Yeah, ok, i'm not a political blogger, but this is really starting to get on my nerves.
i'm not a big fan of a two party solution, but i know full well that a three party one will never work either.
See, the problem with a three party solution is the fact that you don't have three groups of people. Take me, for instance. While i've got some liberal tendencies, i like to think i'm actually reasonably conservative about things. i believe in paying taxes for the services i get, things like a sufficiently supplied military to defend me, roads with pavement, police, firefighters, rescue equipment, and electricity and reliable communications. That sort of stuff. You know, the dues for being a citizen. i also believe that if two people are so committed to each other that they're willing to support each other out of it, i'm for that too. Heck, i'm married and not contributing to the population growth either.
But i don't want things like a soviet style government that believes the best way to deal with terrorism is to lock up it's own citizens (that's becoming both parties by the way), that science is wrong and misguided, and that $50,000, three ton SUVs need tax breaks.
Personally, i think that there needs to be four parties. Republican (See current party), Republican Lite (who believes in less government control and accountable spending), Democratic Lite (who believes in balanced social reforms and increased welfare programs) and Democratic (See San Francisco). The idea being that since having one party in office all the time is "a bad idea" (see history), the four groups would generally switch off governing with the radicals getting less time in office than the more normal groups.
Sadly, even with their own parties, the extremes wouldn't be happy. They'd still creep in and figure out how to "correct" the platform in increasingly substantial ways because their parties were just ineffective in the past years votes, and the folks running for election would be too freaking spineless (see current election) to just stand up and say, "Uhm, no. We gave you a party. Go away and play with yourselves."
But if they did, man, that party would win by a landslide.
Dunno. We have 5 or so major political parties (and a host of minor ones), and things work very well.
Yes, but you're European. You're a godless communist. Democracies have only two parties, a leftist party of terrorist sympathizers, and a conservative party that loves democracy and puppies. The best democracies have only one party, which allows freedom and economic prosperity.
Thus explaining that "Tax Break for Puppies" plank announced at the RNC last night.
(I think the idea is to buy them each an SUV)
JR, I have essentially the same feelings you described above, but I consider myself pretty Left-leaning because of them. What's going on?
Remember when conservative meant "spend only when neccessary"? Gosh, I do. It was swell.
Now it means "repeat after me".
Heh, I'm british, which means two major political parties (both useless) two intermediate parties - whoshout a bit, but never really do much in parliment,and a host of minor parties that never do anything.
And the country is going to pot no less :|
Save This Page
Another idea: what if we had politicians who speak their minds, instead of being in thrall to parties? Voters could make decisions based on what the opinions of the people.
That probably wouldn't give the candidates an efficient enough means of getting money, though.