Nader's statement has haunted me - Are we political slaves to a two party system?

[debbierlus]

(Please note - I realize that we must vote Obama for this election cycle, if for nothing else then to staunch the bleeding - this post is a reflection of how we approach politics in the future, and how we break a very destructive cycle)...

FISA telecom immunity - approved

Porter Goss appointed to the head the Congressional Ethics Oversight Committee

Caving on off-shore drilling

Impeachment off the table

No meaningful action against Rove

I really confronted this when I tried to make a video for the Youtube contest 'Why I am a democrat in 08'...And, I tried. And, I just couldn't articulate a reason other then 'Republicans are worse'. (This does NOT diminish the work of the few true progressive democrats in Congress, my goal thus far has been to work to replace DINOS with real progressive representatives). I tried to talk about health care for all, but the dems don't have a plan that will provide this care. Mandated health insurance doesn't work, it will just drain billions from the system until it can't be sustained (I live in MA, & that is what is happening here with mandated insurance). I tried to talk about economic solutions - and then I thought about Obama's completely absurd idea of a 1000.00 dollar emergency rebate. And, then I thought about what I would like to see in my government for a moment -

Single Payer Universal Health Care

Four year college education for all

Decriminalization of Pot, the dismantling of the Prison Industrial Complex, and the replacement of imprisonment for drug offenses outside of MAJOR dealing of hard street drugs with treatment programs.

Ending of NAFTA

Ending of No Child Left Behind

Full Backing of Gore's plan to end dependency on Carbon based emissions in 10 years

Criminalization of Loan Shark Practices by Credit Card Companies

Taking back the people's airwaves and deconsolidating media

Internet access for All

Advocacy for Peace and the standing up for human rights across the Globe -

I think about all of the good things government could bring to the masses, & I see little to none actually materalizing.

I watch this election, and I know that the people get the politicians they deserve. I am wondering at what point do the people break away from the two party system that no longer represents their interests. When do we say enough? I really don't know. Obama's voting yes on FISA and his caving on off-shore drilling are very hard for me to overlook. I see that and I don't see any real change. These are the principles that matter. And, he isn't even President yet. Will he have to sell his soul for this seat? And, if he does, what use will he be in leading this country in the darkest time in history? And, do we sell our own souls' everytime we accept another betrayal from our leadership? When do we become like the Republicans we have lambasted for their support of a criminal leader?

Other then Kucinich, Waxman and a few others, I feel as if I have NO representation of leadership in our Federal government.

Yes, I will vote Democratic this November. I don't know what else to do but hope that Obama gets a veto proof majority and the dems can then transform the country. But, what happens if they get the power and nothing really changes? What do we do as citizens? How do we take our government back?

[NNN0LHI]

1. People who continue to quote nuts like Nader haunt me

[debbierlus]

4. I think the statement has merit - it isn't about Nader - he is just who said it

[defendandprotect]

18. Yeah . . . let's not credit Nader . . .

what a frightening thought ---

how dare anyone acknowledge that he has pretty much given us the basis for every

understanding of government we have today --- on each and every issue ---

and many that still haven't even been given any attention --

[debbierlus]

29. This isn't about Nader -

He made a pertinent statement and I reflected on the statement.

This post is about the statement, not the man - my intention isn't to stir up a emotional debate over Nader. The whole point
of the post gets lost, if we just go back & forth about him. There have been tons of threads talking about Nader and whether he offers a positive or negative influence over politics.

[defendandprotect]

34. If you notice, you have elicited ....

negative comments --

and I've replied ---

I understand what you're saying --- and of course Nader isn't the only person who

has made this clear ---

[Runcible Spoon]

31. gee what a surprise coming from you

:eyes:

Satan could have said that bit about slavery to two systems, and he would have been correct.

[The Gunslinger]

62. Nader has more democratic ideals than Obama

He would not cave to the rightists like Obama. I wish he was a viable candidate. As of now, the only reason for me to vote for Obama is to watch the right wing MSM scream and whine for four years.

[rhett o rick]

67. Ralph Nader isn't a nut. Most of what he says is right on. Our two party system is sick and needs

to be fixed. The repukes are corrupt but the Democrats haven't seemed to want to do much about it.

[G_j]

2. Nader didn't have to say it, most folks with any awareness

can see that

[defendandprotect]

19. ...but they certainly don't ACT as though they "can see that" . . . !!!

Knowing something and understanding it well enough to act on it and do something

about it are two different things ---

They're two different levels of "knowing" ---

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. I' m not.

I'm a lifelong, registered, Democrat that votes issues.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Mz Pip]

5. We have more than two parties

and I do believe if any of these parties offered a viable alternative to what the Democrats or the Republicans have to offer they would get more traction. Perot did really well in 1992, far better than anyone really expected. He might have actually won if he hadnt' come off as such a flake at the end.

The problem is, these other parties appeal to only to small slices of the electorate. Come up with a platform that offers a broad appeal and one of them might take off.

[EFerrari]

7. Not in the current system of campaign fundng. And using Perot

as an example, didn't he spend a great deal of his $ on that campaign?

[MonkeyFunk]

93. It's less about funding

than the inherent nature of winner-take-all elections. Any third party will split one side, handing victory to the other side.

