Azazello1313 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 the evidence here is reasonably compelling read through and ask yourself....is this trend a good or a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 the evidence here is reasonably compelling read through and ask yourself....is this trend a good or a bad thing? One can only hope. We fought a revolution to get rid of the Royal House of Hanover, and replaced it with two Royal House. We need to institute some system of instant runoff voting system, so we can get away from "you have to elect our idiot, because he is way better than their idiot". IRV would be a wooden stake into the heart of the two party system. I am also tired of candidates pandering to the far left and right to win a primary, then running for the middle to win a general election. Case in point is abortion, make a misstep in the Republican primary on abortion and it can cost you the election. In the general election, abortion is a non-issue. I understand that abortion is an emotional issue, but if a candidate meets my standards on economic, liberty and foreign policy issues, I do not give a rat's @ss what his view on abortion is. Ceausescu made abortion illegal and divorce harder in Romania, but I am pretty sure that the religious right would not have wanted him running America. The only thing the current system does is help Chameleons that do not have a real opinion on anything get elected. Which in turn just supports Crony Capitalism, the worst of both worlds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) One can only hope. We fought a revolution to get rid of the Royal House of Hanover, and replaced it with two Royal House. We need to institute some system of instant runoff voting system, so we can get away from "you have to elect our idiot, because he is way better than their idiot". IRV would be a wooden stake into the heart of the two party system. I am also tired of candidates pandering to the far left and right to win a primary, then running for the middle to win a general election. Case in point is abortion, make a misstep in the Republican primary on abortion and it can cost you the election. In the general election, abortion is a non-issue. I understand that abortion is an emotional issue, but if a candidate meets my standards on economic, liberty and foreign policy issues, I do not give a rat's @ss what his view on abortion is. Ceausescu made abortion illegal and divorce harder in Romania, but I am pretty sure that the religious right would not have wanted him running America. The only thing the current system does is help Chameleons that do not have a real opinion on anything get elected. Which in turn just supports Crony Capitalism, the worst of both worlds. that's one side of the argument. the other side is that strong parties provide at least a moderate check on extreme populist, personalty-driven politics. I see a lot of truth (and a lot to worry about) on both sides of the argument. ultimately, the parties' decline in influence is a result of their own failure to provide competent leaders. I just don't see the alternative providing many competent leaders either. as always, my bottom line position is just to give these fektards as little power over our lives as possible, because expecting them to actually "fix" anything is worse than foolish. instead we are giving them more power, more of our money (or our children's money), more responsibility for taking care of us.... Edited November 3, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.