Sorry you took it that way... I meant to offence to you Jact.

Political arguments are OK - you don't have to participate, you don't have to understand both sides - but there is no need to condem those who actually enjoy them, or to act shitty towards me.

There was this TV show once, where someone referred to a Person on the panel as being a "black person." One of the PC ultraliberals corrected him that the person was "African-American." The dark-skinned man looked peeved and reminded the liberal that he was actually British, not American. So, now we have African-British in addition to African-American?

Let's go back to negro. It's what's in the heart that really counts.

Um, petty bickering between two sides and the constant "party-line" attitude that keeps Democrats voting Democrat and Republicans voting Republican despite the merits of any given candidate or issue is not even remotely a "good thing".

The two party system is better than the one party system but not nearly as good as the three or more party system. With a third (or fourth or fifth) party, there is room in the middle. All we have now is two groups of people standing on either side of an invisible line screaming and pointing fingers at each other.

SpaceAce

If you say so....

In a few decades, we may have a 3 or 4 party system - right now, I think if you really want to get anything done and really want to be effective, you have to work within the 2 parties.


And political debate is a wonderful thing -... it's SO American :thumbsup

Let's imagine a 3-party system. Party A can get 45% of the vote, Party B another 45% while Party C can only get 10% of the vote. Which party is the most powerful in this system? Party C, because it casts the swing vote and any party hoping to win has to give it what it wants.

After the first page or two its all basically the same.

There is more of that pot calling the kettle black stuff he was referring to.

It would have happened if Ross Perot wouldn't have dropped out of the race twice the first time he ran. Not saying he would have won, but he would have had a much larger portion of the vote.

If I say so? Name any instance where less choices and less representation of different ideas is better.

Right now, being forced to work within the two parties <B>is</B> the problem. You're right, political debate is very American and right now, the debate is limited to Democratic rhetoric and Republican rhetoric. There are a great many people not served by either. For instance, I identify and agree with Democratic ideas about personal freedom. However, I am firmly on the Republican side of the fence as far as our military is concerned. I don't think EITHER party is even close on thingslike health care or general finance. There are other parties that represent my ideas better than either Republicans or Democrats, but because of the stranglehold the two-party system has on our government, I am forced to basically pick the one I disagree with the least.

There is no way that two parties forever at odds with each other can possibly accurately represent all or even most of a country with 280 million people in it. Far from keeping in balance, one party usually has a majority of control in the nation and the other party spends all its time trying to thwart the first party's efforts. Then, when power shifts, the thwarters become the thwartees and the cycle repeats ad infinitum.

The only reason it will take decades to get a real and viable third party into American politics is because of the close-mindedness of the rabid two-partiers who believe you are either Republican or Democrat with nothing in between.

SpaceAce

I think he never intended to win. I think he only wanted to stir up shit and it went further than he expected.

SpaceAce

That was thee posts in a row that you quoted and answered - but were not directed towards you....?

Do you speak for Jact and Spaceage now too?


Thanks for your opinion, but since I was talking to them, I would really rather hear their reply in their own words.....

A) That scenario assumes that party "C" has no convictions and sells its votes.
B) That's no different from what we have, now. If we have such great balance, everything is still decided by the "swing" of someone from one party voting with the other side.

I don't believe your scenario is accurate. It's the same number of representatives, no matter how many parties, just with more ideas being represented. Even if that 10% becomes the swing vote, so what? As long as they vote in the interest of the people who put them there, they are doing their jobs. Right now, there are millions of people who are only marginally represented by the rigid Republican and Democratic platforms.

SpaceAce

But he could have clearly established a place for a third party, and he almost succeeded. it was that 'you people' comment that fucked everything up.

That's not really true - but I can see where you would want to discourage anyone frm reading it all.... :1orglaugh

Yes... if YOU say so - because about 80% of America doesn't vote for a 3rd. party

Here's the problem - the greatest man in the world cannot get elected if he isn't in one of the two parties - and none of the wonderful things he would do will get done.

You don't have to like that and you can argue it all day - but only people who accept and learn to deal with it WILL get elected and do what they want -

If you want your believes out there - you will either work within the system - or you will be ignored.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's always going to be that way - but for the next several elections... it is.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from anything, but that is basically it. My answers and responces may get more in depth, and people may kick up the attacks, but thats basically it.