Getting 49% of the vote gives you 0% of the power.

[Peregrine]

8. Why does it make sense to build a 3rd party from the top?

When a 3rd party starts electing members to state legislatures and then Congress, then I'll pay attention to them. A party that just runs a person for president is based on egos and has nothing to offer.

[Mz Pip]

12. That's a good point

A few years ago we had a Green Party candidate win a state office. After she was in office she changed her party affiliation to Democratic. Then she lost her re election bid.

Money is an issue and Perot did put a lot of his own money in.

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. but no other party *can be viable

not in media time, funding, or even getting on the ballot.
It doesn't matter what the candidates offer.

If what you say really were the case we should see a reasonable number of these 'other parties' holding lower offices ... and we don't.
For a variety of reasons our politicians are almost exclusively Democrat or Republican.
This is exactly what is meant by being "prisoners of a 2 party system"


on edit:
typos

[defendandprotect]

20. . . . the two parties have pretty much blocked third parties . . .

so -- NO -- we don't have more than two parties --

and the fact that NADER was kept out of the debates ---

and that, generally, other third parties are kept out of the debates is proof of that ---

For cripes sakes we had KUCINICH kept out of the Democratdic debates --- !!!!

And in the end, EDWARDS was being ignored ---

and threatened for his "populist" comments -- !!!!

What planet are you living on?


We don't know who these parties might "appeal to" because they are barely heard --

And, obviously, you probably aren't even aware of the Nader platform nor have a clue

what it might say --- but it's a dream platform -- involving every issue -- and more!

[PsN2Wind]

60. You seem to have bought into the medias contention

that Ross Perot was "a flake".
If you recall, Perot dropped out for a period of time because he said he had information that the Bush people were going to disrupt his daughters wedding. The media then set out to marginalize him by accusing him of paranoia and of being a flake because the media, and it would appear you and many others, knew the Bush family as a selfless family of public servants that would not stoop to dirty tricks just to try and win a presidency.

[LostInAnomie]

6. In truth, yes we are.

The interests of the common people have no voice in our government. They never will either, until we are able to get money out of politics. The chances of our money grubbing representatives voting against their own self interest are slim to none.

Right now, we have a system where one group of crooks watches the backs of another group of crooks. Sure, they fight over trivial issues that distract us, but never over anything that actually would make a difference to the common citizen.

[greendog]

9. We are political slaves to the corporate media.

Politicians use corporate money to buy time on corporate media to ask us for support of the corporate agenda.

When we stop being available to the corporate media the politicians will have to find find other ways to reach us.

>First thing we do is develop non-corporate content on the internet. We've started doing that.

>Second thing we do is turn our backs on the corporate media. Unfortunately, many of us are still addicted to corporate programming.

[defendandprotect]

22. Excellent point --- don't watch TV --- and who watches those idiotic political ads?????

Forget TV "news" --- rely on the progressive organizations to get word when something

really outrageous is going on so that you can respond ---

And . . . why watch political ads --- ??

"Media" gets 80% of the candidates' money for these ads!!!

And the more money they give media the better they're treated!

[elleng]

10. Nader's been right

about a lot of things for a long time.

[defendandprotect]

23. Absolutely . . . and if we're going to figure out way out of this dark alley . ..

he'll be helping us do it ---

IN FACT, Randi Rhodes came out this year for our need to block this two-party hold ---

and said ... AFTER the win in '08 . . . we would have to start raising third parties

and getting serious about using them to break up the corporate hold on the two parties.

I don't think she's going to change her mind on this ---

She's awakened ---



Again . . . many of us "known" this intellectually --- but few of us are acting on ways

to break up this two-party hold ---

And, it's corporate power we're fighting ---

We have to get corporations barred from any participation whatsoever in our elections!!!

[hfojvt]

13. the statement seems to me as moronic as its author

What is that supposed to mean? What's a political slave? Somebody who won't vote for an a$$hat like Nader?

A statement like "nothing really changes" is too hyperbolic to me. So if the Bush tax cuts expire and the tax system becomes a little bit more progressive, then has nothing changed? Nothing? Or nothing really?

Go back to the election that Nader was so determined to throw to George W. Bush. If Gore had been President from 2001 to now, would nothing have really changed? Maybe a million Iraqis would still be alive, but nothing would really have changed, right? NCLB, which is on your list, might not have been passed, but nothing would really change, right?

Of the ten things on your list, I would disagree with some of them, and not include others on my own list of ten. Number 2, for example, a four year college education for all. What is the point of that? Is that gonna be mandatory? We already have more college graduates than we have jobs that utilize a college degree. Three of the five janitors were I work have college degrees.

I am not sure this is the darkest time in our history. What I am sure is that Ralph mofo Nader definitely helped to make it darker. Because one step forward is not the same as two steps back and Ralph is just a whiny two year old throwing his juice cup on his older brother's novel on a 6000 mile road trip as he screams in a tantrum, 'are we there yet?' Way to help the forward progress Ralph.

[defendandprotect]

24. Let me suggest to you that anger often blocks learning . . .

and that the creation of anger is often done -- i.e., "scapegoating" --- to keep you from
seeing what's actually going on.

