the king must die! (or, what's the point of the two party system?)

[MST3Kakalina]

now, today was primaries in the area for me. maybe this was a national thing, i don't know, but whatever.

i have no idea if this is another national thing, but you apparently are not allowed to vote for representatives in the primaries <b>if you are not registered as a Democrat or Republican.</b> yes, i understand that it's picking the people who will represent <b>your party</b>, but isn't that concept in and of itself bullshit? i don't want a candidate representing a party; i want a candidate that i think represents what <i>i</i> think is the ideal for the county controller or DA or whatever. it's still something that affects me (or well, it would if i lived here most of the year), but i don't get a say in the initial round of choosing because i don't suck partisan cock? what gives?

at least that didn't deter me from voting on the referendum (borrowing major $$ to preserve the environment--i voted "yes," just so you know).

do YOU think the two party system is bullshit? why or why not? does it have any redeeming qualities?

[Davey Rootbeer]

Because Person A don't want people from Person B's party to purposely pick the weaker candidate from Person A's election ballot thing, giving Person B's candidate has a better chance of winning.

[Adnama]

what would be redeeming about it? i guess in order for them to get anything done without opposition, everyone has to be on the same party. independent voters make things too complicated. it's much easier to act on a political agenda when less people are there to say that you're wrong.
not that this is redeeming or anything.

[MST3Kakalina]

Because Person A don't want people from Person B's party to purposely pick the weaker candidate from Person A's election ballot thing, giving Person B's candidate has a better chance of winning.


couldn't that...still happen anyway? or is streamlining the <s>bullshit</s> party process more important than heeding the voice of the people?

:: really, really annoyed ::

or i could just switch my affilliation to Republicrat and quit my bitchin'.


BUT IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.

[Davey Rootbeer]

The two-party system was designed to offer checks and balances of power, and avoid extremism on either side. While it's good in theory, in actuality, the two-party system pretty much screws over the common american by both sides becoming TOO general and trying to appeal to as many people as possible. it's a delecate balance.

I would say a three-party system might prove to be better.

[exemplary citizen]

Technically, we HAVE a three party system. It's just that the third party candidate is regularly a joke. Poor Ralph. When will he get his day in the sun, huh?

I don't know if it works this way any where else, but I was able to vote in either major party's primary registered as an Independant a while back. Or did I just break some major rule and not even know about it?


This epoxy putty smells like peanut butter. I should probably be wearing gloves while I'm handling this, though. Oh well. One more brick in the road to cancer-ridden sterility for me.

[töm]

The two-party system is designed to keep itself afloat for as long as possible. There are three kinds of primaries you ought to know about as a responsible citizen of this Grand Old Nation. You didn't read the instruction manual?

<b>Closed Primaries:</b> One can only vote if they are of a political party. They can only vote for people who share their party affiliation. This tends to strengthen party power and allegiance, and is, as such, the most common type of primary.

<b>Open Primaries:</b> When one gets to the polling location, they choose whether to vote for Republican candidates or Democrat candidates. This is found in SOME states, but not so many.

<b>Blanket Primaries:</b> This is the kind of primary that would make Miss Koba SO HAPPY. But most of them have been found to be illegal. Basically, you go to the primary and you can vote for ANYONE. You can vote for a republican senatorial candidate and a democrat gubernatorial candidate. Or anything really. This weakens party strength and many versions of it have been declared unconstitutional. I'm not sure if it exists in any states currently.


Two parties. Two thumbs down.

[KLEIN]

The two party system was never designed. The founding fathers thought parties were caused by and were the cause of factionalism, which they hated.

I don't know what your problem with this is, koba. There's no reason why democrats would allow republicans to pick their candidates, and vice versa.

[Forever Finite]

i am willing to guess that mandatory party registration may have to do with <I>forecasting the weather</i>, if you catch my drift. and i think you do.

[Ravenous Monkey]

Iowa and NH decide who will be a party's candidate anyway. This (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2004primaries1.html) shows that as the primaries and caucuses progress, the candidate picked by Iowa and NH gains more of a percentage of votes.

For me, it doesn't matter as I'm a NY state resident and we have closed primaries (and we're a reliably blue state), but more to the point, we're 27th in line to cast our vote, by then the candidate for the presidential election is pretty much guaranteed regardless of whether I wanted another candidate or whether the Republican's wanted to screw things over.

PA is 43rd in line.

So, our voices don't really matter.

[argonaut]

I dunno about Iowa and New Hampshire actually picking the candidates (wasn't Clinton a latecomer?), but they do have a very disportionate say.

I saw an article earlier this week, about both parties looking to restructure the way primaries are held. The most popular alternative was to have four primary election days, with one region of the country (NE, NW, SE, SW) voting on each day. The order in which the regions voted would rotate from one election to the next. Then both Iowa and NH had hissy fits over it, so they changed it to the regional format, but those states still go first in order to 'honor tradition'.

I don't think political parties are bad per se. But I would like to see a few more rise to the level of the two major ones. You'd have a much better chance of a party espousing your personal ideology, and on the whole I think the process would be a lot more democratic. But don't hold your breath. The system has evolved in such a way as to make the status quo very hard to break. Those in power write their own rules, and the influence of the two major parties is such that it's difficult for anyone else to gain any traction.

(edit) I checked on the '92 primaries. Harkin won in Iowa, and Tsongas won New Hampshire. Clinton sort of hung around until he won Illinois, and his candidacy took off from there.

[leatherface]

I really don't like either of the two main parties. It seems to me that the Rebulicans want to turn the U.S. into a sickeningly sterile version of the taliban ran Middle-East, while the democrats want to turn the U.S. into some awkward hellhole, where people never leave their homes in fear of violating some new "political corectness" law.

Republican Theocratic Nationalist Fascism, or Whiny Democrat socialism fueled by political insecurity? Not really an easy choice.

[Ravenous Monkey]

I didn't know about the '92 primaries. But, why can't they just have one day for primaries, anyway?

[Invader Flak]

I voted yesterday.

Everything I voted for got passed except for the one issue I cared about. I mean, how hard is it to say no to libraries?

[MST3Kakalina]

I didn't know about the '92 primaries. But, why can't they just have one day for primaries, anyway?


they have the old primary system set up because back in the day, the candidates needed that time to get between places to campaign. (or at least, that's what my mom told me)

(and i wasn't talking about presidential primaries. just...regular ones. you know. whatever)