POLL: How do we get out of this two-party debacle we're in now?

[BigK]

I hesitate to call myself a Conservative, b/c of the baggage that comes with it. Some people fail to see a distinction b/w fiscal policy and social policy. I'm VERY fiscally conservative, but I want to stay out of peoples' business. That doesn't mean I want their business shoved in my face either, though.

Most important, though, is that the gov't has to quit picking winners and losers in the economy. They punish success through the tax code and that makes me furious. I'm sick of the class warfare crap most of all.

Edited July 13, 2012 by BigK

[TMF]

I would vote for almost anyone that would promise to destroy the two party system. I can not believe people support anyone conservative . It can never work and A so called democercy can never work. it never has and never will. It is just the same as playing monopoly an we know how that ends. One person ends up with it all and everyone else gets not one thing. Why don't folks see that is where we are headed. Every year the rich get a bigger percentage of everything and the rest get less. How long can this go on ?

I remain ashamed of us all.

Danny

What you don't understand is that having "rich fat cats" is good for our country. It gets reinvested back into our economy in the form of industry and jobs. If we allowed business to operate under less restrictions we would have more domestic jobs opportunities which would translate to consumer spending, thus creating the self propogating capitalist economy. It's when folks like you want to punish people for being successful that we have problems. That's when companies move out of state (Michigan) or out of country (to China). It shouldn't be cheaper to manufacture something in another country, then go through to costs of shipping it here and being further taxed at our ports. Somehow it is cheaper than it would be to produce stuff here. Why is that? That sentence defies all logic, but it's true. When you can figure out the answer to that question then you have figured out what is wrong with liberal encroachment on our job makers (the fat cat corporations).

But hey, since we know that the government is sooooo much more successful financially than the private sector (just look at their track record on the deficit) we should expect sunshine and rainbows if we left it all up to them, right?

[TMF]

I hesitate to call myself a Conservative, b/c of the baggage that comes with it. Some people fail to see a distinction b/w fiscal policy and social policy. I'm VERY fiscally conservative, but I want to stay out of peoples' business. That doesn't mean I want their business shoved in my face either, though.

Most important, though, is that the gov't has to quit picking winners and losers in the economy. They punish success through the tax code and that makes me furious. I'm sick of the class warfare crap most of all.

Folks like you and I are becoming more and more frequent. I would like to see the trend continue.

[RobertNashville]

I would vote for almost anyone that would promise to destroy the two party system. I can not believe people support anyone conservative . It can never work and A so called democercy can never work. it never has and never will. It is just the same as playing monopoly an we know how that ends. One person ends up with it all and everyone else gets not one thing. Why don't folks see that is where we are headed. Every year the rich get a bigger percentage of everything and the rest get less. How long can this go on ?

I remain ashamed of us all.

Danny

1. I'm proud of this country and what it's accomplished. I'm proud that I go to work every day and contribute to society rather than being a drain on it. I've done things I'm ashamed of but I'm not ashamed of me or of others just because we aren't perfect.

2. This country is not a democracy; it's a democratic republic.

3. If a "so called democracy" can never work, please elaborate on what system of government does/would.

[Dennis1209]

I'm glad to see there's allot of people here on TGO that knows how the system works. Some really good valid points mentioned that your average voter doesn't know, understand or care about.

I also think a large segment of voters fall for the rhetoric and charisma of the candidate, and not the character, credentials, track record and message.

We need to return to our heritage of a Constitutional Republic or we're all toast.

[Jonnin]

3. If a "so called democracy" can never work, please elaborate on what system of government does/would.

China has been at it for a very, very long time. It depends on how you define "works" !!! Their system apparently "works" for them.

Our system works too. When it is used. The current crop (last 50+ years really) in office ignore the design and actively try to avoid following it with every trick in the book and then some. Take the "its a tax" ruling from the SC on obama care: he knew what he wanted to do, the trick is to find a way to justify it. They all do this now. Any system, filled with corrupt jerks, will fail. Any system, with (a) strong leader(s) can work --- many a monarchy worked under a strong king, many a country that uses a model like ours works, and many a dictatorship also works. And every form of government has failed as well. The leaders make or break the country. Our leaders are horrible right now. This is not a good thing....