Obviously, the basis for your anger is 2000 --

So try to absorb this --- GORE WON in 2000 -- no matter how the votes are counted --

and he WON in Florida --

Now reflect on this . . .

More than 300,000 "DEMOCRATS" in Florida voted for Bush --
More than 6,000 votes were taken by Libertarians and Socialists --
More than 3,000 votes were taken by Buchanan because of the "butterfly ballot" designed by Dems --

More than 600 ILLEGAL military ballots were counted for Bush ---

Add to that the GOP's fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs to stop the recount
ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court -- not interferred with by police --

And the final Supreme Court Decision by the Gang of 5 to give W the Oval Office ---

If you are at all smart, you'll rethink who it is sending you off to hate Nader.


There's much more to be said about your other ideas here ---
but I'll skip that for now --

the statement seems to me as moronic as its author
What is that supposed to mean? What's a political slave? Somebody who won't vote for an a$$hat like Nader?

A statement like "nothing really changes" is too hyperbolic to me. So if the Bush tax cuts expire and the tax system becomes a little bit more progressive, then has nothing changed? Nothing? Or nothing really?

Go back to the election that Nader was so determined to throw to George W. Bush. If Gore had been President from 2001 to now, would nothing have really changed? Maybe a million Iraqis would still be alive, but nothing would really have changed, right? NCLB, which is on your list, might not have been passed, but nothing would really change, right?

Of the ten things on your list, I would disagree with some of them, and not include others on my own list of ten. Number 2, for example, a four year college education for all. What is the point of that? Is that gonna be mandatory? We already have more college graduates than we have jobs that utilize a college degree. Three of the five janitors were I work have college degrees.

I am not sure this is the darkest time in our history. What I am sure is that Ralph mofo Nader definitely helped to make it darker. Because one step forward is not the same as two steps back and Ralph is just a whiny two year old throwing his juice cup on his older brother's novel on a 6000 mile road trip as he screams in a tantrum, 'are we there yet?' Way to help the forward progress Ralph.
"Almost 96% of the tax cut resulting from repeal (of the AMT) would goto the top quintile and 80% would goto the top tenth."

[hfojvt]

37. it's a conspiracy, eh?

Somebody wants me to hate Nader. Because that means I will work to elect Democrats, which is, of course, just what they want. :crazy:

Arrogance blocks learning too, it seems. "try to absorb this" "if you are at all smart"

You really might have convinced me, if only you'd talked down to me a little more. Something like this:

"Three of the five janitors were (sic) I work have college degrees."

and I'm supposed to believe you are one of them :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

47. If Democrats not working to ensure that we don't have future steals . . .

is a conspiracy --- then, "YES" . . .

It is Nader who has sued -- not Dems ---

Somebody simply wants you to wake up in regard to 527 votes in Florida ---

and the fact that GORE won ---

That's OLD information which you don't seem to have ---

So -- sorry for insulting you ---

and, yes, I see your continuing need to ignore what actually went on ---

Just in case you don't remember . . .

More than 300,000 "DEMOCRATS" in Florida voted for Bush --
More than 6,000 votes were taken by Libertarians and Socialists --
More than 3,000 votes were taken by Buchanan because of the "butterfly ballot" designed by Dems --

More than 600 ILLEGAL military ballots were counted for Bush ---

Add to that the GOP's fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs to stop the recount
ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court -- not interferred with by police --

And the final Supreme Court Decision by the Gang of 5 to give W the Oval Office ---






it's a conspiracy, eh?
Somebody wants me to hate Nader. Because that means I will work to elect Democrats, which is, of course, just what they want.

Arrogance blocks learning too, it seems. "try to absorb this" "if you are at all smart"

You really might have convinced me, if only you'd talked down to me a little more. Something like this:

"Three of the five janitors were (sic) I work have college degrees."

and I'm supposed to believe you are one of them

[debbierlus]

32. Again, this isn't about Nader. This is about democrats being corrupted by the system

Porter Goss to chair the Congressional Ethics Oversite Committee by a democratic majority leader?

The Iraq war lives on - funded by the dems who will not say no to Bush. The Dems sold the soul of the party with the FISA vote. And, Obama is caving to the democratic leadership pressure - how does that bode for our future?

Look, I preempted the post stating that we should vote Obama. However, if the type of betrayal from the party continues to occur, at what point do we say 'ENOUGH'?

[hfojvt]

43. my post was not all about Nader either

perhaps the OP could be done without mentioning this millenium's traitor a$$wipe of the galaxy.

"At what point do we say enough?"

Say enough and do what? Vote 3rd party and pat ourselves on the back for being a purist as Republicans win all the elections? Support DFA or PDA?

Those who say enough still need to find something constructive to do and old Ralph Malph is not offering anything there. Just chiding people for refusing to shoot themselves in the foot again.

[defendandprotect]

50. It is about being betrayed by Democrats . . .

And I think we have to say "enough" in regard to the vile emotional anger towards Nader ---
who had nothing to do with the GOP steal ---

Wake up!

Obviously, the basis for your anger is 2000 --

So try to absorb this --- GORE WON in 2000 -- no matter how the votes are counted --

and he WON in Florida --

Now reflect on this . . .

