Polls show that most of the American public agree with your views on this... but the Presidential Debate Commission is owned by the two big Parties, so it's understandable why they would want to keep competition out.
(IMO, the two biggest fundimental problems that underlie this issue of 'two Party dominance' are: 1) Gerrymandering [which creates 'safe' districts for each Party, and squeezes out the moderates in the middle], and 2) a wrongful Supreme Court decision on the issue of "fusion voting" which gave the States [read: the two dominant Parties] the authority to PREVENT minor Parties from endorsing one of the big Party candidates if they liked that candidate's views, and putting that candidate on their ballot line too. You see, if for example, Bush won an election and he saw that 10% or so of his final votes [much more then the margin of victory for him over his Dem opponent] came from the 'Conservative Party', or from the 'Libertarian Party', then he would be much more likely to adopt some of the political positions of those Parties, to keep their members who voted for him in his camp next time.)
Fusion Voting allows the smaller Parties to grow, because --- if they endorse one of the 'big Party candidates' then people who vote for the minor Party need not feer their vote 'going to waste'.
Also, some of their more innovative ideas are more likely to make it into the mainstream for consideration. |