Edited July 13, 2012 by Jonnin

[E4 No More]

I'm glad to see there's allot of people here on TGO that knows how the system works. Some really good valid points mentioned that your average voter doesn't know, understand or care about.

I also think a large segment of voters fall for the rhetoric and charisma of the candidate, and not the character, credentials, track record and message.

We need to return to our heritage of a Constitutional Republic or we're all toast.

So true! My middle kid told me after hearing Oblamo speak that her sole reason for supporting him was that he "...speaks to me." I retorted with, "And what did he say that spoke to you?" She couldn't say anything that he said that she agreed with. I asked her what she felt about various issues, and then pointed out how Oblamo believed in the opposite. It was striking when she came to the conclusion that she fell for his oratorical gifts rather than his positions.

This is why Ron Paul has no chance. To the vast majority of people he looks like their crazy great-grandpappy who would die from the stress of office within a year. I think Rand Paul would have a better chance at winning than his father.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

As much as I would welcome the demise of both big parties, I understand that this is something that just won't ever happen. This has nothing to do with the parties; it has everything to do with my fellow Americans. I realize that not enough Americans will ever vote for their convictions but they will vote for whomever is most likely to win that supports the majority of their ideals. I tend to always vote Republican because my priorities start with fiscal conservatism and there will never be a Dem candidate that will want smaller government. I would absolutely love to vote my concious in the primary, but I know that most Americans won't. Conservatives are most likely to vote on beliefs which is why the Dems will always sweep an election with a third party candidate. Not to say that Dems aren't capable of standing by their beliefs, but they're much better at closing ranks than the Republicans.

Since the average voter makes their decision on either media coverage, commercials or "that's how daddy voted" I don't see any hope of ousting our two party system. The only possible way to reign them in is to send a clear message to Washington that they're going to be fired if they don't work together to pick this country up out of the gutter. I think this is a very possible goal to achieve. A very small percentage of voters can sway an election one way or the other. If only 10 percent of voters agreed to vote out every incumbent on the ballot it could change the race by a margin of up to 20 percent. In a two party race 20 percent will decide who goes to Washington and who doesn't, since we know everyone else will vote party lines. Of course, that would presuppose that all those votes would be coming away from one side or the other, but even a 5 percent defection from one party could be a nail in the coffin, and could you imagine in a 50/50 split presidential election with a sitting Republican if 10 percent defected and voted Democrat making it a 60/40 landslide? What clearer message could be sent to the Republican party to get their sh!t together and stop with the career politicians and pandering?

I dunno, this model I consider the "knock some sense into them" model. Perhaps it would be messy at first, but it would remind the two parties that we are still in control. Many folks would consider this to be "too messy" as voting in Dems would compromise so many conservative gains but these are the same folks suggesting some kind of armed revolt. Well, which do you think would be more messy? At least if the two parties had to deal with 8 years of 100% non-negotiable turnover they'd get the picture. At that point they'd have to realize that it doesn't matter what party you belong to or what commercials you put on the TV.... you're getting fired at the end of your term. It'd be a lot easier to clean up that mess than one that would involve revolt or a coup which would be 10 times more corruptable in the unlikely event they were successful. Use any modern day revolution or coup as a model and see how well things went when they were successful at attaining their goals. The most successful ones involved a tyrannical dictator taking charge in the end.

I said less extreme. The republicans need to stop trying to enforce religion and morality, which scares away a large number of voters. Some examples are losing 10% of the voting population (homosexuals) over the fight against gay marriage (pointless, the only valid argument against allowing people the freedom to marry who they want is enforcement of morality/religion). It includes giving up the abortion fight (we lost already--- beating the dead horse just forces a number of women voters away).

That is the top problem with the rebublicans right now and the tea party is just as bad (cannot stop trying to enforce morality).

The second problem with the republicans is allowing people to run under the party hat who do not belong. This includes our last two presidential candidates (romney and mccain are neither one conservative). The party allows big liberal states a full vote for the candidates in the primaries which eliminates the valid choices and then the conservative areas of the country are forced to swallow a turd.