More than 300,000 "DEMOCRATS" in Florida voted for Bush --
More than 6,000 votes were taken by Libertarians and Socialists --
More than 3,000 votes were taken by Buchanan because of the "butterfly ballot" designed by Dems --

More than 600 ILLEGAL military ballots were counted for Bush ---

Add to that the GOP's fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs to stop the recount
ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court -- not interferred with by police --

And the final Supreme Court Decision by the Gang of 5 to give W the Oval Office ---

[hfojvt]

54. is there an echo in here?

There's no need for you to repeat what I consider to be spurious arguments. Nor for me to repeat what you would consider to be spurious arguments about the actions of Nader and other supposed leftists like Alexander Cockburn prior to the 2000 election.

Ultimately, one way or the other, Democrats have been beatened and weakened in the last 8 years and Ralph has been part of the problem.

[defendandprotect]

55. That's puerile nonsense --

Again . . . you have to ignore everything I've said to you to suggest that Nader took
votes from Gore ---

AND, ignore that GORE WON IN FLORIDA AND WON OVERALL . . .

It was a STEAL . . . about which Democrats continue to do little ---

[defendandprotect]

48. . . . . but it is about leaders having the courage to point this out --- !!!

[texasleo]

14. We can have two parties, or just one.

[ulysses]

30. two would be nice,

but I'm not getting my hopes too high just yet.

[ShadowLiberal]

15. Take a look back at 1912 to see why we're stuck

The 1912 presidential election shows exactly why we're stuck in a 2 party system.

Theodore Roosevelt had just served as president for nearly 8 years when Taft succeeded him in 1908. Roosevelt was a very progressive guy when it came to the economy, he was prolabor unions, proworkers, antimonopoly, and very popular with the common people. Taft however proved to be very prorich and probig business and antiunion/workers.

After nearly 4 years of Taft rule Theodore Roosevelt had had enough, and ran against him for the Republican nomination. Unfortunately for Roosevelt he waited too long to jump into the race, jumping in after most of the party bosses (who decided the nominations back then) had already promised Taft the nomination. Because of this Theodore Roosevelt, who was more popular with the people then Taft, lost the nomination.

Theodore Roosevelt didn't stop there however, he decided to make a third party run against Taft. This allowed Woodrow Wilson to easily become the first democrat in a few decades to win the presidentcy.

Theodore Roosevelt got shot a few months before the election, and while the wound wasn't fatal, it caused him to become too ill to campaign in the last few months of the campaign. On election day Wilson won all but like 10 states, Taft won like two or three, and Roosevelt won the rest. Wilson only won like 42% of the popular vote, but he still crushed both Taft and Roosevelt, and Taft became the first and only incumbent president to finish in third place in a presidential election, he lost to Roosevelt in both the popular and electoral vote.

But basicly, my point is if two parties are too close together, and another one is very different, then the different party is probably going to win, even if they can only get like 40% of the nation to vote for them.

[cobalt1999]

21. You nailed it.

A successful progressive (or Green) party would ensure Republican domination.

[defendandprotect]

26. Not if we had IRV voting --- and I can't believe that so few here seem to understand it -- ??!!

[defendandprotect]

25. Teddy Roosevelt called for "barring corporations from any participation whatsoever in our elections"

[followthemoney]

63. If the two parties were more concerned with the public interest...

rather than interested only in filling public offices with their own party members they could change election laws to make themselves more accountable to the public.

The two parties write the election laws in the guise of our elected officials. Why would they change the system that successfully put them into office? Why would they act in the public interest at their own expense?

I anticipate statements to the effect that the constitution prevents this change. The constitution has been a dead letter for years. It is now conveniently brought up only when it is useful to block the public interest.

Perhaps only a major defeat like Japan endured or a collapse like the Soviet Union has had can possibly bring a change from this failure to a functional and effective constitution.

[hfojvt]

78. that summary isn't very fair to Taft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft#Policies

"Taft fought for the prosecution of trusts (eventually issuing 80 lawsuits),<9> further strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission, established a postal savings bank and a parcel post system, and expanded the civil service. He supported the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a federal income tax, and the 17th Amendment, mandating the direct election of senators by the people, replacing the previous system whereby they were selected by state legislatures."

Also, there was a fairly strong 4th party candidate in 1912, Eugene V. Debs. Although he only got 5.99% of the total vote and no electoral votes, he outpolled Taft in a few states, like California, where he got 11.68% to Taft's .58%. And Arizona, where he got 13.33% to 12.74% for Taft. He came in 2nd in Florida, beating Roosevelt and Taft, although it was a very distant 2nd, since Wilson got 69.52% to 9.45% for Debs. Other strange results were - Roosevelt got zero votes, none, in the state of Oklahoma, and Taft got zero votes in South Dakota.

The sad thing, to me, about multi-party races in a winner-take-all system is the way it seemingly disenfranchises the vast majority. Wilson can win Massachusetts by 35.53-29.14-31.95-2.58 and even though almost 65% voted for 'not Wilson' Wilson is still the winner getting all 18 electoral votes.

[clear eye]

80. This could be predictive of what will happen in Florida's CD 19

where Rep. Robert Wexler, one of the seven who is cosponsoring Kucinich's impeachment bill (HR 1258) is being challenged by both a Republican and an "independent Democrat".

