Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is my opinion that neither party is effectively in control of candidates or the government. Special interest groups, primarliy multi-national corporations have taken over the effective control through the simple expediency of purchasing it. If you look at the list of contributors to both parties you will be amazed at the fact that the same names appear on both lists. The cost of running for power, ie; office, is so truly overwhelming that a candidate can not win at a national level without the money pouring in from these special interest. Since the majority of the members of all branches of government are now beholding to these interest, those interest are allowed to set policy and make decisions that support their own interest which is not often the same as the interest of the American people. For that reason I truly believe that 3rd and 4th parties are neccessary if we, the people, are ever to wrest control of our government from these multi national corporations. But, likewise, for that reason, I don't think that those now in power will ever allow additional parties to have equal access to the American voters. They will only allow the parties for which they have bought and paid to continue to do their master's biddings.
LML, I agree 100%. Special interest groups expect some "return" for the money they donate. Most often their interests are not in our interest (meaning the general public). If we do not have a major election reform, I am afraid our elections are becoming a farce.
I think to a certain extent things are still looking better when it comes to local elections. But for example, when we lived in MD, the major contributors to campaigns were real estate developers. Guess what happened every time... the developers got what they asked for, even though residents organized rallies, protests etc. Saw this many, many times. Money talks.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
It can be done, technically, but if we assume a 90 minute (the 2004 length) 'debate' with no commercial interruptions or even any verbiage from the moderator, each candidate would get at most 5 minutes per person, when we have 18 candidates.
Doubling the length of the debate may double that 5 minutes (which is really considerably less), but it would also cost audience.
(I will note that usually the candidates are given time limits in the televised debates. Whether they stick to them is a different question.)
Well, yes. I have endured debates where 16 candidates answered questions such as: "where should the sewage plant be located?"! But it can be done, with proper planning, if that's what people want.
Well, yes. I have endured debates where 16 candidates answered questions such as: "where should the sewage plant be located?"! But it can be done, with proper planning, if that's what people want.
I for one would like the same process for a presidential candidate. I would also insist on candidates answering the question, instead of dancing around it.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
I for one would like the same process for a presidential candidate. I would also insist on candidates answering the question, instead of dancing around it.
Media is dumbing down their questions for candidates. They know that if elected, a candidate can refuse to give those nice exclusive interviews. Recently, this has become a trend. If Cheney/Bush wanted journalists to throw creampuffs at them, they went to Fox. Someone in CNN asks a few questions when you are tap dancing around Palin-related stuff, you cancel the McCain interview. People's reaction - almost half the population is ok with that (apparently). Party politics has come to trump democratic principles. Bush has had less Q&A sessions than most recent presidents. His townhall meetings were with hand-picked audiences. The lack of outcry against such tactics has made the US democracy weaker. In debates, candidates can easily dance around questions- but people think candidates have participated in a "debate" where "talking points" are re-iterated. The number of times a candidate can ask follow-up questions is always very limited - just when things start to get interesting, the plug is pulled.
I have seen some discussions in BBC, and I was impressed. Also impressive was the way their PM has to stand in Parilament and answer questions from the peanut gallery, without being "shielded".
Even still, third parties will have to expect that things will be stacked against them and that they will have to fight to gain national attention in a meaningful way. No one is going to help them do this, they have to take it. Having been part of a third party candidates bid for the White House, I have seen what it takes in order to "get there".
....
Since the Rep-Dem divide is closer to 50-50 and not 25-75, this has the potential to give even a small third party both clout and national visibility. They will not win the presidential elections now- this is the wrong hope for now. A better approach would be to get a few seats in the House/Senate and become the "swing" vote in an almost-equally divided Congress. This will give the 3rd party high visibility and strike fear in the 2 parties. Many people are very dissatisfied and they will see this 3rd party as a breath of fresh air. With time, who knows, they may even have someone successfully run for president.
Both parties know there is not much difference between them - both are understandably campaigning on "change". Yeah right!
I find myself wondering why we, the American people, appear to be almost complicit in the loss of our own republic. The frustration I feel toward those in government who betray our trust is equaled by the frustration I feel toward those who do not seem to understand that our precious republic is going, going, almost gone. Why has this happened? Here are some of my guesses.
1. If civics is taught at all anymore, the majority appear not to pay attention. It seems fewer and fewer citizens know or understand our constitution, the branches of government, the history of our country, the Federalist papers, the reasoning behind why our government is set up as it is, etc.
2. The divide and conquer manipulation has worked very well. Those who would rule us know well that it is much easier to do so if we are kept focused on our differences rather than on our common good. They have taught us that, if anyone differs from us in any opinion, they are our enemy and there can be no compromise with the enemy. We are kept focused most often on items of private life decisions that really have no impact on the governing of our country and people are led to believe that their very freedom and/or faith are endangered by the views of those with whom they differ. All the while those things that actually impact on our government are ignored by the public and taken over by those special interest groups who are paying off our politicians.
3. The media is now, for the most part, owned by those same multi national companies who have bought and paid for our politicians so we can not wonder that they are not doing their job of keeping the public informed of what is really going on behind the scenes.
I am of the opinion that the biggest problem with third parties is that they shoot for the top right off the bat. Greens, Constitutionalists, Libertarians (to a lesser degree), and so forth... all aim for the Presidency.
To be an effective party they have to develop infrastructure, fill seats in the houses of state governments, county, and even dog catcher, before they even think of attempting to run for the big chair in the White House.
As Calmdude pointed out and I agree with, third parties do not have to win the election for President to be an effective party in the interim, holding as much as 10-15% of the general populations vote would be sufficient to force the other parties to alter how they do business.
An example would be this current election where both parties are doing their best to court that small percentile that has yet to decide. Hypothetically, if they were a uniformed party, they would choose our next President for us, even if they didn't have one of their own.
The current crop of 3rd parties (Greens etc) is unlikely to have the "critical mass" needed to have an impact. A successful 3rd party formed by a handful of "middle-of-the-road sane breakaway" dems or reps may have more impact. At least these people are known quantities to their constituency and this can result as a few seats in the Congress. Once elected, if they stay true to their election promises, things could start to change on a larger level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