The third issue is just basic corruption which is a major problem for both sides. Sneaking in pork on every bill to feed the campaign contributers. Flopping around on issues as they follow the money. Epic failure to listen to the voters. Complete incompetence about management of money. Lack of any backbone to stand up to the machine. The same old same old that has been going on since 1900 at least, maybe longer.

Excellent comments TMF and Jonnin, well worth quoting in entirety.

Hadn't thought about the effect of big blue states forcing bad candidates on the R's, given not an ice cube's chance in hades that those states would ever elect an R in the main event. Wonder if there is a "fair" way to rein in big blue states? Ferinstance four blue states-- New York, New Jersey, California and Illinois control 386 out of 2286 delegates (1144 needed to win). Seventeen percent control of all delegates and thirty-four percent control over the winning delegates (making fairly safe assumption that all four big blue states go for the same RINO). Assuming he wins those four big blue states, a liberal weenie RINO need only win a third of the other 46 states in order to win nomination! Gads!

[monkeylizard]

As long as we play winner takes all primaries, we will remain a 2 party system.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I would vote for almost anyone that would promise to destroy the two party system. I can not believe people support anyone conservative . It can never work and A so called democercy can never work. it never has and never will. It is just the same as playing monopoly an we know how that ends. One person ends up with it all and everyone else gets not one thing. Why don't folks see that is where we are headed. Every year the rich get a bigger percentage of everything and the rest get less. How long can this go on ?

What you don't understand is that having "rich fat cats" is good for our country. It gets reinvested back into our economy in the form of industry and jobs. If we allowed business to operate under less restrictions we would have more domestic jobs opportunities which would translate to consumer spending, thus creating the self propogating capitalist economy. It's when folks like you want to punish people for being successful that we have problems. That's when companies move out of state (Michigan) or out of country (to China). It shouldn't be cheaper to manufacture something in another country, then go through to costs of shipping it here and being further taxed at our ports. Somehow it is cheaper than it would be to produce stuff here. Why is that? That sentence defies all logic, but it's true. When you can figure out the answer to that question then you have figured out what is wrong with liberal encroachment on our job makers (the fat cat corporations).

But hey, since we know that the government is sooooo much more successful financially than the private sector (just look at their track record on the deficit) we should expect sunshine and rainbows if we left it all up to them, right?

Merely discussing problems as I do not know creative solutions--

There is certainly value to rich folks and only a fool would demand that every citizen deserves gov-enforced equal outcomes. Now Ayn Rand was a great writer with worthy ideas, but her world resembles old classic SF wish-fulfillment megalomanic fantasies of a lone super-scientist who single-handedly builds a starship bigger than an aircraft carrier and then proceeds to circumnavigate the galaxy defeating all foes. In Rand's world we have a few super-genius captains of industry but no one else in the world is even bright enough to sit in the closet and drool in a shoe. If those few captains of industry pack it in then the rest of the world will helplessly starve. Please exploit me General Bullmoose because otherwise I am so stupid I will forget to breathe and die of asphixiation!

In Rand's world, had there been no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, there would have been no personal computer. If not for Elvis, Beatles and Stones, there would have been no rock music in the 1960's. Yeah, right. It just don't work thataway. Talent is plentiful and if the top talent shrugs then there are plenty of talented folk ready to step up and fill the vacuum. Sure talent is valuable and socially desirable but it isn't especially unique or rare.

Some people fear tyranny of government and that is certainly a realistic threat. Some people fear tyranny of the rich and powerful and regardless what Ayn Rand thinks, that is also a realistic threat. The endgame of true unfettered capitalism-- After a few decades we have a handful of rich folk and everybody else is a serf. That handful of rich folk would propogate the myth, "You better be glad I'm willing to order you around because without me you are so dumb you would starve." But truth be known, if the guy croaks this very minute there are thousands of people at least as smart ready to take his place at a moment's notice. Not that everybody is equally smart, but nobody is so smart that we can't find an acceptable replacement. Unfortunately, in true unfettered capitalism, after awhile the guy who owns everything ain't super-genius Henry Ford. That feller is long-dead and the world is now owned by borderline retarded Henry Ford the 22nd mismanaging everybody's lives. Modern equivalent of an inbred idiot pharoah.