Thanks for the history lesson.

[dbt]

16. Yes, we are--slaves to the ILLUSION.

I, along with several other DUers who know much more than me (and who NEVER hesitate to show up to save me from my delusions; they'll be along any minute now) USED to think that the tinfoil types who ran around preaching "there's no difference between the two parties" belonged in a padded room.

Then I got to watching our "Democrats" give bu$hler EVERYTHING HE WANTED. I was even subjected to the indignity of Blanche Lincoln (DINO-Ark) sending me letters that contained the phrase "I am proud to stand with our President."

If there IS any difference between the Democrats and the Republics, it is this: The Republics are WAY more used to being bought off than the Democrats are. But all the Democrats need is MORE TIME.

:tinfoilhat:
dbt

[Beam Me Up]

17. It's not that there "is no difference," clearly there is.

The question is, is it a difference that makes a difference?, and my answer to that is resoundingly NO!

If we can't change the fundamental disparity in power between the wealthy few and the rest of us, then what is the real difference?

No tin-foil needed.

[defendandprotect]

28. Basically, what you're doing is asking elites in the Democratic Party to save you from . . .

the elites --- !!!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

35. Democrats throw us a few scraps in terms of domestic issues, but the big daddy issues..

like global hegemony and neoliberal capitalism, there is essentially no difference between 99% of Dems and Pukes. Those issues affect everything and everyone's way of life, here and abroad. You will never see anyone in high office, Dem or Repub, who will truly challenge the stranglehold of the plutocracy. What we need is a complete restructuring of corporate practices, and get big money the fuck out of politics. Period. I don't see that many politicians lined up to bite the hand that feeds them until they're obese on wealth.

The illusion of choice is correct. Any rights we still have left were either deemed not worth abolishing (such as abortion-neocons really don't give a shit, trust me. It's a political wedge issue and that's about it). What you think of as freedom of speech and media is really an ongoing orgy of entertainment and infotainment parading as news and relevant cultural critique. There are some artists who speak their minds, but really our population is so domesticated we would never get riled up over a revolutionary essay or a controversial painting. That's how fundies react, and they're only as good to the plutocracy in terms of how much money and fear they can raise up. Again, neocons don't really believe in End Times, but if it can function as a convenient metaphor for scaring people into complacency, so be it.

The country I love is being ruled by the most dangerous criminals in the history of humanity.

[debbierlus]

68. Excellent response.

[barbtries]

90. that was well put

dark days indeed.

[Runcible Spoon]

33. I'm completely with you...gird your loins and prepare to get lambasted you "purity troll"

signed,

Farce, another "purity troll" who wants accountability and representation in government. I know, revolutionary stuff :eyes:

[varelse]

36. Yes, we are.

I may be voting for "the Democrat" in November, but that doesn't mean I can't see the trap we've fallen into.

[Disturbed]

38. Yes we are trapped in a Two Party System even though

there are many American Political Parties. The two Parties made sure that they are dominant on the National System. Changes could be made but they are blocked.

The Electoral System

Repeal the 12th amendment, reforming the electoral college, standardizing party qualifications in the states, qualified and free access to public airwaves.

1.Uniform Ballot Access
2.Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
3.Universal Voter Registration
4.Election Day Holiday
5.Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
6.Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
7.Secure Voting Machines
8.Public Campaign Financing
9.Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
10.Congressional Representation


But the Commission on Presidential Debates -- set up 13 years ago by the two major parties and amply funded by large corporations -- knows what's best for its backers. The commission is insisting on a strict 15-percent-in-the-polls threshold for participation, a requirement that seems sure to limit the debates to Bush and Gore.

Despite its civic-minded pose, the commission has always been looking out for the interests of the Democratic and Republican parties. It arrived on the political scene in 1987 to hijack the nation's presidential debates -- while ousting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters, a group viewed by the major parties' hierarchies as insufficiently subservient to their desires. At the outset, a New York Times headline got it right: "Democrats and Republicans Form Panel to Hold Presidential Debates."

[OnionPatch]

39. Thanks, I think you've got the idea.

When I see Ralph Nader champion these causes instead of helping Republicans by running for president every year, then I'll respect him a whole lot more.

[defendandprotect]

41. More Nader ignorance . . .

Wake up --

GORE WON 2000 no matter how you count the votes ---
and he won Florida, though . . .

More than 300,000 "DEMOCRATS" voted for Bush
More than 6,000 votes were taken by Libertarians and Socialists --
More than 3,000 votes went to Buchanan on the "butterfly ballot" designed by Democrats ---

More than 600 ILLEGAL military ballots were counted for Bush ---

GOP fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs to STOP the vote count ordered by the
Florida State Supreme Court --- with no interference by police.

Supreme Court - Gang of 5 -- awarded Oval Office to W ---

Meanwhile, Democrats have done very little to improve our electiosn ---
Nader has sued to improve them -- you might catch up with that, as well ---

[OnionPatch]

58. I agree that Al Gore won. That doesn't change the fact

that when Nader runs, he helps the Republicans by taking away votes from the "less than evil" party. I don't blame Nader for that, only for not admiting that it's a problem. I also agree the Dems need to do more but as long as there is no IRV, those of us who are practical are stuck voting for the Democrats no matter how many Ralph Naders are running to choose from. The system is broken and my point was that Nader isn't really doing anything constructive to change it by running for president every four years. Except maybe making people more aware of our dysfunctional election system.

