The two party system in America is not vindicative of democracy. Its a chosen monarchy. Politically, The KKK is better represented by the two party system than the majority of Americans. Thats not a joke.

To start, there are two types of freedom. Personal freedom and Financial freedom. Unbelievably, neither of our parties are for both types of freedom. They are only for one or the other... but not both.

Republicans, for example, preach the fine concept of financial freedom. And yet, they are anti-personal freedom. So essentially, they are saying to the american people "The government should NOT interfere with your finances but it SHOULD impose on your moral systems."

Democrats on the other hand, preach personal freedom but are against financial freedom. Essentially they say "The government should NOT infringe on your moral system, but it SHOULD impose on your finances."

These parties are not only logically incoherent, they are downright stupid. How can you be for one kind of freedom but not the other? If you are pro-freedom, then you are pro-freedom... both types. Not one or the other.

So why are these two parties in power? It perplexes me. Think about this- Our only choices for president this year were Al Gore (the robot) and George Bush (the idiot). Neither of their platforms make much sense and neither has the qualities to be a true leader of the free world.

Thanks a lot America. Vote with some integrity. Most people who voted for Bush only did so to keep Gore out of office. Inversely, most people who voted for Gore only did so to keep Bush out of office. Here's an idea! Vote for who you actually want in office, not the lesser of two evils.

Silly Americans.

[This message was edited by Pavlov'sDog on 04-25-01 at 05:26 PM.]

[This message was edited by Pavlov'sDog on 04-25-01 at 05:27 PM.]

(If you knew my email address you would laugh at the coincidence.)

I would like to answer with a few questions if I may:

1. What would you have us do, vote for no one? Vote for Nader?
2. Oversimplification of inherently complicated issues tends to lead to bad choices. Would you agree?
3. If you do not agree go to number 4. If you do agree, wouldn't you say that
a. your analysis of the party platforms
is elementary and insufficient
b. Simply saying Pro-freedom Anti-freedom
fails to take into account the larger
and more difficult concept that
politicians must deal with: the
conflict of rights.
4. If you do not agree that oversimplification leads to bad choices, how would you support that disagreement?
5. Could you elaborate on the KKK statement?

Thats all my questions right now. If we respond with shorter questions and answers to each other we may be able to get somewhere with this debate, it has merit, and I believe conclusions can be drawn from it's discussion.

good topic, and thanks!

~!/

---

"The dark that rests before the dawn, may be the blackest as they say.
If that is true then I must be, due for one fantastic day."

Although the US has two MAJOR political parties, there are many smaller parties which can have an effect on policy-making. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are examples of just that. Although they may not have won the presidency, their participation in the electoral system had a major effect on the outcome. Both were laughed at for their personae and for their platforms, but the laughing stopped when they garnered enough votes to become a threat. The two parties had to take their messages to heart, or risk losing more voters the next time around.

As Lady Macbeth said:
Do not stand upon the
order of your leaving,
just get the heck out of
here! (thanks RBG)

Yes, that post was a huge oversimplication of the truth. But my generalizations hold true. Many third parties generally have much better platforms. The only problem is that mainstream America is usually not ready to accept their "radical" ideas.

For example, I'll use the War on Drugs as my point in this case. The War on drugs is supported by both the major parties DESPITE the fact that its a horrible, wasteful misallocation of our tax money. We squander over 2 billion dollars annually into this worthless cause and yet we only intercept at most, 15% of the drugs coming into America. 15%! People are going to use drugs regardless of the statutes that our Congressmen may impose. Look at Prohibition in the 1920's... the government told people they could not use alcohol, did that stop the use of alcohol? No, its actually increased along with crime and black market acitivity. Free will cannot be smothered.

And look at our overcrowded prisons. Over 60% of "criminals" in jail are non-violent drug offenders. Which means they were either using or selling drugs. Is that really wrong? Is it the government's job to protect poeple from themselves? If a person chooses to do drugs, they are not hurting anyone else, only themselves. Laws are created to protect poeple from other eachother. To protect us from murderers and thieves. Not to protect people from themselves. Drug use isnt WRONG its just STUPID. Where as stealing or murder carries over and hurts another party, drug use hurts only the idiot willing to do it. It should not be regulated.

This is the blunt reality that mainstream American isnt ready to handle, and decriminilization of drugs is mocked and scoffed at even though it makes MUCH more sense that the criminalization of drugs.

My main point here is that third parties are generally not trying to appeal to the drooling masses and making promises that the typical, stupid American will buy into, they are promoting new rational ideas that mainstream American in unable to comprehend at this point. They are free thinkers, not puppets of the masses like the two major parties.

Unfortunately the KKK is well represented by our political system. Here are the KKK's political beliefs...

