Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8868)	11/6/2002 12:10:51 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

re MotD not Big Ron...he was an 80's mugg speaking of mug (shots) how many of his stooges were indicted.. hmmm..read at least 20 Good thing they wraped their crimes in red..white..and blue t ps..Dillingers pud is rumored to be in the Smith... king size....say some you think Bill measures UP..?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8868)	11/6/2002 1:39:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

2-party system not enough for political health The major parties are too quick to abandon principle to win election Editorial By JOHN B. ANDERSON Knight Ridder/Tribune Posted on Fri, Nov. 01, 2002 It's election time. Citizens face critically important choices: elections for governors who must make tough decisions in these tight fiscal times, House and Senate races to determine control of a narrowly divided Congress and a host of ballot measures. In this great democracy of ours, one might expect a surge of voter participation to show the world just how proud we are of self-government. Think again. By all indications, voters are not excited or engaged. In fact, experts are predicting that barely a third of adults will go to the polls. That's one of the lowest voter turnouts in the established democratic world for elections of a national legislature. A host of reasons can be fingered, but there's an essential one that many overlook. Our two-party system has reached a dead end. The two-party system has its advocates, but any advantages it might once have provided are swamped by problems that are inescapable with today's marketing technology and expertise. As long as we limit credible choices to two, most campaigns will sink into a distasteful concoction of poll-driven sound bites, negative attacks and avoidance of important issues. Democrats and Republicans may fight bitterly in Washington, but it's getting nearly impossible to distinguish them during election season. In desperate bids to be all things to half the people, both parties blur lines on everything from corporate malfeasance and Social Security to even something as momentous as war. Both parties are too quick to abandon principle and their heritage for the expediency of winning elections. Republicans talk nice about education and tough about corporate wrongdoers and advance plans to subsidize prescription drug costs -- all traditionally Democratic issues. When stocks tumbled, they quickly buried the idea of funneling part of Social Security proceeds into private investment accounts. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership fell in line behind President Bush's bid to oust Saddam Hussein, despite severe misgivings by most of their party's voters. On the campaign trail they mirror Republican vows to be tough on crime, crack down on welfare cheats, increase military spending and balance the budget. And given the zero-sum dynamic of two-choice politics, both sides won't hesitate to bludgeon opponents. The quintessential campaign success of 2002 was a political ad in Montana's U.S. Senate race that was so devastating that the opponent temporarily folded his campaign tent. In our "winner take all" system, campaign consultants and their polls and focus groups have become political steroids -- once used by one party, the other follows out of fear of falling behind. Because of these modern methods, in close elections a small minority of voters has much greater influence than the rest of us. These are the almighty "swing voters" who have yet to make up their mind. Think back to the battle for Florida's senior vote in the 2000 presidential election and the issues repeatedly stressed in national debates -- Medicare, prescription drugs and Social Security lockboxes. All are important, but other major issues were ignored. In "winner take all" politics, if you're in the wrong demographic in the wrong place, you might as well live on Mars. Since my independent presidential campaign in 1980, events have reinforced my belief in the need to expand viable choices across the political spectrum. To do so, we must change rules that make such candidacies rare. First, we should adopt instant runoff voting to give independents and alternative parties a fair chance to compete without being "spoilers." Instant runoff voting eliminates the need for runoff elections by allowing voters to rank their candidates in order of preference. Attractive third-party candidates and independents could try to build majority support, without threatening major party candidates by their mere presence. Second, we must consider following the lead of most modern democracies in adopting forms of proportional representation, in which both those in the majority and minority win a fair share of representation. In proportional representation, any group of like-minded voters can win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Only then will we have a truly muscular democracy, with credible candidacies across the spectrum that ensure important issues -- and those who care about them -- are not left behind. In an era when the public itself is becoming practically bystanders to elections, with decreasing participation and declining expectations, our "winner take all" system has failed us. A two-party system too easily can mean no choice at all. We need bold reforms to reverse these alarming trends. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John B. Anderson, a former member of Congress (1961-1981) and former presidential candidate, is president of the Center for Voting and Democracy, P.O. Box 60037, Washington, DC 20039. charlotte.com