[varelse]

46. This badly needs to be an OP

Please consider re-posting it as a new thread?

*begs*

[defendandprotect]

42. So --- OKay . . . let's talk about that more . . . We need IRV voting . . .

most other countries are using it ---

And we need to keep the Dems and Repugs from their private control of our elections ---

and their blocking of third parties ---

Talk it all up --- keep at it!

[LWolf]

40. Yes.

To answer your question, yes, we are political slaves to a two-party system, and will be as long as we continue to work for that system.

[KG]

44. yes.

[ZombieHorde]

45. Are we political slaves to a two party system?

Only if you don't like either party.

[Desertrose]

49. Of course we are.

If we weren't, there would be other real options, wouldn't there?


As it is we are kept very nicely distracted by the polarity of R vs D when in reality...its all about the very wealthy running the show to best keep them in control.

Step out of the box and it is very apparent- especially these days.

[Vinca]

51. Since we don't have a parliamentary system of government,

we're pretty much stuck with 2 parties. That's not slavery, it's how our government was fashioned. Ralph's looking for camera time.

[comrade snarky]

77. Yep

I know this is heresy but ours isn't the best, most democratic political system. Maybe that's why it seems like most people setting up democratic governments for the past 100 years have gone with a parliamentary system instead. Ours was built with input from some people who did not trust the "rabble". Hell, we didn't even have direct election of senators for the first 100 years or so.

Of course the only way to fix it now is to have another revolution or call a constitutional convention. Revolutions aren't nice, lots of people will die and the wrong side may win so that's out. A constitutional convention is enough to give me the cold sweats since I know some people will want Newt Gingrich involved. *shudder*

Looks like were going to have to muddle along like we always have. Maybe if enough people try to move a party in the right direction it will have an effect. I know it doesn't have the satisfaction of sniping from the sidelines but it's better than the alternatives if you want to do more than get on TV.

[eridani]

81. Yep. And with parliamentary systems you generally get center/left or

--center/right coalitions. With a 2 party system, the coalition thing gets done before the election.

[GeorgeGist]

52. What Nader couldn't tell you is that ...

"we THE people" are to blame for the collective ignorance of "the us GOVERNMENT".

[Disturbed]

53. I am conflicted about Nada because I agree with almost

everything that he says. I don't like his tactics but he does have the right to run for the Pres. job. People are not forced to vote for him. I feel that he has been scapegoated for the Gore fiasco. The Dems & Gore were much more responsible for the fiasco as was the RWing assholes & the SC, esp. Justice O'Conner.

[HEyHEY]

56. yes

[DutchLiberal]

57. A short answer to your question: DUH... er, I mean: YES.

As long as there are only two parties, the interests of the people will *never* be served. Because what happens when your Democratic candidate is disappointing you on all the major issues? What are you going to do? Vote Nader and let a Republican win? No! So you hold your nose and vote for the Democrat after all. And they KNOW this, and they know THAT'S why they can permit it to keep screwing over the regular Joe's.

[Muttocracy]

59. with presidential instead of parliamentary system, yes. But any notion that only 2 parties

can represent the diverse political beliefs of 300 million people is crazy.

[MicaelS]

61. People can have viable "third parties" anytime they want.

They just have to get out and work hard enough for them. The fact we don't have anything more than the current majority two party system is hard evidence that third parties are the dwelling place of radical or fringe elements in this society.

[depakid]

64. Wrong. The current system is structurally rigged

by the influence of corporate money (which has been equated with "free" speech by the Supreme Court). It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change. So long as that's the case, not onlt will there be only two ruling parties- but on most major issues, there won't be all that much difference between them.

Neither party will ever allow that reform (nor will it allow other electoral reforms that might accomplish the same goal, such as Instant Runoff Voting and/or proportional representation).

[MicaelS]

66. If you believe that..

Then work for a Constitutional Amendment if you are so adamant about third parties. That fact that there are no serious movements for ANY Constitutional Amendment shows just how hard that would be. There isn't any issue the American people feel strongly enough about to amend the Constitution.

[depakid]

70. Not possible in 21st Century America

absent an economic collapse that results in some form of decentralization, there's no way to overcome the legislative and statehouse supermajority requirements in the Amendment process.

Sorry to say- but that's probably exactly what's going to happen, because the two party system is too corrupt and impotent to respond to those conditions as they unfold. As the Chinese curse goes- the next decade is going to ential "interesting times."

[iconicgnom]

65. Great and timely topic!

First, just noting the self-evident, that individual non-aligned candidates, Nader, Perot, Bloomberg, etc. are not "parties", they're personalities - and supporting one of these is perfectly fine, if the candidate is good, but does nothing to break the two party "good/bad cop" monopoly on power.

