In 2004, around 40 percent of those who voted for Kerry-Edwards admitted little to no interest in a Kerry presidency. Kerry was not offering voters choice on important policy issues nor did his candidacy stimulate the kind of broad, probing public discussion of policy that characterizes real democratic process. The core of the Kerry campaign message seemed to be: Me not Bush!, and the substance a rather confusing year of political wind surfing. (article from 2004)
In 2007, the votes seem to be in already on 2008. Two-thirds of the voting public are dissatisfied with the “two party system.” (See Zogby poll) The only reasonable interpretation is that only about one third are satisfied with being represented by either party. Elections have been close lately; so we can roughly estimate: each of the two “major parties” has the support of about 15 percent of American voters.
To me, the candidates come off like a pre-Star Wars sci-fi movie. They’re involved in a sensational political discussion but their tricks and special effects are not convincing. They’re relying on material that their 15 percent desperately wants to believe is this era’s contribution to the classics – but which is seen largely as pathetic obfuscation by the more sophisticated audiences that make up the majority. Return of the Jedi it isn’t. Night of the Living Dead – maybe.
By a very large margin, Americans want constitutional rule rather than rule by two non-representative political parties. Candidates know that, which is why they have been pledging support for the Constitution in speeches and on their websites. But candidates from the “major parties” have the baggage of having been in power while the constitutional system was being dismantled for the sake of greater party power and corruption; so their pledges are far from credible.
With such a great majority disinterested or strongly dissatisfied with the two parties, it would seem democracy would find a way. But the de facto two-party system has been in operation for a long time and it is a difficult habit to kick. Some percent of voters will still be convinced that voting for a “third party” is throwing their vote away – a logic that is only valid if there are two parties with over-whelming support.
As I discuss this problem, I find people who acknowledge it; but think it is too late to do anything about it. Just as I have heard in many elections before – not this time. Too much is at stake. We have to win. Win what? I must ask. Supporting candidates and a party that you do not believe in – how does that help you win?
The solution is simple. The Republican and Democratic parties should be renamed; “Third Party A” and “Third Party B” to reflect the minority of actual support they have. That will provide a much more natural way for the majority of voters to understand the math.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
tonysprout said,
EVERY elected politician swears to uphold and defend the Constitution. The problem lies in the fact that 99% of them INTERPRET the Constitution. If the Constitution was seen as a contract and read as such we wouldn’t be in the quagmire we are in today. An example is the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The Founders knew the difference between Congress, States, and The People, they were recognized as seperate entities with their own rights, responsibilities and freedoms, yet we have some SCOTUS bozos in the first part of last century coming up with “seperation of church and state” from an amendment that mentions ONLY Congress. Seperation of church and state is a lie! I hope the bozos that came up with that are burning in hell. Same goes for the Second Amendment which recognizes the PEOPLE’S RIGHT to keep and bear arms and that right shoulde never be INFRINGED.
Politicians pledging to support the Constitution is nothing new. What would be new is a politician pledging to support and defend the Constitution AS A CONTRACT; AS IT IS WRITTEN!
As for a Third Party, I’m all for it. Let’s get the Dems. the Republicans, the Libertarians, and the Constitutional Parties and hold our own Constitutional Referendum. We’ll spell out what WE, not lawyers, see the Constituion meaning.
Rules:
1. Let Liberty Flourish, the chips fall where they may.
2. Recognize the distinct differences between the three governmental entities, Congress, States, and The People.
3. Restrict Fed gov’t to regulating interstate commerce ONLY when cash or barter results.
4. Any Equality issues need to be applied across ther board, goose and gander fashion.
Feel free to add your own rules. I gues we’ll need a rules referendum before we have a Constitutional referendum.
October 31, 2007 at 7:20 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 7:25 am
GreatMRNI said,
We have several other parties aside from Demo-rats and Repubs-lick-cans (mostly female cans), but none have any traction. Ron Paul is interesting but is currently just a house rep. in Texas. He needs to run for Gov. of Texas and win. Then he becomes a viable presidential candidate, but not until then.
This is what we should do, register as Demo-rats, vote for Obama in the primary, vote for the Repubs-lick-can (mostly female cans) nominee in the general election. I still think Romney is the best for this country and the best we have for Fathers (that can win), he does have several sons. Then, try to get Paul (or someone like him) in there in 2012
October 31, 2007 at 8:36 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 8:43 am
GreatMRNI said,
Father’s issues are not the only issues to consider.
October 31, 2007 at 8:59 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:06 am
GreatMRNI said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:27 am
GreatMRNI said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:33 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:54 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:58 am
tonysprout said,
October 31, 2007 at 10:14 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 10:21 am
GreatMRNI said,
Maybe that’s the whole problem with the Men’s Rights Movement; nobody plays to win, just to be heard.
October 31, 2007 at 11:57 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm
tonysprout said,
I will vote FOR the Constitution not some slap happy ego centric power hungry party hack. Let Liberty flourish, the chips fall where they may.
October 31, 2007 at 7:53 pm
GreatMRNI said,
November 1, 2007 at 9:45 am
Roger F. Gay said,
November 1, 2007 at 10:11 am
Lloyd Selberg said,
November 1, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
November 2, 2007 at 1:43 am
Roger F. Gay said,
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613
November 4, 2007 at 3:42 am