We can see in the robber baron days and also today-- The natural trend of unfettered capitalism toward monopoly or oligopoly (a small group who cooperatively own everything). A few captains of industry controlling the world is about the same as a few archdukes, kings and emperors controlling the world. What's the difference? Concentrated power corrupts, regardless whether the power resides in government, church, corporate or private hands.

Had Andrew Carnegie been alive today, you know what he would be? He would be TOO BIG TO FAIL and if he makes any business mistakes his bought-and-paid-for politicians will bail him out with his serfs' tax dollars.

You have thousands of small banks. One bank goes belly-up, no big deal. The larger banks eat the smaller banks, like big fish eating little fish, and eventually you get a few giant banks, run by nincompoops not near as smart as Ayn Rand imagined, TOO BIG TO FAIL but certainly big enough to bribe their pet politicians into bailing them out with their customers' tax dollars.

They will say that there are efficiency advantages of scale for only a few mega-banks and in some cases that is true. On the other hand there are redundancy advantages of thousands of little banks that can fail by the dozens without doing significant harm.

I'm just proposing that we would be better off with lots of small companies and "minor rich folk" rather than a handful of idiot Corzines running everything.

Now the least obnoxious way to attain that goal of multiply-redundant small companies I don't know. I resent over-reaching gov. But there is also the problem of over-reaching captains of industry who ain't nearly as smart as they think they are, who have no more concern for my welfare than does the IRS. Just sayin, I don't care how big they get as long as they leave me alone. But if they get big enough they ain't gonna leave me alone.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[sigmtnman]

Most everything else in the universe has a set cycle. Perhaps there is no avoiding it given a long enough time frame. We just move through periods transitioning from anarchy to tyranny to upheaval and or self destruction then back to anarchy...

History is sketchy at best and difficult to learn from. Hell we can't prove what happened yesterday with 10 people watching much less 100-200 or 1000 years ago.

Edited July 14, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Merely discussing problems as I do not know creative solutions--

There is certainly value to rich folks and only a fool would demand that every citizen deserves gov-enforced equal outcomes. Now Ayn Rand was a great writer with worthy ideas, but her world resembles old classic SF wish-fulfillment megalomanic fantasies of a lone super-scientist who single-handedly builds a starship bigger than an aircraft carrier and then proceeds to circumnavigate the galaxy defeating all foes. In Rand's world we have a few super-genius captains of industry but no one else in the world is even bright enough to sit in the closet and drool in a shoe. If those few captains of industry pack it in then the rest of the world will helplessly starve. Please exploit me General Bullmoose because otherwise I am so stupid I will forget to breathe and die of asphixiation!

In Rand's world, had there been no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, there would have been no personal computer. If not for Elvis, Beatles and Stones, there would have been no rock music in the 1960's. Yeah, right. It just don't work thataway. Talent is plentiful and if the top talent shrugs then there are plenty of talented folk ready to step up and fill the vacuum. Sure talent is valuable and socially desirable but it isn't especially unique or rare.

Some people fear tyranny of government and that is certainly a realistic threat. Some people fear tyranny of the rich and powerful and regardless what Ayn Rand thinks, that is also a realistic threat. The endgame of true unfettered capitalism-- After a few decades we have a handful of rich folk and everybody else is a serf. That handful of rich folk would propogate the myth, "You better be glad I'm willing to order you around because without me you are so dumb you would starve." But truth be known, if the guy croaks this very minute there are thousands of people at least as smart ready to take his place at a moment's notice. Not that everybody is equally smart, but nobody is so smart that we can't find an acceptable replacement. Unfortunately, in true unfettered capitalism, after awhile the guy who owns everything ain't super-genius Henry Ford. That feller is long-dead and the world is now owned by borderline retarded Henry Ford the 22nd mismanaging everybody's lives. Modern equivalent of an inbred idiot pharoah.

