Really People?

[hsifeng]

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/

Look, Obama isn't my first (second or third) choice....but McCAIN people? Really? How is this suddenly a 'break even' poll?

Comments

[docryder.livejournal.com]

For the two-party system to shift to a multi-party system, the parties outside of the Big Two have to curb some of their nuttier policy planks. For example, Libertarianism. The Libertarian party promotes even less government than Small Government Conservatives. As much as people say they want that, they also want to feel safe in their beds, and they realize that requires money in the form of taxes. Armies and police, etc., are what the American people want. They are afraid of a government that doesn't have the money to support these things. Libertarian dismantling of the government (including the military and police) terrifies most people, even Small Government Conservatives.

I believe the problem is more that the 13th Amendment has changed since 1875. Prior to that, the wording made clear that lobbying is bribery, and thus accepting said is treason. Now, they've had to make new "ethics" laws that include so many loopholes that the ABC Evening News has had reports on how much money Obama's supposedly "small contributor money only" campaign is really a joke. We'll see the same reported next week of the Republican convention and campaign.

Eliminate lobbyists and the money going around, and you might have politicians who actually are in it to serve the public.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the argument against a multi-party system being predicated on the 'toning down' of alternate party choices. While you are no doubt correct that some of the nuttier platform statements of *any* party dissuade people from wanting that party to have enough power to dismantle our government structure and rebuild it in their own image: I would counter by saying that the *more* parties you have, the *less* likely it is that any one can gain a majority, thereby gaining the power to make those sort of radical changes possible.

By having - lets say - five parties, each with it’s own strong base and support system, you would manage to get more than two sides on any given debate. Compromises would be more than just ‘he said, she said’ affairs with only two (supposedly) polar opposite viewpoints to choose from.

Furthermore, I think multiparty systems would be much harder for lobbyists (those bastards) to operate in. If you have only two sides to bribe, I mean, “contribute to” then you have a much cheaper (relatively) lobby cost.

And yes, I fucking hate lobbyists: Fuck you assholes for buying off this countries political process. And fuck career politicians for taking the checks all the way to the bank. In the Bahamas of course….

[docryder.livejournal.com]

The oddball policy planks of the smaller parties scare Americans because they only see issues as black or white. So, if the smaller parties get in, they will have total control (from the average American's point of view). Thus, a two-party system works, because it plays to the "Black Hats vs. White Hats" mentality the average person has.

Your argument for multiple parties (too much for the lobbyists to bribe) is the exactly why the lobbyists work against it. It costs them less to manipulate two-parties. So they spend lots of money to promote a two-party system as well as manipulate those parties.