PDA

View Full Version : The Two Party Choice Should Be Gone



Kathianne
10-08-2016, 11:58 AM
Worth reading. I never thought I'd be arguing for more parties. Then again, never thought I'd think that we'd have an election like this one:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/08/new-trump-and-clinton-revelations-make-a

Since I'm basically not in a listening mood, I'll post what I took as relevant to me:


...The election is a month away. And as a polity, we are exactly where we were a month ago and a year ago: Stuck with a system and "major parties" that represent and reflect the hopes, dreams, and preferences of fewer and fewer Americans. The Trump tape may well seal the election for Hillary Clinton—and it's clear that horse-race politics and near-term electoral advantage is all most partisans and media care about—but it's wise to recognize that absolutely nothing about the decades-long slump in confidence and trust in major social, cultural, and political institutions (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183593/confidence-institutions-below-historical-norms.aspx) will be reversed or even addressed if we don't take a bigger-picture view. We have more and more choices in all parts of our lives that aren't governed by politics, and that makes us happier and freer (or perhaps better put: happier because freer). That proliferation of choice and options in lifestyle, consumer choices, technology, work arrangements, and more is the essence of what Matt Welch and I dubbed the "Libertarian Moment (http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/25/the-libertarian-moment)" and the only place where you don't see it is in the political realm.

Until we've got the same choice in politics we take for granted every time we order a drink at Starbucks, we'll forever be careening from weekends like this one where our "only" choices are revealed to be even less than we already knew they were. We can do better and if we actually care about creating a better future, we're going to start delivering on that.
(Full Wikileaks email after the jump.)

...

Drummond
10-08-2016, 12:09 PM
Worth reading. I never thought I'd be arguing for more parties. Then again, never thought I'd think that we'd have an election like this one:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/08/new-trump-and-clinton-revelations-make-a

Since I'm basically not in a listening mood, I'll post what I took as relevant to me:

Yes, I'm sure that's true.

Nonetheless - reality still 'trumps' hopes and dreams. The reality here is that either Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, will win the Presidency. We all know that.

What worries me is that if sufficient people are guided by sheer personality aesthetics (as subjectively perceived, rightly or wrongly), rather than the future of America in the hands of the Democrats or Republicans ... Trump's support will suffer to the extent that Hillary Clinton will win by default.

Reality will win through, as it always does. And that's the truth of it.

All else is diversion, and possibly very damaging diversion, at that.

pete311
10-08-2016, 01:34 PM
Until the money moves away from the current major parties no 3rd party option is ever viable.

Elessar
10-08-2016, 01:54 PM
Worth reading. I never thought I'd be arguing for more parties. Then again, never thought I'd think that we'd have an election like this one:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/08/new-trump-and-clinton-revelations-make-a

Since I'm basically not in a listening mood, I'll post what I took as relevant to me:

It's not going to work.

Unless these 'Third Parties' stand up and really establish themselves 4 years
prior to an election season, they will fall on their faces. All they are is whiners
with no solid backing.

I could put up a Banana Slug Party the year of an election and become its
candidate. This kind of thing is all they do, jump and scream and do nothing.

WE have a choice to make right now. These shadow groups will only ensure
Hillary survives. Is that what this nation needs?