2006-08-09 20:40:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Personally.......I prefer rolling a dice. Six choices seem better.....right? Or better yet......let's flip a Rubik's cube around a time or two or 8 or 356.
But when there are so many choices, what happens? The public retreats. They get overwhelmed. We live in a society that says, "Make it easy for me to make my choice. Don't make me have to think about it." Yet the minute that happens, they then complain............"We need more choices!"
So indeed, you have the independent candidates that emerge and disassociate themselves with either party. God, I love these guys. Just saying they are independent makes me tingle. They are basically saying, "I won't follow the masses.......I'll do what needs to be done and make the decision that will fit the issue at hand.......not to fit the status quo." But how many of these men and women do we find? Willing to go out on a limb. Putting themselves out there, knowing no one has their back. Knowing they don't have a group to fall back on? It's scary. And they set themselves up for ridicule and criticism from those big powerful well-established donkeys and elephants. Truthfully.......most strong leaders with depth and intelligence have better judgment than to play that game. So they don't run.
So what are we left with? Two parties. It reminds me of high school. You had to "run with the crowd" or else you felt vulnerable, ostracized......with no support. So have that crowd behind you and you all of a sudden were "stronger." pfffffffffft.
Did it make you a different person? No more so than it makes each candidate a stronger candidate. If anything, it takes away their true identity and labels them.
So I've totally gone off on my own tangent. Excuse me for doing so. I guess I agree that voting has become "heads or tails." But needed to voice why I believe it has become so. If we could find that one voice that isn't afraid to speak out against the masses........He'll actually be the one that can lead the masses.
(now......how get them to vote is the question)
2006-08-10 00:22:33 · answer #1 · answered by Marianne not Ginger™ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, but then governing in the two-party system appears to have become like flipping a two-headed coin, calling tails, seeing it land with heads-up and shouting "See! See! It's Tails everybody, hey Fox, read that on the air "Stellar victory for Tails!" Woohoo, let's get to work here, show that poor schmuck who called Heads the door willya, he's blocking my drive..."
2006-08-11 02:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by mdfalco71 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah - I agree with Jon H. Most of the power is inherited - but we really no longer have a choice really - everything is bogged with increasing bureaucracy (like idiots we're asking for more - aaakkk). Choosing independent may be a way to go. Also, not voting makes a statement. How will the government justify it's existence if only 5% population votes?
2006-08-09 21:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by Applecore782 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the two party system forces the population to choose between a and b. But life has more than two choices. It is almost a grand conspiracy by the two parties to keep themselves in power. I say down with the party system. Independent candidates and thinkers are what we need.
2006-08-09 20:45:58 · answer #4 · answered by Jon H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes. but its not a two party system. There are many. is more like a thousand headed coin and calling tails.
2006-08-09 20:46:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was never unhappy to vote until I stepped up to the ballot screen a week ago. I still want Gore to be president. I would like to see someone who has guts run.
Hey, Marianne Not Ginger, you said "He" in your answer, but a woman is capable of making just as good if not a better president, but I am not talking about the two leading candidates.
2006-08-10 07:41:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. We need to get the money out of our electoral system and set a limit on independents-as in the number that can run, and give all equal representation. I think we would be able to make better choices that way.
2006-08-09 20:49:30 · answer #7 · answered by brokolay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean that the parties are changing what they stand for, yes.
Maybe this new thing with Lieberman will start a totally new party for moderates. He and McCain would make a very good presidential running team.
2006-08-09 20:47:21 · answer #8 · answered by midlandsharon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, It seems like you are being asked to choose between the the left and right hand puppets.
2006-08-09 20:48:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked Jon H's answer.
Unfortunately, nothing would ever be decided if there wasn't some sort of agreement somewhere among some of our politicians.
2006-08-09 20:48:43 · answer #10 · answered by powhound 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