OK, read that again and then read my other posts. Let it sink in. the <B>reason</B> people don't vote third party os because of ignorant ideas like the ones in the rest of your post. In fact, let me point out one in the above quote: if the current system doesn't have room for his "wonderful ideas" then they aren't going to get done whether he gets into office or not. The reason someone else hasn't already implemented his wonderful ideas is <B>because</B> of the current system. If this mysterious "he" continues to work within the system, he will not get anything done that the system doesn't already allow. If you "work within the system" and make it so you can get something done that normally wouldn't have happened, you are no longer working within the system because you have changed the system. You are now working within a new system which is the point behind having more political parties.

Now, that is bullshit. It is not the pioneering spirit and it never got anything done. There are a million points in American (and world) history where we "had" to do something this way or something else was "impossible". Almost all great progress is made because someone did something that "couldn't" be doneor ignored conventional wisdom. However, most people sit idly by and accept the status quo, which is apparently what you believe to be the way to go.

Also, there are small numbers of third-party candidates in office, currently. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you already knew that. That pretty much blows your point about getting elected only by playing inside the existing structure. Change is already happening, it just needs more support.

The system you speak of is artificially imposed. There is no Constitutional requirement for a two-party-and-no-more-than-two-party approach to American government.


As long as you and people like you continue to think the way you do (see "ignorant ideas" above, which is not meant as an insult so don't get bent out of shape), it will be that way. If everyone who says "fuck it, I am voting [insert one of the two major parties here] because otherwise I am just throwing my vote away" would actually vote for their third party candidate, there would be a lot more of them in office. The whole point of representative government is for the people to be, um, represented. You can't possibly do that with only two parties. There is no way a country the size of the USA will fall neatly into one of two platforms.

SpaceAce

Let's go with your 80% figure. It could be accurate or way high or way low. It doesn't really matter for the point I am going to make.

If 80% don't vote third party, that leaves AT LEAST 20% of an entire nation who crave a different party to represent them. Now factor in that of the 80% who don't vote 3rd-party, a considerable number of those probably do not do so because of the "throwing away" mentality (see my previous post). So, what we have is a nice chunk of people who want more than (R) and (D) after their congressmens' names.

Also, just sayin "because YOU say so" doesn't make it wrong. You didn't even attempt to address the question that prompted that. It isn't even a matter of me saying so. One party represents the least possible number of ideas from the masses. Two represents more, but still not enough. It's a fact that more choices and more ideas and more discourse lead to better things than one person or two people in charge of everything. Now, there is a point of diminishing return. You can't have one representative for each person, but if you <B>did</B>, they would probably eventually congeal into the ideal number of parties simply because people with similar ideas would gravitate toward one another. Right now, with rigid party lines, there is no room for that.

SpaceAce

uno loves the cock :(

My my boys and girls, sounds like you ALL need a good firm spanking. (I've already taken care of jact). Now let's all play nice and drop it before I have to put you all in a corner.

And yes, Uno loves the cock. He told me this morning he wished I had one.

I agree with you. Many Americans aren't purely one ethnical background. So, if I wanted to be politically correct... I am an Italian-Greek-Chzecholsovakian-American? Waste of breath... I'm just an "American".

I simply didn't have an opinion of you, that's all.


some of your posts are funny as shit. Me like dat.

Oh wow battle of the boards....

:thumbsup real winner.....


i do belive everyone is entitled to freedom of speech.... :warning

You guys arguing over the party system...... ever see the movie "Wild in the Streets" with Shelly Winters?


"We want the voting age to be lowered to 14."

"14? Not a chance"

"It's 14 or fight. We'll riot across the whole country"

"14 or fight? How about 15 and ready?"

"14 or fight."



The kids all vote for a rock star, he wins, then the USA invades Canada.

I don't get it.

i dont think you are suppose to..... :helpme

Hehe...I'm sure PCBBS appreciates the free publicity.

I see. I will continue to try and keep everyone amused :)

SpaceAce

I don't think I've seen that but it sounds pretty amusing. I'll check and see if Netflix has it.

SpaceAce

does pookie post here aswell? :thumbsup