Which author was it that implied basically that if we let committees start making decisions about our lives, eventually we would have all our rights to make decisions taken away from us? Ayn Rand maybe? Anyway, it seems to be what's happening to us over time. Incrementalism.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the end, I think the only solution is to vote for the lesser evil and PRAY for the best.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rigel]

I have always felt the same as you. I am conservative on some issues, liberal on some and yet even still my idea of conservative and liberal always seem to be different than the standard. I hate that there is so much pigeon holing going on, just because I might believe one way on one particular issue does not make me all conservative or all liberal.

I hate that it takes so much money to be in an election so that sort of rules out the average person who might actually represent the real people in this country. Instead we get these poster children candidates who toss everyone little tid bits so we can 'follow' them, but in reality they don't represent the people.

I think everyone needs to not check the little box and do a write in instead. That or form our own party for the people sort of thing and let the people pick out any candidate from the very get go.

I too, feel the same way you do Skyfloating, I am conservative when it comes to certain issues, yet liberal on others...I feel I fit in neither party as well...and certainly am completely disenfranchised with politicians on BOTH sides.

On the other hand I feel that the two party system filters out some of the extreme elements such as fascists, communists, heck who knows what sort of army of different far-out parties would spring up if we gave up on the two party system! My fear is, if we allow say 15 different parties to spring up and the country spreads it's vote among them, some far far left OR far far right group could get their man in ugh, I just can't imagine that here in the good old USA.

Perhaps a 3 party system, "them", the other "them" and the rest of us that aren't buying the party line bull crap that, they never hold to anyway

[edit on 13-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

There are some questions that I feel get routinely buried right under our noses by those with a vested interest in detracting from them:

When did liberalism become synonymous with the Democratic Party, and when did conservatism become synonymous with the Republican Party? Two of the above terms are sociopolitical ideologies, whereas the other two are the names of political parties. Why is it that those parties have a monopoly on those ideologies? Why do the ideologies have to be perpetually attached to those parties' platforms? And, perhaps most pertinently, why do we "group think" our way into bestowing upon them the status of the veritable avatars and bastions of those two ideologies?

I was taught that this country's political system was conceived with the notion of plurality in mind. In practice today, however, all we have is a duality that I can't even prove to myself is genuine and not artificial in its apparent polarity.

As always, this is only an opinion and not a factual statement or an assumption. I could easily be incorrect in anything that I have said. These are merely my feelings on the issue.

Its not so much as help as help yourselves . The US isnt and most likely will be a democracy so the short of it is that if you are unhappy with the two party system you need to support political reforms to some degree . Just what and how far the reforms go isnt up to me . One thing is for certain the US political system doesn't fit in with my idea of liberty .

Well, it's become awfully silly of late. (Last 50 years) People misunderstand the alleged role of the Feds and the actual role of the Feds.
Most of these problems concerning a two-party system that is NOT representative of the diversity in US society today stem from a bloated, nebulous Federal Government. Many of the issues that are brought to the National/Federal platform should be handled on the State or Community level. People living together are more likely to naturally break down on two sides of an issue, but folks from the West Coast aren't going to have the same values as folks from the deep South. Then you try to jam this huge and diverse population behind a couple candidates and it's silly.

The Feds should relinquish control of several issues. This would allow for more decisive presidential elections and just clear up the garbage.

These issues/responsibilities should be turned over to the States:
Abortion
Health Care
Retirement
Labor (Let the Unions negotiate with the states...)
Gun Control
Education (National Standards for basics, though)
State Militas w/ Federal oversight (reduce the proffessional army loyal only to the Feds/Pres)

Federal Government should still be responsible for National issues like international/interstate commerce, Foreign Relations, and even the macro-level monitoring of Natural Resources. The Feds should be able to say yea or nay on large-scale mining/logging etc. So that insinuates Federal possession/protection of certain sensitive areas such as wilderness areas, regardless of the State. There should be concessions for this as well. A fair deal struck with the State in which the area is located.

Anyway, this would end all this silly bi-partisan crap on the National level. How can you slap 300 million people that come from widely divergent backgrounds (including legions of the clueless) into two categories?
I love hearing the rants of racist Democrats and the uptight lesbian Republican bitch about Christians.

But you know, you can't trust the States either. I think the 1865 or 66 North Carolina State Assembly was famous for voting themselves ". . . ice cream for life."

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull


I seem to remember some of the founding fathers warning about a partisan political system... These labels prevent "outside the box" thought, rather than formulate your own opinions you're expected to jump on a pre-existing platform and immediately hate the other side with a passion...

Very much so. Since when does having one position have to mean hating the other?

I'd vote for Ron Paul if there was any chance of him winning, but the powers that be are too stacked against him, if he was elected chances are he'd be assassinated, but he wouldn't even get that far with a crooked election...

The two-party-system is banking on us not caring or thinking its hopeless. Its banking on your type of apathy.

Originally posted by Earthscum


BTW, my sourness goes back to when I was 19 and I decided to register and vote. That's when I got the lecture about how if you register democrat, you are voting for a democrat, and same for republican... I learned then that you can't vote Person A(D) because you like him, and also vote Person B(R) because they will stand on your side of the issues. Needless to say, I walked out, told the people running the booth that politics were (BLANKED) up, and tore up my ballot to throw in the trash... I also asked to be UNregistered... they wouldn't do it... bastards. I know a few people that have had a similar expiriences the first time they voted. It's sad.

What a turn-off. This is how they turn the intelligent off of politics.

Originally posted by LateApexer313

Perhaps a 3 party system, "them", the other "them" and the rest of us that aren't buying the party line bull crap that, they never hold to anyway

We need the entire spectrum for the system to work. Not just two parts.

I dont think people will still be falling for this in 50 years. Folks here at ATS seem to be ahead of the time.

I couldn't agree with our poster more. this is the 21st century. i am 25. i am smarter than my parents in that i dont choose a "side". republican, democrat, independant, no, sorry. i believe in right and wrong, good and evil, not being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. sorry folks but my generation's time is fastly approaching. and were getting a little tired of people not using their brains. lying, corrupting, stealing, ect.