Most just fling mud at each other. Some alternate party candidates were just as qualified and seemed to have more integrity.
2006-12-08 18:56:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hey Bev- I refuse to live in fear...and yeah, we can do something about it. Whining ain't it, sweety.
2006-12-08 22:01:56 · update #1
People should disregard party lines when choosing the right candidates.
2006-12-08 19:06:09 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the reason for which it is a two-party system is because that both parties make it impossible for third parties to be competitive. in the united states, if one wants to run you need money. money is usually raised by both the party and the canidate. since raising money is private, for the most, third parties do not have connections with say lobbying firms that shell out a substantional majorty of cash towards the two parties. so to put it simple: politicians have the pen to write the laws, and lobbying firm give them the cash and tell them what to write in. it is a win-win situation for those involved.
2006-12-09 03:08:01 · answer #2 · answered by botackt 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because any sports game never has 3 teams competing at the same time. Politics would suck if there were more than 2 parties. 2 parties make it interesting, you always have one you love, and one you hate...
2006-12-09 04:02:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The big party gets more news coverage than the little parties.
2006-12-09 03:37:10 · answer #4 · answered by Saint 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
follow the money. It's not about ideas or idiology or what's good for the country, it's all about who has the most money. they are the ones who get their agenda. Right or wrong (mostly wrong) that's how it works. The tail is wagging the dog and has been for a long time.
2006-12-09 03:12:52 · answer #5 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
GOOD GIRL GO TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS + NOW THAT U ARE THERE CAN U DO ANYTHING + NO,CAUSE U HAVE NO POWER, NO SUPPORT, NO PROGRAM, NO NOTHING, SO THAT IS ONE PROBLEM, AND 300 MILLION PEOPLE HERE ALREADY KNOW THAT TOO, WE CAN'T GET OUT OF LOCK-STEP-METHODOLOGIES=(SELF DESTURCTIVE SUBVERSIVE INCREMINATION), THIS IS THE UNIDENTIFIABLE THAT YOU MAKE CLEAR HERE THAT WILL BE USED TO HAUL U AWAY WITH,GOT IT?, C WE GOT THE MEL GIBSON, MOVIE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AND U JUST SCRAPPED THE SURFACE, MOST SMART PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T WITH STAND THE INTIMACY OF BEING UNDER THE PRESSURE OF OPEN BOOK LIFE OF PUBLIC TRUST IT IS VERY UN AMERICAN TO BE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T
2006-12-09 03:57:35 · answer #6 · answered by bev 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Good point. While I am not American, years ago, I admired Ross Perot for putting his money where his mouth is. My ideal candidate for the U.S.:
He would focus foreign policy on real justice from the Saudi Arabian government for 9/11 and pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He may have to bring sanctions against Iran, but he would work with the EU and U.N. to look for alternatives.
He would secure abortion and birth control rights for women and support same-sex marriage but allow churches to be excempt from the promotion of any belief they deemed unsuitable or unbiblical, this goes for any other religious group.
He would guarantee separation of church and state and ban religion from the school system except for the allowances of distribution of religious literature, days off for religious holidays and official days of worship and the offering of a comparative religion class.
He would introduce some type of public health care system in the U.S.
He would provide low-income housing and daycare for the poor with children.
He would ban daycares from high schools and introduce sex ed and parenting classes, so as not to promote teenage pregnancy.
He would allow addicts to choose rehab instead of jail and would focus more on dealers and smugglers instead of addicts;
He would improve conditions for single-parent families by offering more education, job-training programs and income supplements.
He would go after deadbeat dads.
He would offer better programs for the homeless and not force the mentally ill and disabled out of institutions and onto the streets.
He would outlaw the death penalty except for treason, multiple murders, and terrorism.
He would support quotas and ban hate literature and accept more refugees.
He would require immigrants to learn English.
He would introduce anti-racist education in schools.
He would ban guns.
He would reform the economy, making it more capitalist but would vote against free trade and introduce higher minimum wages for lower-end states that fall below a miminum reasonable standard.
2006-12-09 03:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The libertarian party is good.
2006-12-09 10:20:25 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And thats why the elections between Dem. and Rep. are so hard. Democrats suck, Republicans blow.
2006-12-09 03:14:13 · answer #9 · answered by druszka717 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because some people just have a hard time letting go. <*)))><
2006-12-09 02:58:53 · answer #10 · answered by Sandylynn 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