Comments on: Movie Tackles Two Party System

by: redfish

Mon, 12 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Its a huge myth that the two-party domination is created by a “winner take all system”. In fact, before the 20th century we didn’t have a strict two party system, but something that was more dynamic. While generally you would see two major parties vie for domination in the federal government, those were federal parties; the states generally had different parties, and more than two; then when you went down to the local level you would see even more parties. That’s why during the 19th century, every few decades there would be a huge political realignment—-this happened twice in that century—where the two major federal parties would fall apart, several new parties compete for the nomination, and two new parties arise from the winners of the contest.

A lot of things have changed, we now live in a mass society with information controlled by mass media and the political system dependent on money. But the largest legal barrier is ballot access laws that were created by the Republicans and Democrats shortly after Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party run, because they were afraid of fringe groups like Communists and Fascists which had been able to wrest power in Europe. Later strict ballot access laws were complimented by the institutionalization of political parties with such entities such as the FEC.

But, on the other hand, third party supporters are wrong when they have ideas of winning elections from the grassroots. During every major political alignment in America, new parties were only created because of people participating in the two major parties willing to ‘jump ship’. The two new parties were always carved out of the old ones—they just represented shifting coalitions. Even Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party was helped by the fact that many Republican Congressmen had switched to the Progressive Party and you had Progressive representation in Congress that would have supported a Progressive President.

I worked with the Reform Party, and there was a similar hope we could get Congressmen who were disenchanted to jump ship and join us, because many of them did express their sympathies. But because of issues like ballot access and debate participation they were afraid they would be committing political suicide.

by: George Donnelly

Sun, 11 May 2008 17:20:20 +0000

It’s about using your vote for the right, and not for the expedient.

by: kevinanity

Sat, 10 May 2008 17:04:50 +0000

Once in a while a perceptive acquaintance will ask, “Yeah, but who do you really want to win?” It’s a fair question. I’ll go out early on election day and cast my vote for someone who won’t get enough votes for his or her name to show up on one of those CNN pie charts. Then as the results are coming in and the states are called for either Obama or McCain, I really will have a preference about the outcome between those two. So, why not just make a concession to reality and vote according to that preference? I don’t know that I have a very good answer. I certainly don’t have an answer that persuades any of my friends. I guess I just can’t stand the idea of rewarding those a$$holes for all those months of pandering and insulting my intelligence when there is someone I can vote for in good conscience.

by: Trollin Inshit

Sat, 10 May 2008 05:47:00 +0000

Pissssing the night away at www.turdpottywatch.com.

by: End the Empire

Sat, 10 May 2008 03:37:58 +0000

Wish I could watch, I would enjoy ! Out here in the wild on dail-up it would take two days to load. Maybe I will catch it on LINK or FSTV someday.

Paid ads, positive local media and a well run large grassroot activist movement is the way to defeat them IMO. There’s no hope in the msm…