1. Anti affirmative action (Republican)
2. Anti abortion (Republican)
3. Anti pornography (Republican)
4. Pro the war on drugs (Democratic+Republican)
5. Lower crime rates (This isnt really a political belief, the KKK is so rediculous)
6. Prayer in school (Republican)
7. They obviously wish to have segregation also, but do not list it as a political viewpoint.

As you can see, even a trashy organization like the KKK is represented quite nicely by our two party system. The KKK has more of a say in this country than I do. But that makes sense, right? The KKK are swell guys, right? They deserve more of a say than an educated free thinker?

Good going, America.

Stating that one party is pro-financial freedom and anti-personal freedom (or vice versa) is a gross oversimplification.

For reference, I don't agree with either party on every issue, and disagree with both on some. A lot of people call me a Republican because I hate the Clintons and Gore (but not because of their status as Democrats) and tend to lean more toward certain Republican policies. I consider myself more of a moderate.

I also happen to be a firm believer in the Constitution, and the rights of people in general. When asked about gun control I respond that those who cause others to be injured by improper safety with a gun should be taken away, not the gun. It was Jefferson, I believe, who said that those who seek to trade freedom for safety will not have, nor deserve, either one.

When asked about abortion I reply that it's a nessicary evil (sanitary, doctor-run abortions are far preferable to the coathanger variety) as well as the woman's right to choose the fate of the thing she brought into being. Until, of course, it is considered medically alive.

So all in all it is possible to have free thought and not be a party drone. Simply because you vote for one party does not make you the thrall of that party, and should they fail in their duty to the people then simply don't vote for them again.

It is this right to not vote for someone that makes America NOT the "chosen monarchy" that Pavlov'sdog believes it is. That and the system of checks and balances has been effective for over 200 years in keeping America a land of freedom. (though I do agree with you that this country is not indicative of democracy. It's more of a Republic)

There are two parties in power because they represent the things that people wish to be represented. If everybody in America suddenly demanded that there be drugs, and the two parties stood fast on their anti-drug stance, do you think that they would stay in power. They say the things that people want said, and do (or attempt to do) the things that people want to get done.

Sure it's a system where the minority is generally lost by the majority, but if there is a popular movement that gains enough power you'll see the Big Two change their platforms. The parties stand at "pro-personal, anti-financial freedom" and "pro-financial, anti-personal freedom" because that is what each believes is the best way to get things done.

If either party made a true imposition on freedom of either type it would be because people let them. For something like, say, total gun abolishment to pass there would have to be not only a pro-abolishment President, but also a Congress of almost entirly pro-abolishment mentality and a Supreme Court that was not only pro-abolishment but also on crack. The only way that something like that would happen if the movement was almost total in society, and therefore generally accepted.

As for Bush vs. Gore: Not only has Bush so far not managed to push the red, shiny button marked "NUKE: DO NOT EVER PUSH. EVER!" but he's proven himself far more competent and effective than many of his detractors would've believed. As I said during the pre-election debates, simply because he's a mushmouth doesn't mean he's a moron.

About 3rd-party platforms being better: Simply because a few kooks somewhere got some radical, insane idea that nobody else would think of and got a bunch of followers doesn't nessicarily make that idea a good one. Not that all 3rd-party platforms are bad or insane by all means, but the reason these ideas aren't more widely circulated is because the majority of people _don't want them_. As I said above, if a 3rd-party gets a good idea, you can be sure it'll show up on the Big Two's platforms soon enough.

The reason the KKK is so well represented is because a lot of people agree with them on the issues you listed. Just because Hitler gave jobs to millions of people, does that mean that suddenly giving jobs to people makes you a Nazi? No, of course not.

Anyway, this post has gotten way out of hand already, so I'll stop here.

"I demand to be minty!" -Happy Noodle Boy

You wrote >>>About 3rd-party platforms being better: Simply because a few kooks somewhere got some radical, insane idea that nobody else would think of and got a bunch of followers doesn't nessicarily make that idea a good one. Not that all 3rd-party platforms are bad or insane by all means, but the reason these ideas aren't more widely circulated is because the majority of people _don't want them_.<<<

Thats absolute nonsense. Many people want more options besides the two parties in control now, the reason they dont vote accordingly is because they feel that a third party as no chance of winning. Why? Because they assume that the majority of Americans will vote for a Democrat or a Republican and feel like they will waste their vote unless they too vote for the major party that they lean towards. There are better options available, but since people are too afraid to vote for what they actually want, as opposed to whats popular, we will remain stuck in the 2 party system.

You yourself identified yourself as a moderate. Why do moderates have to conform to one party or the other. Why isnt there an option for people in the middle (after all, that is where the majority of Americans stand, within moderation). You make me sick, you know what you want and yet you assimilate your vote to perpetuate two parties that do not embody the majority of opinions you hold dear. You are the problem with politics in this country.

