The Lesser of Two Evils

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Yes change the subject.
Anyway it doesn't matter because as has been pointed out, America DOES have a more than 2 party system, it's just that there's never been a 3rd party or more that has captured the public enough to make a difference.

A system that concentrates power in two parties is a two-party system, regardless of whether or not more parties could theoretically get support.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A system that concentrates power in two parties is a two-party system, regardless of whether or not more parties could theoretically get support.

So how would you change that?
Permit more than 2 parties be allowed?
Oh...wait....we got that already.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, do you elect people you actually want?

Thumbs up if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils has the mandate of the people.

Thumbs down if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils do not represent the will of the people.

It seems to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is an endorsement of evil.

There will never be a perfect politician. A simple reason to vote for the lesser of two evils is to prevent the greater of two evils from winning. Then, every citizen should tell the winner what his mandate is and isn't, in the opinion of that citizen.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
So how would you change that?
Permit more than 2 parties be allowed?
Oh...wait....we got that already.

Try reading my first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Eladar
Don't kid yourself, things are the same all over.

No they are not. Which you would know if you had any experience with African 'democracy'. In fact you'd quit complaining about your own system real quick.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
2008 we had to pick which toilet we would drink out of. I didn't care who won.
2012 we had a clear choice and the stupidity of the American voter was clearly demonstrated.
I stopped believing in democracy a long time ago, allowing people to vote just because they are 18 and can breathe is idiotic.
(And please don't say "derhhhh it's not a democra ...[text shortened]...
These people can vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXCY0wjoY4U

How's that make you feel?

Democracies used to work in ancient Greece by having the ruling class spend all their time studying the issues of the day and having their slaves do all their dirty work for them so that they could concern themselves with the issues so as to cast informed votes. However, today we have a ruling class letting the "slaves" vote as they direct them on how to vote through the media and public education.

From what I can tell, most people hold to the notion that the GOP is for the "rich" man and the democrats are for the "poor". Then we are led to believe that those who favor the poor dominate elections in a "rich" man's country. I guess they don't need to sell their collective souls to corporate America to hold power. It's just magic. LOL.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No they are not. Which you would know if you had any experience with African 'democracy'. In fact you'd quit complaining about your own system real quick.

I would only stop complaining about the system I'm under if I'm stupid enough to be fooled by propaganda. We might look prettier, but it is no different than what you experience.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Ohhhhh...you mean like Germany in the early 30's?
When Hitler came to power?
Yeah that worked pretty well.

But Hitler is the progressive model.

Just run up debt and/or collect revenue anywhere you can in order to throw the money at your military and political base via entitlements.

When you do these things the populace will turn a blind eye to pretty much anything and everything you do as you slowly take over the world.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, do you elect people you actually want?

Thumbs up if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils has the mandate of the people.

Thumbs down if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils do not represent the will of the people.

It seems to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is an endorsement of evil.

What do you do? Stay home and not vote in our very stable two-party system that will always be two-party in our lifetime?

Originally posted by moon1969
What do you do? Stay home and not vote in our very stable two-party system that will always be two-party in our lifetime?

Why vote when you are simply putting someone in power who you really do not want in power?

Why not wake up and smell the coffee instead of putting your head in the sand?

Originally posted by JS357
There will never be a perfect politician. A simple reason to vote for the lesser of two evils is to prevent the greater of two evils from winning. Then, every citizen should tell the winner what his mandate is and isn't, in the opinion of that citizen.

You don't need a perfect representative to want to vote for the person. You just need someone who represents your core beliefs. If no such person is there to represent you, then you have taxation without representation. You are not being represented.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Yes change the subject.
Anyway it doesn't matter because as has been pointed out, America DOES have a more than 2 party system, it's just that there's never been a 3rd party or more that has captured the public enough to make a difference.

The cards are pretty well stacked against them though. I don't think that one could say a third party couldn't make a difference if the playing field was level. I like the idea of no party system. Vote on a dude based on his stance on issues rather than party affiliation. The politician would care more about the needs of their constituents more and a lot less lying.

Originally posted by Eladar
Why vote when you are simply putting someone in power who you really do not want in power?

So you do not vote. Wow, that's a lot of influence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to stage his coup (the Enabling Act of 1933).

[b]I'm saying that many-party systems disintegrate into petty squabbling where no one is in clear control and a fruitcake like Hitler can gain control with a minority of the population behind him.

Then how do so many many-party systems produce stable democracies?[/b]

There is no historical record that proves that multiparty systems work any better than a two party true opposition system.

The US Constitution for about 220 years is a pretty successful model, admitting it may have flaws, Article V has a built in solution. The solution is crafting amendments to take care of the known weaknesses of the Constitution.