Increasingly I've been wondering exactly WHY it is that US politics is such a longstanding two party game. And it is just a game because the two parties are in essential agreement re. core economic and foreign policy ideas, differing only on so-called "values issues". Regardless of Dems or Repubs in power, the same general internal economic policies are pushed, and foreign policy differs only in nuance of presentation. Whether it's Central America, South America, Africa, Asia, whatever, the general policy line is always the same and the Dems and Repubs counterbalance each other in pushing the same wars in the same places, whether directly or thru' mercenaries or thru' economic force of the World Bank or IMF, it's the IDENTICAL THING.

Is there some reason, somehow based in how the US constitution is written, that only a two party system is viable?

Groups like ActBlue have the right idea, in my opinion, but I wonder whether the way they proceed, entirely within the Dem party apparatus, can work? Just by the nature of the game, won't they always be marginalized as representing "the extreme left" in the Dem universe, and compared as if somehow equivalent to "the extreme right" (where nowadays Bush and the neocons are represented as "center right", and movement toward their positions is "movement toward the center"). What's the "center" debating nowadays? How much torture is OK? How to set up a kangaroo court for the lucky few disappeared who're allowed to resurface for a show trial? How many more battalions to put in Afghanistan, and how soon the US should carpet bomb Pakistan? Sigh. I'm just grabbing these examples off the front pages of the MSM election coverage of the '08 debate between "centrist candidates" in the two parties, y'know. Oh yah, I shouldn't forget today's addition to the debate re. "centrist movement", re. just how much more offshore drilling we should allow this year. The question about how much more offshore drilling should be allowed two years down the road being left for the '10 "centrist debate" between the tweedledum tweedledee parties. Always happily "bipartisan", natch.

[Unvanguard]

69. Maybe. But Nader isn't helping. n/t

[mmonk]

71. The answer lately is yes. We are in a sort of trap.

We have to vote against republicans because of what they've done and that leaves Democrats as the only viable alternative, but they have gone along with clear abuses of power and haven't done anything to rectify it.

[Disturbed]

72. The Green Party has tried real hard to change the Electoral

System with little success. They have had successes in local elections, however. The stranglehold of the Natl. Electoral System is too overwhelming to change. I feel that around 80% of Dems at DU & KOS & other liberal sites would vote Green for Senators & Reps if the Electoral System was different.

[mmonk]

73. The two parties control the rules of the game.

Therefore, no other entities can get real penetration, especially when it comes to ballot access in many states.

[iconicgnom]

82. Problem with "Green Party" in my area is it attracts too many single issue thinkers.

And is all over the map for other issues. As if there were no connections, or as if connections between issues weren't important (say, environmentally green connected to universal health care, to national ownership of and regulated extraction of resources, fairer distribution of wealth, of opportunity, and so on).

How could the Natl. Electoral System be made more fair for 3rd and 4th parties?

[ElboRuum]

74. Ask yourself this.

Is Nader hanging his hat on the leadership post?

No?

Then what he says means precisely shit.

[MiniMe]

75. In order to have a viable 3rd party, 3rd party candidates need to start running

for Congress and Senate first. They can win local races. Once they get going in Congress and the Senate, then they can run a viable candidate 3rd party. Running for President every 4 years just isn't going to make it.

[iconicgnom]

83. Yes. Nader running every 4 yrs is just about Nader, not about any 3rd party.

[Skittles]

76. if we weren't, we would have much, much better candidates n/t

[Iggo]

79. Yes we are.

But Nader's way leaves the Constitution-killers in power.

I don't like that way.

[Jim Lane]

84. There's nothing wrong with a two-party system. The question is: Which two parties?

We've had a solidly two-party system, with only a few blips otherwise, since long before campaign financing was so important, since long before there were televised debates that excluded Nader and the dozen other no-hopers running, and since long before universal single-payer health care was even being mentioned.

It stems from the basic setup: If there are single-member districts with plurality elections, there will generally be a two-party system.

With the current electoral setup -- which, Green Party members and others please take note, is not going to change anytime soon because IRV is not even remotely in the offing -- the logic of the two-party system is clear. If, in an election like 2000, you vote for a candidate like Nader or Buchanan, then you give up your chance to influence the outcome. Some progressives forgot this in 2000. Four years of Bush reminded them, which is why Nader's vote plunged in 2004.

This two-party system is OK with me because we have reasonably open primaries. That's how the two major parties get moved to the left or right.

The OP's list of desiderata isn't far from the Kucinich platform. I supported Kucinich but, let's face, most Americans didn't. If there were a huge base of people willing to vote for candidate with that platform, then such a candidate would emerge and would win the nomination. (Yes, I know that the polls show that most people favor universal health care, to return to that example. The trouble is that they won't vote that way. The big winners were Obama and Clinton, both supporting mandates that leave a major role for profit-making private insurance companies. On health care or any other issue, you need to have enough people willing to give it weight when they vote. That hasn't happened yet.)

Most DUers would be happy if the presidential election were being contested between Obama and Nader, or between Obama and McKinney, with McCain out in the parking lot complaining about being excluded from the debates. That would leave millions of conservatives grousing about the choices, though. (Many of them are grousing as it is, because they consider McCain a liberal. Really, they do.)

For the foreseeable future, we will have two major parties, and each of them will be in the approximate vicinity of the center of American public opinion. Just be glad that we now have primaries and caucuses instead of smoke-filled rooms.

