Many people who voted for the Democratic party in November did so to end the war and a substantial part also for impeachment.Yet nothing happens.I think that's because the Dems know the anti war,pro impeachment crowd can't go to the reps anyway so they cater to the middle voters and ignore their left side.If their was a credible party on the left of the DNC they would feel the heat and probably turn it up a nudge.
I see the same happening on the right with illegal immigration.That's a very important issue to a lot of Republicans yet their party seems to pander to the center on that issue.They know hardliners on this point will never go to the Dems.What if there was a credible alternative that had a very clear position on that issue right of the GOP?
Is the two party system reducing the influence of the people ?
2007-09-09 12:29:20 · 14 answers · asked by justgoodfolk 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I voted for Nader in 2000 (here in California where Gore won easily) because I was fed up with the Neoliberal "Free Trade" agenda that, both the Clintons and Bushs supported, let Corporations make all the rules in secret and sent hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas.
Nader drew sellout crowds all over the country but the Presidential debates are Corporate sponsored and organized by Democrats and Republicans; they not only didn't let him debate but when he arrived to watch the debate with a ticket he was threatened with arrest!
What is really needed is to democracize our elections is:
1) Public not Corporate financing of elections and
2) Ranked choice voting (like we have had in San Francisco) this would eliminate the "spoiler" issue and get more people to vote.
Both these actions would invigorate the voters and third parties like the Green Party and Liberatarians.
Unfortunately, like our Private/For-Profit Healthcare system, the Wealthy Corporations and the Military Industrial Complex and their Political bribed puppets like their "representative" plutocracy just the way it is.
2007-09-09 16:36:11 · answer #1 · answered by Richard V 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most people understand that the problem here is not the Democrats--they are keeping their campaign plegesregarding Iraq. The problem is that Bush and the right-wing GOP remnant in Congress are using the veto to block the will of the American people.
The Democrats do not (yet) have the votes to enforce a withdrawal timetable. The only alternative is to simply cut funds. That would work--if we were simply dealing with a poliicydispute, however heated. But no one is under any illusion tha tBush will simply leave our troops to die without needed supplies and equipment. With our soldiers as his hostages, he is blackmailling the Democrats into providing funding.
But--his support even on the right is eroding daily. It may collapse in the very near future and Bush's vetos can then be overridden. Otherwise, we may be stuck in this standoff for the next year and 4 months. But don't blame the Democrats-they're just trying to keep as many of our troops alive as possible until Bush is out of the way, either by losing support or ending his term in office.
An ugly situation, I agree. But let's put the blame where it belongs.
2007-09-09 12:40:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem is complicated. One involves money and the other involves poltical power in Congress. Even if an independant gets elected he has to decide who he will caucus with. In other words, which party does his views most fit into to.
I definately think Americans want other options, the problem is how to get that. So much money is at stake and an independent candidate simply can't raise the funds he/she needs to survive to beat a candidate.
2007-09-09 12:42:45 · answer #3 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. There's barely a line between the two parties anymore. They are both giving vague answers on their issues because they don't want to make anyone mad and lose their vote. They're not listening to the people anymore, especially on issues like immigration. Instead of doing something, they're tip toeing around trying not to lose votes.
2007-09-09 12:37:41 · answer #4 · answered by Andrea K 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I seriously wonder if the two parties are in cahoots. Together
they easily block any attempts that the grass roots can
garnish. Regardless of which is in office it's business as
usual. The politicians do the dancing and we pick up the
tabs for the band.
2007-09-09 12:35:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Uhh, we've not rejected the two social gathering device, i think of Obama-McCain have been given ninety 8% of the final vote final November. the place is Ross Perot once you prefer him. Alot of dems could desire to offload the democrat social gathering and initiate helping the golf green social gathering, perhaps then we are in a position to have a third social gathering having effect.
2016-10-18 11:41:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I would say the two-party system is reducing the influence of the people. I'm for an overhaul of the electoral process, starting with the electoral college and the way votes are distributed.
2007-09-09 12:33:03 · answer #7 · answered by Kate J 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Check out the Constitution Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj3sQ_T-x7M
2007-09-09 13:07:00 · answer #8 · answered by KD7ONE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, yes and...yes.
The USA could really use a viable third party.
Things go so interestingly close back when Ross Perot ran...I thought I would wet myself.
Many Americans were very disappointed when Ross pulled out of the race.
2007-09-09 12:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by John Doe 1st 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES!!!
This country was set up with the intent of having a nearly infinite choice of parties. To think that we VOLUNTARILY narrowed the field to two parties is disgusting to me. We have embraced the leaders that enslave us, and called them brothers.
2007-09-09 12:40:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