The two party system is brilliant and effective. I don't care whether it is Federalists and Democrat-Republicans, Whigs and Democrats, Repubicans and Democrats, or the current Liberals and Republicans. The two party system forces the electorate to choose, not their own beliefs (like the Paul supporters espouse,) but those candidates that most agree with their views.

And ultimately, we the people, are the government.

Bob The Great

I'm almost with you on this one. When either candidate is horrible, it can honestly be argued that a write-in is preferable. But, what if it's not Rudy? What if it's someone clearly more in line with the constitution than Hillary, but perhaps not your 1st pick. Are you willing to consider your 2nd or even 3rd choice, given the alternative of a Clinton victory?

I don't know about you, but I don't want a revolt. If we do everything in our power to return to a proper government peacefully, and it doesn't work, that's one thing. Trying to engineer a revolt by arranging the election of the most power-hungry candidates? That's something else entirely.

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

BAC

We The People will never be the government if we accept that we must "compromise" with who we "must" elect to office. We The People are not a two-party society; the two-party system we currently have is not what the country is intended for, and creates only a polarized belief system like that we see every day. Black, or white, with no allowance for shades of grey (they get in the way of the black or white). Proof? If someone's not registered Democrat or Republican, their votes are only seen as a means to the end of furthering either the Democrats or Republicans (which voter would help which party more). If this is what you honestly believe our country was set-up for, I would genuinely question materials of your political studies.

The two-party system is the inevitable result of a civil apathy within a republic. Forcing citizens to choose something that might not be in their beliefs is called coercion and taking advantage of those whose beliefs do not fall squarely in the "blue" or "red" is called manipulation.


-B

SelfDefense

The only way any one of us will not, as you put it, compromise, is if you yourself run for office. Good luck. And, yes, we are most definitiely the government. Who do you think the government is?

Actually, it is exactly what was intended. I suggest you read Federalist 51 (I think that is the one.) Madison clearly and eloquently described why they decided upon a electoral methodology that encourages a two party system.

Thanks for [inadvertently] demonstrating my thesis. This exactly describes the multi-party system. Rather than focusing on issues, candidates are required to compromise not only their positions, but worse, their ethics, to garner the 'third'party votes. The fact is that independent voters are the most useless we have. They have no core values; no guiding principles.

Feel free to question. The Federalist Papers expound at great length the intent of the Founders. The Consititution and the results of that great document are not an accident. I think the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are maerials that need no further authority.

Is this the response to the example I provided? You are voting for our leaders, not necessarily someone who believes exactly as you. You can always waste your vote as some suggest. You will certainly not be helping your cause.

sailormnop

With instant runoff voting, the winner is the candidate who most closely matches the requirements of the most voters. IRV is being used in some local and state elections and is spreading. The key is when all is said and done, everyone knows how many people wanted each candidate (all of them) because everyone can mark their first choice first without effectively casting their vote for the enemy, but rather for their second or third choice.

Also, why do want one party to have a clear majority in Congress? So they can pass more laws? Don't we have enough? What, you want more 'programs'? Give me a break! That's what we've been getting with both parties for the last 100 years. More laws, more programs, more entitlements, more spending, more taxing.

Our form of government was designed to provide checks and balances to stop runaway legislation, spending, etc. What better checks and balances than 435 congressmen who can't agree on anything?! Maybe if they couldn't get anything done, they would all just go home! Wouldn't that be nice?

The two party system reduces the choices of the voters and therefore necessarily reduces the say of the people in the governing of the nation. You end up with, as we have now, a governing elite who are groomed for the job. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not government for the and by the people. It separates the rulers (no longer servants) from the people and makes it impossible to enforce the Constitution. Today in America, the government is NOT the people. I don't know a single person who approves of a quarter of what they do in Washington. That is government in spite of the people!

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Mencken, Rand, Reagan, and many others have said it - government is evil, and though necessary, should be limited to the bare minimum. Government is not the solution, it is the problem. And the two-party system only makes it worse.

__________________
Check out the Free State Project

How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

sailormnop

Don't forget the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by Thomas Jefferson, who was the real Federalist. Hamilton and Madison were proponents of a strong, centralized government - a republican form of government. Jefferson attended the Constitutional convention as an actual representative of the people and supported a confederation of sovereign states - a federal government (what all the people and the state governments thought they were getting). Hamilton cleverly came out with his intentionally misnamed publication first to steal Jefferson's thunder. In those days, of course, people (land owners/voters) actually knew what words meant, so it really did matter.

The truth is, I haven't completely studied either the Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers, so I can't go any further than what is above.

No core values!? No principles!? Someone who resignedly accepts the compromise of voting for the lesser of two evils is the one lacking principles! Continue to vote for the lesser of two evils and watch the country go down the toilet (gradually) all the while talking about how great the two-party system is? Did I hear a definition of insanity there?

As long as you balance the Federalist Papers with the Anti-Federalist Papers.

We are voting for representatives! Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Atilla the Hun were all leaders, and good ones too. Leaders tell you what to do, where to go, how to live. Leaders are not servants. We don't need leaders. Our representatives are supposed to be servants. We are supposed to be able to tell them what to do. The only candidate who represents (most of) my views is Ron Paul, and we need a voting system that will allow every voter to speak their mind honestly and without compromise. Instant Runoff Voting.

__________________
Check out the Free State Project

How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

LastManOut

The "Two Party System" might work IF and only IF one can differentiate between the two on actions, not on campaign promises. I see NO substantial difference between the Jackasses and the Elephants. Back in the '60's, when I began following politics to any degree, the Dems were more conservative than the Repubs are today. Then along came LBJ and we became a quasi-socialist nation and the "Two-Parties" have been massaging that model ever since. R.R.'s administration was the closest we've had to a rollback to a Constitutional Republic since then.

P.S. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! Educate yourself. Read the U.S. Constitution and memorize the Bill of Rights. Caution, you may be shocked at how unconstitutional our laws and restrictions have become.