From across the pond, a good question

In Indiana, the TEA party candidate for the Senate won the primary over Dick Luger who has been a fixture in Washington for 30 or so years.

The times, they are a changing'.

Obviously for the worst, in Indiana.

How so? Did you follow the primary election in Indiana?
BTW I gave to Lugar's campaign in 76 and voted against him in the last two primaries. When he visited his "home" state of Indiana he had to stay with friends because he had no actual residence. His home is in Virginia. In his campaign advertising he had less good to say about himself than he had bad to say about his opponent, and his opponent to the contrary, stayed more on issues, and when Lugar's adds were on issues they distorted the facts.
That's why he was beaten by 20 percentage points.
 
Last edited:
US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

The gauntlet was thrown down in duelling online videos last week. President Barack Obama's campaign compared presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney to a blood-sucking, job-destroying vampire while he headed Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Romney quickly parried with a brutally effective video telling the heart-wrenching stories of just three of the 23 million unemployed Americans in the Obama economy.

The 2012 election campaign season is still young; the battle will grow only more bruising. And voters will become increasingly turned off. But, in America, we get only two choices, and often are left voting for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Friends in Europe and elsewhere often lament their own forms of government which foster countless parties and voices, and create much noise and chaos. Ironically, in America, which we like to argue is the greatest democracy in the world, we are limited to just two choices: a Republican or a Democrat.

And voters are tiring of it. Some 40 per cent of Americans today identify themselves as political Independents – a record. Just 29 per cent say they're Democrats, down seven points from 2008, while the proportion saying they're Republicans has fallen to 27 per cent, according to Gallup.

The middle, which rejects both parties, is growing but the question is, what to do about it?

BTSOOM.


The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008
 
That is a good question. I've long felt there should be multiple political parties and more choices. I hate going to the polls to vote for the "best worst candidate". That's the way it will be this year when I vote for Romney.
 
US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

The gauntlet was thrown down in duelling online videos last week. President Barack Obama's campaign compared presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney to a blood-sucking, job-destroying vampire while he headed Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Romney quickly parried with a brutally effective video telling the heart-wrenching stories of just three of the 23 million unemployed Americans in the Obama economy.

The 2012 election campaign season is still young; the battle will grow only more bruising. And voters will become increasingly turned off. But, in America, we get only two choices, and often are left voting for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Friends in Europe and elsewhere often lament their own forms of government which foster countless parties and voices, and create much noise and chaos. Ironically, in America, which we like to argue is the greatest democracy in the world, we are limited to just two choices: a Republican or a Democrat.

And voters are tiring of it. Some 40 per cent of Americans today identify themselves as political Independents – a record. Just 29 per cent say they're Democrats, down seven points from 2008, while the proportion saying they're Republicans has fallen to 27 per cent, according to Gallup.

The middle, which rejects both parties, is growing but the question is, what to do about it?

BTSOOM.


The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008

That is a strange assertion to me. I frequently hear he is a DINO.
 


The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008

That is a strange assertion to me. I frequently hear he is a DINO.


That's because he has to moderate on his foreign policy and he knows it. Still, the answer as to why we have a two party system is accurate. It is better then what Parliamentary Democracies practice IMO.
 
US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

The gauntlet was thrown down in duelling online videos last week. President Barack Obama's campaign compared presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney to a blood-sucking, job-destroying vampire while he headed Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Romney quickly parried with a brutally effective video telling the heart-wrenching stories of just three of the 23 million unemployed Americans in the Obama economy.

The 2012 election campaign season is still young; the battle will grow only more bruising. And voters will become increasingly turned off. But, in America, we get only two choices, and often are left voting for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Friends in Europe and elsewhere often lament their own forms of government which foster countless parties and voices, and create much noise and chaos. Ironically, in America, which we like to argue is the greatest democracy in the world, we are limited to just two choices: a Republican or a Democrat.

And voters are tiring of it. Some 40 per cent of Americans today identify themselves as political Independents – a record. Just 29 per cent say they're Democrats, down seven points from 2008, while the proportion saying they're Republicans has fallen to 27 per cent, according to Gallup.

The middle, which rejects both parties, is growing but the question is, what to do about it?

BTSOOM.

The media passed debate rules long ago that disallows 3rd parties to compete.

basically ABC, CBS, NBC, pick who is going to be running for Pres and do their best to ensure it's the dem.
 
The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008

it only works well if you have some quality people running......otherwise you get this ...."voting for the lesser evil" attitude.....if 30 million people in this country have that attitude and said fuck it,and backed a decent 3rd party person.....it just might send a message to the 2 parties that if they dont get their shit together.....they just may be history or just another party among 3 or 4 or more.....
 
The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008

it only works well if you have some quality people running......otherwise you get this ...."voting for the lesser evil" attitude.....if 30 million people in this country have that attitude and said fuck it,and backed a decent 3rd party person.....it just might send a message to the 2 parties that if they dont get their shit together.....they just may be history or just another party among 3 or 4 or more.....

You miss the point entirely. The candidate almost always moderates to the middle once elected. When they fail to do so, as Obama has domestically, that is when they become detrimental to our form of government (representing all the people).
 
The reason a two party system is more effective then the European one the writer bemoans as "too many voices" is because it quite literally gives more power to the people.

It forces both parties to listen to the "center voice"- the true independent. It is why most presidents "move to the middle" after they are elected. Obama is the first president in modern history to budge very little to the middle- that is why moderate democrats have left the party since 2008

it only works well if you have some quality people running......otherwise you get this ...."voting for the lesser evil" attitude.....if 30 million people in this country have that attitude and said fuck it,and backed a decent 3rd party person.....it just might send a message to the 2 parties that if they dont get their shit together.....they just may be history or just another party among 3 or 4 or more.....

You miss the point entirely. The candidate almost always moderates to the middle once elected. When they fail to do so, as Obama has domestically, that is when they become detrimental to our form of government (representing all the people).

perhaps.....but it would be nice for some Candidates that are a step up from what we got....
 
There are other options but the American people have been brainwashed into thinking there are only 2 options. If the MSM would give the other candidates air time and equal opportunity ....

Personally I would like to see all parties outlawed and each candidate run on their own merit and ideas instead of having to follow the party line.
 
There are other options but the American people have been brainwashed into thinking there are only 2 options. If the MSM would give the other candidates air time and equal opportunity ....

Personally I would like to see all parties outlawed and each candidate run on their own merit and ideas instead of having to follow the party line.

That's the biggest "if" in the world. Information will be controlled to keep people controlled.
 
Why just two or three partys, why cannot anyone who wants to run?
Who needs fracking partys?

We now have the net, how about the facebook or net party?

such limited thoughts...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top