The Two-Party Monopoly

[NickF1011]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446152,00.html

 

Stossel then cut to University of Missouri Professor Jeff Milyo, who ran an experiment in which he asked dozens of college-educated people to try to fill out various campaign finance forms and applications. Of the more than 200 people Milyo tested, Stossel reported, "every one of them violated the law." One participant added, "I'd rather not participate in the political process if it means I have to go through the nonsense I went through today."

 

 

An unbiased (for once in this author's case) glimpse into the never-ending grip of the two-party system.

[sprinter]

Yet 90-95 percent of the incumbents running for re-election to Congress will be victorious on election night. Many will run unopposed.

 

And there lies the problem. Most of the American public is too ignorant to understand they still have the power to change the system by voting the b@stards out. But to continually vote for 'republicats' is futile. The system is rigged. And the controlled media is in compliance. Ron Paul is proof of that.

[Versa-Tech]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446152,00.html

 

 

 

 

An unbiased (for once in this author's case) glimpse into the never-ending grip of the two-party system.

You can't have a two anything monopoly

 

The term monopoly comes from the Latin root Mono which refers to one.

 

Sorry, I just had to say it :shades:

[NickF1011]

You can't have a two anything monopoly

 

The term monopoly comes from the Latin root Mono which refers to one.

 

Sorry, I just had to say it :shades:

 

Not if those two things are in fact only one. Let's face it: the "two-party" system is really a one party system of the rich and powerful and they don't want anyone else to be able to play.

[BlackHorse]

Not if those two things are in fact only one. Let's face it: the "two-party" system is really a one party system of the rich and powerful and they don't want anyone else to be able to play.

 

He's right about that Versa.

[Edstock]

Two party parcheesi?

[NickF1011]

Two party parcheesi?

 

Mmmmmmm. Cheeeeeese.

[Bored of Pisteon]

 

This youtube video is a commentary from the legendary and often controversial Bill Bonds of WXYZ-TV Channel 7 in Detroit. He does bring up the two-party system.

 

Bill came back to do one more night of anchoring to help commemorate that station's 60th Anniversary.

 

For those of you who don't know who Bill is... He's the last of the great news anchors from a bygone era. And you'll see why in this commentary. He hits it right on the money!

Edited November 4, 2008 by Bored of Pisteon

[sprinter]

Ron Paul interview this morning. He even supports the idea of gridlock as being best for this country.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUH7WxaYqFw

[fmccap]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446152,00.html

 

 

 

 

An unbiased (for once in this author's case) glimpse into the never-ending grip of the two-party system.

It's also funny how they also agree when making election rules and debate rules which favor them. They always agree to make it hard for someone outside of the two parties have a chance.

 

Here is an article which got me thinking. Some said it was more government but I say it's more representation which would lead to less government.

Political Monopoly Power

One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, "...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

 

Excellent research, found at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.

 

There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation's well-being, wouldn't as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.

[Versa-Tech]

Not if those two things are in fact only one. Let's face it: the "two-party" system is really a one party system of the rich and powerful and they don't want anyone else to be able to play.

Oh yeah. I just made the mistake of turning on the election coverage and it just made me sick when they went over the bios. Every one of them read pretty much like this "He is a very successful multi-millionaire." I was thinking "Really? Is there anything else worth noting?" Evidently not. I guess the most important prerequisite for running for office is that you have way more money than any of your constituents. I guess it's not all that surprising. Things have been like this for thousands of years. I guess I just thought that it wasn't going on in my country. It seems that in every case that it is.

[BlackHorse]

Oh yeah. I just made the mistake of turning on the election coverage and it just made me sick when they went over the bios. Every one of them read pretty much like this "He is a very successful multi-millionaire." I was thinking "Really? Is there anything else worth noting?" Evidently not. I guess the most important prerequisite for running for office is that you have way more money than any of your constituents. I guess it's not all that surprising. Things have been like this for thousands of years. I guess I just thought that it wasn't going on in my country. It seems that in every case that it is.

 

[Extreme4x4]

This election is proof positive of the adage "the rich will prevail."