We can see in the robber baron days and also today-- The natural trend of unfettered capitalism toward monopoly or oligopoly (a small group who cooperatively own everything). A few captains of industry controlling the world is about the same as a few archdukes, kings and emperors controlling the world. What's the difference? Concentrated power corrupts, regardless whether the power resides in government, church, corporate or private hands.

Had Andrew Carnegie been alive today, you know what he would be? He would be TOO BIG TO FAIL and if he makes any business mistakes his bought-and-paid-for politicians will bail him out with his serfs' tax dollars.

You have thousands of small banks. One bank goes belly-up, no big deal. The larger banks eat the smaller banks, like big fish eating little fish, and eventually you get a few giant banks, run by nincompoops not near as smart as Ayn Rand imagined, TOO BIG TO FAIL but certainly big enough to bribe their pet politicians into bailing them out with their customers' tax dollars.

They will say that there are efficiency advantages of scale for only a few mega-banks and in some cases that is true. On the other hand there are redundancy advantages of thousands of little banks that can fail by the dozens without doing significant harm.

I'm just proposing that we would be better off with lots of small companies and "minor rich folk" rather than a handful of idiot Corzines running everything.

Now the least obnoxious way to attain that goal of multiply-redundant small companies I don't know. I resent over-reaching gov. But there is also the problem of over-reaching captains of industry who ain't nearly as smart as they think they are, who have no more concern for my welfare than does the IRS. Just sayin, I don't care how big they get as long as they leave me alone. But if they get big enough they ain't gonna leave me alone.

Lester, I think you took a little too much out of Rand's book that time. The idea she was extolling was the

superiority of man's mind to create, not that there was only one super scientist. She was praising man's mind.

I doubt you and I will ever find any balance in a government vs. industry argument, but we have one mighty

close. We just have to keep government in check a little better. We haven't been doing that for a long time.

Capitalism allows for winners and losers, depending on how hard you work at it. When you over-regulate

capitalism, it becomes something else, and not capitalism.

[monkeylizard]

We get out of the 2 party system when we change our voting setup. As long as we have first past the post (winner takes all) we will always have a 2 party system.

YouTube contributor CGP Grey made an interesting 3 part series on some voting systems. He's partial to the last one, obviously, but he makes some excellent points about our current system in the 1st video.

First Past the Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=2&annotation_id=annotation_860277&list=PLC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=OTVE5iPMKLg&feature=iv&v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]http://]http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=2&annotation_id=annotation_860277&list=PLC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=OTVE5iPMKLg&feature=iv&v=s7tWHJfhiyo

The Alternative Vote

Mixed Member Proportional Representation

http://http://www.yo...&feature=relmfu

Edited July 14, 2012 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

<<double Post>>

Edited July 14, 2012 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

<<Triple Post>>

Edited July 14, 2012 by monkeylizard

[Jonnin]

Excellent comments TMF and Jonnin, well worth quoting in entirety.

Hadn't thought about the effect of big blue states forcing bad candidates on the R's, given not an ice cube's chance in hades that those states would ever elect an R in the main event. Wonder if there is a "fair" way to rein in big blue states? Ferinstance four blue states-- New York, New Jersey, California and Illinois control 386 out of 2286 delegates (1144 needed to win). Seventeen percent control of all delegates and thirty-four percent control over the winning delegates (making fairly safe assumption that all four big blue states go for the same RINO). Assuming he wins those four big blue states, a liberal weenie RINO need only win a third of the other 46 states in order to win nomination! Gads!

The primary does not HAVE to be fair to those states, to be blunt. The RNC can run the primary any way they see fit: its not a run for an office, its a run for the party nomination. They could for example divide a state's contribution by the number of elections since the last time that state voted for R in the real election... say CA last voted for a R in 1980 or something, then CA's count is divided by 8 (8 elections). Or whatever other rule they want to make. While we love the 10 or 20 conservatives in those states, we cannot let the 10 million crossover dem voters continue to bork up the primaries either.

[sigmtnman]

Lester, I think you took a little too much out of Rand's book that time. The idea she was extolling was the

superiority of man's mind to create, not that there was only one super scientist. She was praising man's mind.

