Badnarik on Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Avatar4321
The Special interests have more power when there are more than two parties because smaller parties cant difuse the influence of the interests group on them.

What?
 
Originally posted by tpahl
Amongst others... Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project at the University of Minnesota. You would know this of course if you had bothered to look at the cbs article I gave you a link to. As for his opinions on the demise of the Soviet Union... I have no clue. But just because an expert was wrong does not mean that they are always wrong.

You may be right. badnarik may have no impact whatsoever in this years election. I doubt it, but it could happen. All I am saying is that there have been people quite publically predicting that he will have an effect.

Travis

Im just tired of people being self proclaimed experts. The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
What?

its not really a difficult concept. a Strong two party system curbs the power of the special interests. in a system with more than two parties in order for a government to stay in power it needs a coalition of other parties, many of which exist only for a specific issue. in other words they are special interest groups.

Because these government retain control with a very slim majority coalition the small special interest groups in those governments have tremendous power because if they withdrawl their support the government collapses. That gives them alot of leverage even if the special interest group is a small group that no one really wants to see succeed.

With a strong two party system where the special interest groups donate directly to the party, the party can blunt the money recieved and put it towards better projects for the good of the nation. For example, say a racist group donates to a major political party. The party doesnt have to spend that money on racist issues. they can spend the money that would have gone to promote racism on doing the exact opposite.

All of this is also one of the reasons why the self appointed leaders of the African American interest groups arent playing the political game very well. By continually supporting the Democrats over and over and over again, they have lost their power to influence anything. If they were to play to win they would withhold their support and make the parties compete for their vote. I dont see that happening soon though.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
There is a reason we have a strong two party system. The Special interests have more power when there are more than two parties because smaller parties cant difuse the influence of the interests group on them. the Two party system can.


I understand that the two main parties can give out lots of favors and the third parties can not. That is why the two main parties have been passing more and more laws to keep thrid parties out of system. That does not mean that third parties can not play a signifigant role even if they do not win.

Naders role in the last election showed Democrats that they can not take for granted the anti-corporate green wing of their partys vote.

Perot gave both parties a wake up call that they needed to address balancing the budget and social securitys solvency.

Badnarik might end up sending a message to the GOP that they can not take the small government wing of thier party for granted. Bush and the GOP will have to show in the future that they WILL reduce government spending, roll back gun laws, not renew and add new ones, and keep promises not to use the military for nation building. If they fail to do this, more and more voters will abandon their party. If the LP did not offer an alternative the voters would probably stay with the GOP.



Which is one of the reasons McCain Fiengold is stupid. it empowed the special interests it wanted to curb.

I agree that McCain Fiengold is a very bad idea (and unconstitutional).

The following is very different approach to campaign reform that to me makes much more sense.

http://www.realcampaignreform.org/what_you_should_know.htm

travis
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.

Amen.
What's that saying?
Something like, "True knowledge is knowing that you know what you know and that you don't know what you don't know."

As in, I don't know enough about Affirmative Action. I need to learn more. I feel like it is a bandaid to a problem we don't have a solution to.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Amen.
What's that saying?
Something like, "True knowledge is knowing that you know what you know and that you don't know what you don't know."

As in, I don't know enough about Affirmative Action. I need to learn more. I feel like it is a bandaid to a problem we don't have a solution to.

Just paraphraising Socrates, or rather Keanu reeves.
 

Forum List

Back
Top