 

The election was bought, lock, stock, and barrel by he who has the most money, and has the media in its pocket. If you watched all of the election coverage, and all of media and ads leading up to the election.............. a "less than rhodes scholar" could actually come to the conclusion that there was only one person running for President.

 

People bashed Palin because she was not a smooth, groomed, politician. How dare a "normal" person actually think they deserve to part of the Presidency. They actually believe that Obama talks like he does in his well written speeches................. dictated over a teleprompter.

 

Not to worry. Chances are good, that by the next election, Palin will be bought and sold............... groomed, prepared, and flawless. Then the masses will like her. :rolleyes:

[NoMoVisteon]

 

This youtube video is a commentary from the legendary and often controversial Bill Bonds of WXYZ-TV Channel 7 in Detroit. He does bring up the two-party system.

 

Bill came back to do one more night of anchoring to help commemorate that station's 60th Anniversary.

 

For those of you who don't know who Bill is... He's the last of the great news anchors from a bygone era. And you'll see why in this commentary. He hits it right on the money!

Ah Yes! Billy is someone one never forgets, and don't forget John Kelly and Marilyn Turner as well. While we are at it, I wonder what the late Mark Scott would have thought about all this Obama bullshit? And, of course, what has happened in the last few years to the country and it's economy as a whole too. You can bet if he were alive, he'd break out some heavy firepower on talk radio and everything else. :gang: :kissass:

[No_Fear]

Oh yeah. I just made the mistake of turning on the election coverage and it just made me sick when they went over the bios. Every one of them read pretty much like this "He is a very successful multi-millionaire." I was thinking "Really? Is there anything else worth noting?" Evidently not. I guess the most important prerequisite for running for office is that you have way more money than any of your constituents. I guess it's not all that surprising. Things have been like this for thousands of years. I guess I just thought that it wasn't going on in my country. It seems that in every case that it is.

 

 

One more thing worth noting - All those millions spent on negative campaign ads that most of us didn't really care to listen to could have been used for a much better purpose. What a waste!

[Roadtrip]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446152,00.html

 

 

 

 

An unbiased (for once in this author's case) glimpse into the never-ending grip of the two-party system.

 

There’s a lot to be said about a two party system – as opposed to a system of multiple parties with equal, or nearly equal, weight. Consider all the parties that are represented in the European Parliament:

 

European People’s Party

Party of European Socialists

European Liberal Democratic and Reform Party

European Green Party

European Free Alliance

Alliance for Europe of the Nations

EU Democrats

European Democratic Party

Europe United

Newropeans

Party of the European Left

 

How can voters, no matter how sophisticated, make intelligent and informed decisions when selecting candidates? There are too many candidates, and therefore, there is too much information to digest.

 

And with so many parties in this political body, it’s possible for the ruling party to be elected with only 10 percent of the overall vote. This system seems to be conducive to the representation of narrow special interests - to the exclusion, or minimizing the importance, of policy positions on other issues.

 

It becomes even more complicated in the U.K., with 17 political parties represented in its government.

 

The expense of conducting opposition research must be incredibly prohibitive in such systems.

 

The American two-party system offers voters the opportunity to vote for candidates who have a realistic chance of winning. With the exception of single-issue voters, and voters susceptible to identity politics (i.e., black voters voting for black candidates just because they are black), the two-party system forces voters to align their values with one of the two parties.

 

The two-party system encourages grass-roots political activism. For example, a voter whose values lean toward the Republican platform of strong defense, lower taxes, and a limited role of government may also support abortion rights. This person can get involved in the primary process of selecting candidates who agree with her positions. A voter whose values are generally consistent with the Democrat platform, but who is a devout Catholic who opposes abortion can get involved at the grass-roots level and do the work necessary to elevate the candidate who best represents her values.

 

Ideally, voters would conduct a weighted analysis of their own values to determine how closely they are aligned with each of the platform planks of the two parties – and then vote for one of the two parties, up and down the ticket, year after year.