"For reference, I don't agree with either party on every issue, and disagree with both on some."
-Beldin, '01

Some people do vote only for one of the two major parties because they believe a 3rd party vote would be a waste, but I wouldn't. Whomever I voted for I would do so on the grounds that not only would I believe their policies best, but have the most faith in their ability to enact those policies. That's how I define moderate.

From your own mouth you declare that people who are drones to a party are "what's wrong with America" (not that I think you can classify every problem in this country under one standard) but when you come across somebody who is a drone to nobody you declare them to be the problem.

In my opinion it is people like you, people who condemn everyone who does not conform to their standards, who are the real problem.

"I demand to be minty!" -Happy Noodle Boy

You wrote "In my opinion it is people like you, people who condemn everyone who does not conform to their standards, who are the real problem."

My only standard is anti-conformity. Thus, Im going to chastise those who do not vote with integrity, but rather conform to the masses by voting for the lesser of two evils even though they feel better represented by a third party.

If someone feels well represented by the two party system, then fine, vote accordingly. At least be honest in the voting booth.

Pigs.

quote:

---

If you are pro-freedom, then you are pro-freedom... both types. Not one or the other.

---

Actually it's the degree of freedom that's in question. If there really is some kind of natural correlation between these two concepts then why isn't it reflected in actual politics? Total freedom means anarchy and no taxes. BTW are you a libertarian?

One problem as I see it with our system is that long term solutions must take a back seat to short term fixes. Politicians want to show tangible results before they come up for reelection. That's why we backed out of the Kyoto treaty among other things. Just wasn't a convenient time with the economic slowdown and all.

but for one thing....pavlov, I have come to expect better arguments from you than the KKK post above. That sort of list-making is easy to do to make virtually anything seem accurate. It is from those sorts of lists and out of context summaries that conspiracy theories are born. Furthermore, I do not find it true that
  a: anti-affirmative action is a standpoint of all republicans, nor is it an exclusively republican idea.
  b: prayer in school is a desire of even a fair number of republicans, much less the majority, though I do not regard this as a bad thing to allow.

Whether or not the KKK is in favor of these few 7 things does not mean that they are better represented than others. You did not back up your argument, where is the opposing list of 7 things that the rest of us are apparently not represented with?

other than that I think this debate is proceeding quite nicely, I just couldnt let you slide like that when you have gotten us accumstomed to more lengthy and well-reasoned posts on your part.

In fact, I get the impression you really didnt feel like posting at all at that moment and just whipped it out quick.

Did I catch you slacking?

Anyway, carry on!

~!/

---

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. " - Matthew, 6:24

You wrote >>>I just couldnt let you slide like that when you have gotten us accumstomed to more lengthy and well-reasoned posts on your part.<<<

Are you sure? I dont recall ever making "lengthy" or "well-reasoned" posts. I prefer posting overgeneralizations and facetious nonsense.

Facetious and oversimplified yes. Making responses without some sort of justification, no.
Usually you make an effort to at least include enough information to make a statement we can then dispute. Anyway, just trying to be funny.

~!/

---

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. " - Matthew, 6:24

You wrote >>>Total freedom means anarchy and no taxes. BTW are you a libertarian?<<<

Total freedom is represented more realistically by the libertarian party than by anarchy. Anarchy has never truly existed on this planet because people always follow a leader in times of political turmoil. Look at Somalia for example. They had "anarchy" for a short while, but it wasnt really anarchy because everyone followed a warlord. Anarchy is the idea of not having any authority figures in society whatsoever.

To answer your question, Im not a libertarian but I do agree with them on many standpoints.

While I do agree that some people choose to maintain the 2-party system simply because they don't wish to "throw their vote away" there are many who do so because they honestly believe in the policy of their party!!!

Also, can you imagine what would happen if every different political view had it's own party? (example: party A is in favor of gun control, pro-life and anti-affermative action. Party B is in favor of gun control, pro-choice and pro-affermative action. Party C is anti-gun control, pro-choice and anti-affermative action etc. etc.) If everybody went with the party that upheld every single thing they believe in then ballots would be as long as Microsoft's tax returns.

"I demand to be minty!" -Happy Noodle Boy

In some countries with many small parties (usually a parlamentary system) a coalition government must be formed because no single party controls enough seats.

In Japan the left is fragmented into small parties, while the right is united under the LDP. This means the LDP has never lost power (exept for 2 years) in the entire post-war period.

In Israel the major parties must add the Shas (orthodox) party to form a government. Shas gets less than 20% of the vote, but they get their way on many issues because they are needed to maintain a government.

