@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The problem is this two party system where nothing other than the forced two parties are allowed in.
This is a false statement. I have voted for a third party candidate at every level - local, state and for president. If these candidates 'weren't allowed in,' that wouldn't have been possible.
The fact is that a developed third party in this country hasn't garnered the support it needs to win any significant number of elections. There are a variety of factors behind this, but the system itself prevents that from happening in no fashion at all.
Remember 1992?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote that year. That pretty much destroys your above statement that such things can never happen. They can. There just has to be a societal push large enough to establish this third party. Right now, there is none. That's not the fault of the system.
Quote:They have essentially rigged the system to maintain the ideals of these two parties that are essentially the same.
You're totally wrong. This probably sounds profound in your head, but it's not supported by any facts.
Cycloptichorn
Suggesting whoever wins doesn't matter is indeed the height of idiocy, and most especially for the ability to nominate justices for SCOTUS as Cyclo pointed out. But, Krumple is not "totally wrong" about the two party system electioneering against third parties. Indeed Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote in 1992; but that's only half the story. The man doubled his polling numbers after the Presidential Debates in that election, after spanking his opponents vigorously on the big stage. The response? Four years later the two parties combined forces to block Perot's participation in the Presidential Debates. That is the fault of "the System" and it is very well supported by facts. Those old enough to remember will recall the National Debt was Perot's main platform... some TEN TRILLION DOLLARS ago. He ran precisely because neither candidate from the 2 party system could tell the truth about the debt and get elected. He remains the only candidate I've ever seen who actually proposed an honest solution to that dilemma.
With sufficient video footage; Romney could debate most issues with his former self... and still lose. He's at least as much of a flip-flopper as John Kerry ever was... and he's pretty consistent about flipping to the wrong side of right. Obama will likely exploit this simple truth in route to a second term, slapping the wazzock around handily in the process. (Great word, wazzock)
Cheers all.