...

Some folks ponder if the Nikola Tesla is who John Galt was based off of. He indeed was a "super scientist" who's ideas and inventions were so far ahead of his time that it is alleged that the US gov seized the majority of his records quickly after his death.

AC power, harnessing Niagra falls, radio, wireless electricity, tesla coils, death rays and tales of many more fantastical inventions that never saw the light of day.

Edited July 14, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've read that, too. Just trying to clarify what I think she meant. Man as an heroic being.

No doubt Tesla was a creator. Makes sense.

Edited July 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks for the great ideas, monkeylizard and Jonnin.

Those are neat game theory treatments of different voting systems, clearly described by Mr. Grey.

Jonnin, the idea of scaling the number of state delegates according to the last time the state as a whole elected an R president, sounds workable.

Accidentally came across a fourth candidate selection method which has certain merits--

[media=]

[/media]

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Monkeylizard, are you a signed-in member of youtube? What browser? I just wonder because another member here is a member of youtube and his video links tend to be odd or mangled as well. Was wondering maybe if you belong to youtube and are signed-in, it gives you links that don't work well for folks not signed in? I don't belong to youtube, so will attempt to re-post those three grey videos for you, or then again maybe it won't work for me either--

[media=]

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[sigmtnman]

I've read that, too. Just trying to clarify what I think she meant. Man as an heroic being.

No doubt Tesla was a creator. Makes sense.

Man is absolutely meant to be a heroic being. Hell, it takes 12-18 years of schooling to get it out of him.

[sigmtnman]

...

Accidentally came across a fourth candidate selection method which has certain merits--

[media=]

[/media]

Excellent.

[Moped]

I think the Libertarians have the right idea about getting back to the Constitution. They are just going about it the wrong way. I have never seen a Libertarian candidate in any other race except for the President. If the libertarians want to have a chance of making a 3rd party they need to start slowly in smaller local elections and make successful communities(all over the country). Then focus on state governments and use the proven methods that worked in the local governments to make the state government successful. Then use the success of the state governments to built monentum for the national government. The problem is they are throwing up a candidate every four years and then not worrying about the local elections. The movement they are trying to make must be made in baby steps. If you take small steps and put your limited fund where they do the most good then you have a chance to make a difference. If you throw all your money at one big problem and not worry about the little problems then you are wasting your money.

This +100000etc! They are missing the boat by not doing this. Look at how strong the Tea Party got by doing this. And don't right off the Tea Party, just yet. If they ever work up the nerve to split from the Republican Party, that could be your third party right there. They just have to get their lunatics in order. Unfortunately, that would probably give the Democrats all the power... for a while any way.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Moped

[Guest Lester Weevils]

This +100000etc! They are missing the boat by not doing this. Look at how strong the Tea Party got by doing this. And don't right off the Tea Party, just yet. If they ever work up the nerve to split from the Republican Party, that could be your third party right there. They just have to get their lunatics in order. Unfortunately, that would probably give the Democrats all the power... for a while any way.

The first tea party protest issue was bailouts. Then there was widespread protest against proposed (and actual) spending, taxes, and ObamaCare. All those issues are straight-ahead libertarian turf. Turf which is also entirely compatible with Goldwater-style republicans and all flavors of fiscally-conservative republicans. The initial tea party could enjoy enthusiastic support from right-wing republicans, libertarians, and millions of fiscally conservative independents and democrats.

In short order, "out of nothing" the tea party grew into such a big and strong beast of burden that "tea party leaders" came out of the woodwork to saddle it up with social conservative baggage. The social conservative load caused democrats, independents and libertarians to lose interest. The weakened tea party morphed into the functional equivalent of the Constitution Party. Am not criticizing the Constitution Party, except that the Constitution Party traditionally had minimal influence on republicans and zero influence on democrats. Change the name from Constitution Party to Tea Party and ultimately the influence will remain minimal except to drag the republican party into social-conservative directions which discourage independents and fiscal conservative democrats from voting republican.

The good old days of the Tea Party--

Edited July 16, 2012 by Lester Weevils