The system would still result in many compromises. If one half of the spectrum, say the Democrats split their vote and the Republicans didn't then The republicans would certainly win. So basically compromise is already worked into the 2 party system. Both parties try to start at the middle and reach out to either the right or the left. If there was a third center party, then it might work out, but too many would really mess things up.

You wrote >>>Also, can you imagine what would happen if every different political view had it's own party? (example: party A is in favor of gun control, pro-life and anti-affermative action. Party B is in favor of gun control, pro-choice and pro-affermative action. Party C is anti-gun control, pro-choice and anti-affermative action etc. etc.) If everybody went with the party that upheld every single thing they believe in then ballots would be as long as Microsoft's tax returns.<<<

This is a rational observation. If too many parties got in control, American politics would be shrouded in utter confusion. The lone bright side of our 2 party system is the stability that it offers. However, I certainly think there is room for the rise of third party to embody the beliefs of those ignored by the 2 party system. Such as me. I sincerely doubt that the introduction of an extra party would cloud politics beyond function.

Furthermore, why are political parties even necessary? If we yearned for total democracy, we could simply vote on pressing issues rather than let the politicians represent us... poorly. We live in more of a republic than a democracy in that sense.

However, I detest people for the most part. I wouldn't want any profound issues decided directly by the bovine masses....

================
"However, I certainly think there is room for the rise of third party to embody the beliefs of those ignored by the 2 party system. Such as me. I sincerely doubt that the introduction of an extra party would cloud politics beyond function.

Furthermore, why are political parties even necessary? If we yearned for total democracy, we could simply vote on pressing issues rather than let the politicians represent us... poorly."
=================
I had to jump in. Who is to say that the introduction of a third party would represent your beliefs. I'm not saying that the 2 party system is perfect(see my response regarding 3rd party candidates above), but what if a third major party was formed that was more "Ku Klux Klannish" and less "Libertarian-like". Then you still wouldn't be represented completely, and we would need a 4th, 5th, 6th party. Which would lead to coalition governments, and compromises, which would lead to a situation similar to what we have today, where the people we vote in to represent us have to compromise on the points we voted them in on anyway.

Then you go on to say that we shouldn't have political parties or representation, anyway, and we should all just vote on the issues. Have you ever been in agroup setting where something needs to get done? I have, and while eventually decisions are made, the quickest decisions are made in the smallest groups. Everyone has an opinion, everyone wants their voice heard, and noone is ever completely satisfied. To open up every administrative and political decision to the entire populace would freeze the country in its tracks. Look what happened in the last election - once everyone got involved in the counting, recounting, and arguing the counting, a procedure that should have taken a few days was dragged on for months, and the decision still (after 100 days in office!) does not have a whiff of validity. The government was founded on representation for a reason: namely that the the populace could not conceivable be expected to be informed on every subject, but that elected officials would (we hope!) have the time to study and make intelligent (ok - I'm being an idealist here) decisions. Representation is still the best plan, albeit a very flawed one.

As Lady Macbeth said:
Do not stand upon the
order of your leaving,
just get the heck out of
here! (thanks RBG)

You wrote >>>Then you go on to say that we shouldn't have political parties or representation, anyway, and we should all just vote on the issues. <<<

No, I did not. I made a query about not having political parties... It was not a statement. If you had granted me the courtesy of reading my entire post before you started babbling, you would see that I am against letting poeple vote on issues. Go reread it.

What I failed to articulate is that I would prefer the rise of the libertarian party to any other because they promote both types of freedom, not just one or the other. (Obviously, this is a generalization) But other third parties are mere wrinkles of one main party or the other. The Green party is close to democratic. The Independent Party is close to republican. If you introducted the libertarian party, then three of the four main theories on the political spectrum would be represented: Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism. (Only totalitarianism being absent) I think that these three parties combined can broadly account for most Americans based on their platforms.

The reason I complained about the two party system to begin with is that there is no option to attain more freedom, which is why I refused to vote for Gore or Bush.

Before you accuse someone of babbling, please read the work to which I was referring. Your exact words were:

"Furthermore, why are political parties even necessary? If we yearned for total democracy, we could simply vote on pressing issues rather than let the politicians represent us... poorly. We live in more of a republic than a democracy in that sense. "

And that is the statement to which I was responding. Ergo, my "babbling" as I restated your phraseology to: "Then you go on to say that we shouldn't have political parties or representation, anyway, and we should all just vote on the issues." Notice the repitition in both statements about the populace voting on the issues.

My answer was not to your original query (I did that already), but to your last follow-up posting. Therefore, please do ME the favor of reading the posts and your own statements before you accuse me.

As Lady Macbeth said:
Do not stand upon the
order of your leaving,
just get the heck out of
here! (thanks RBG)