 

No doubt this argument will offend moderate and independent voters, but the fact is, most people over the age of 25 or 30 have developed values that will not change for the rest of their lives. So they must conduct a careful examination of their values, weigh them against both of the party platforms, and then identify themselves as a member of one of the two parties – and then get involved with their chosen party if they disagree with their party’s position on a given issue. They might lose the fight, but at least they can take comfort in the fact that they agree with their party on the issues that, to them, count the most.

 

The alternative to not voting a straight party-line ticket is illogical. Voting for candidates of both parties, whether in the same election or in succeeding years, has the effect of cancelling out one’s vote.

 

Voters who really want their votes to count already know this: They get into the game by aligning themselves with one of the two parties, and they get involved at the grass-roots level to help shape their party platforms and select the candidates that best reflect their values. As often as not, those candidates win elections and help shape public policy in accordance with the people who selected them to do so.

[papilgee4evaeva]

This election is proof positive of the adage "the rich will prevail."

 

The election was bought, lock, stock, and barrel by he who has the most money, and has the media in its pocket. If you watched all of the election coverage, and all of media and ads leading up to the election.............. a "less than rhodes scholar" could actually come to the conclusion that there was only one person running for President.

 

Isn't it usually that way anyway? That the campaigns who raise the most money and put out the most ads have the better shot at winning?

 

People bashed Palin because she was not a smooth, groomed, politician. How dare a "normal" person actually think they deserve to part of the Presidency. They actually believe that Obama talks like he does in his well written speeches................. dictated over a teleprompter.

 

Same with the current Bush. And everyone who's ever been in the Oval Office since they had teleprompters.

 

People bashed Palin because she couldn't/wouldn't answer questions straight, not because of her pedigree. That Katie Couric interview and the VP debate really killed her in the mind of much of the voting public.

 

Not to worry. Chances are good, that by the next election, Palin will be bought and sold............... groomed, prepared, and flawless. Then the masses will like her. :rolleyes:

 

That, of course, assumes she'll be running for national office.

[sprinter]

Each party according to the other

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2aSrevjgYM

[NickF1011]

How can voters, no matter how sophisticated, make intelligent and informed decisions when selecting candidates? There are too many candidates, and therefore, there is too much information to digest.

 

 

Too much choice is rarely a bad thing.

 

Besides, with that many choices, perhaps voters would actually start actually voting for the CANDIDATE instead of the PARTY.

[Roadtrip]

Too much choice is rarely a bad thing.

 

Besides, with that many choices, perhaps voters would actually start actually voting for the CANDIDATE instead of the PARTY.

 

I fully agree with your first statement - when it comes to markets. But when too much choice is introduced into politics, voters become confused. Confusion among the electorate is a very dangerous thing when it comes to electing people who make public policy.

 

As for your second statement, I could argue vociferously that it's more important to vote for the party instead of the candidate. The party represents ideas and philosophies that represent long-held beliefs and values. These beliefs and values are principles that don't die. Candidates come and go, but party philosophies remain.

 

Having said that, I freely admit that I embraced Sarah Palin the candidate. So did 69 percent of Republicans (according to a post-election Rasmussen Reports survey).

 

The candidate is definitely important, in that he or she must deliver his or her party's message. Ultimately, though, it's the message that counts - and the policies that ensue - and not the candidate.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Roadtrip

[NickF1011]

I fully agree with your first statement - when it comes to markets. But when too much choice is introduced into politics, voters become confused. Confusion among the electorate is a very dangerous thing when it comes to electing people who make public policy.

 

As for your second statement, I could argue vociferously that it's more important to vote for the party instead of the candidate. The party represents ideas and philosophies that represent long-held beliefs and values. These beliefs and values are principles that don't die. Candidates come and go, but party philosophies remain.

 

Having said that, I freely admit that I embraced Sarah Palin the candidate. So did 69 percent of Republicans (according to a post-election Rasmussen Reports survey).

 

The candidate is definitely important, in that he or she must deliver his or her party's message. Ultimately, though, it's the message that counts - and the policies that ensue - and not the candidate.

 

Well, none of the candidates are delivering the party message anymore (yeah, GW Bush has been all about small government, right?), so it's the candidate, not the party, that's important to me. I'd rather vote for an independent that agreed with my positions than for a candidate I don't like but belongs to the party I support.