[iconicgnom]

85. When there're viable 3rd parties it becomes easier for existing parties to totally self-destuct.

When a political party attains power, power easily corrupts and the longer a party is in power the more corruption tends to settle in. Any political party. But in a 2 party system all that happens when a party becomes excessively corrupt, corrupt to the core, is it gets voted out, there to wait 8 years or so until people forget, then the identical party, with most of the identical people in the driver's seat, will get voted back in when the population is sick of the other. And on and on -- as in the US today, the incumbent crooks are the SAME crooks as the Nixon crooks, the Reagan crooks, the George H. crooks. The way the system is set up in a 2 party state, even if the party of George W. gets voted out in a devastating loss across the board, it won't diminish the Republican's real power to win again and continue their project with more or less the same people and their younger acolytes in 8 years. Possibly 4. So people get totally cynical, they say "all politicians are crooks", because it's a revolving door of tweedledum and tweedledee entering and exiting on cue.

In contrast, when there's a 3rd viable party there'll still be 2 that are major, but when one of the major parties achieves the blissful state of to the core corruption and disgusts 80% of the population, and gets their ass kicked out the door, that same event is the opportunity for the 3rd party to become a major force. So now there's a different dynamic. The 3rd party has become 2nd, or even 1st, and it presents a sea of fresh faces, fresh ideas. In its new position of power when IT plays the "bipartisan compromise" game with the other major party some actual negotiating gets done, and if the new party of fresh faces and new ideas is progressive, there's actual movement in a progressive direction -- not the phony movement of phony "compromise" always and everytime to the right, creating new norms to the right. Jeez, the US has moved so far "to the right" over the past decades of "compromise movement to the right" it's about to self-destruct! There're just no known restraints anymore!

(About that "self-destruction", I mean it! I was reading, or trying to read - it's boring stuff - some recent IMF World Economic Outlook updates and the watchword re. the US economy vis a vis the world at large is "decoupling". The important thing for countries in the US sphere of influence, it seems, is whether or not they can sufficiently "decouple" from the US economy when it goes belly up, so's they don't get sucked under along with it. Well, jeez - the IMF, that bastion of neocon economists, has been the US's toy to play games with, so what does that say when the neocons who direct it are looking for more stable places to hang their hats? Sigh.)

[asteroid2003QQ47]

86. Can any rational thinker doubt the veracity of Vonnegut when...

he said, "The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."

Being one of "the people" is unavoidable but at least I'm (painfully) cognizant of my status.

--------------------------------------------------
Okay, y'all know the drill. Lefties over here, righties over there. It's showtime, people! Places!
--Gore Vidal

[tjwash]

91. The politicians are there to give you the illusion that you have a choice....you don't

---George Carlin.

RIP George

[barbtries]

87. i'm not familiar with the statement to which you refer,

but your post is provocative to me in the context of the book i'm reading right now.
Against Empire by Michael Parenti. it's 13 years old, i just heard of michael parenti for the first time on DU a couple weeks ago, and imo this book is explaining a hella lot about what goes on, and why it is so fucked up.

with or without ralph nader's "statement" - i don't know what he said - for weeks if not months i have internally been lamenting the fact that my vote in november cannot be wasted on who my conscience tells me is the best choice in terms of my issues and what i believe is best for the country, but has to go to obama. just as you said, the alternative is SO unacceptable that i feel i have no real choice about who i vote for.

a libertarian colleague of mine and i have great discussions about politics. he does not dispute that bush has been a disaster. he cannot argue that mccain would be any better than bush. but i continue to try and persuade him that he must vote for obama as a practical matter. if we were in CA, we could vote our conscience - his, libertarian, mine, probably green or peace and freedom. but we are in NC, a state i believe has a shot at going blue if enough people get out and vote that way. so, we have no choice. i think i may be getting him to come around, but he makes good arguments.

you mentioned that the people get the government they deserve. no, they don't. they get the government that is fed to them by the empire. i unsuccessfully tried to locate the quote in Against Empire that really eased my guilt on that score. we are not the ones making war all over the world, exploiting foreign lands and peoples for ourselves. it is not us, it is the corporations and the military/industrial complex with the necessary added complicity of the mass media.

WE are not to blame. we are carrying the torch for a better and stronger republic with liberty and justice for all. and i don't think WE are even outnumbered - we haven't got the media and we haven't got the weapons. but as Michael Parenti wrote, it is the people that made the women's movement happen, the civil rights movement happen, it is the people that made vietnam finally end. in time, maybe too long for me to realize in my lifetime, but maybe not - the people will get our democracy back. and personally, i hope it involves more than two parties. because two parties ain't cutting it.

[Phred42]

88. The Two Party System is a huge problem and is part of the problem

We ARE Slaves to it and we need to break free.

[Lost-in-FL]

89. When WE fail we try making up excuses for our own screw ups...

the new "blame game" is now the two party system. To me wanting to have a 3rd party is like wanting to use the two fucked cars in the garage to make one very screwed up car. Now non of the three cars in my garage run efficiently. Can we just fix what we have?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

92. Are you, like me, tempted?

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
--H. L. Mencken