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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (684361)	6/5/2005 10:06:26 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"We have a two party system that works." Two points: 1) I'm not conceding that it 'works' all that well anymore --- too many huge problems going unaddressed for far too long, too much passivity and lack of interest in voting and government by the public. Most other countries have a multi party system. When the parliament elects the PM from their own ranks, it promotes a multi party system. Alliances can be fluid. Our scheduled direct elections of both legislators and the executive head limit the opportunity for an effective multi party system. 2) The so-called 'Party system' was NOT designed into our nation by the founders --- it just sort of happened along the way. Nothing about it in our Constitution, ir AIN'T OFFICIAL. Furthermore: it's gotten a Hell of a lot more RIGID and less inclusive of new ideas in the second halh of the 20th. century and into the 21st... Not at all like it USED to operate in the first half of the 20th. century, or throughout the 19th. century. Parties USED to rise and fall, change their names and political stripes, adopt different or new ideas from third and fourth Parties, merge and divide, etc. The WHOLE PROCESS was a LOT more fluid and organic then it's become in our lifetimes. Now... it's Chip and Dale... Flip and Flop... two sides of the same hackneyed and crusty coin. It's become stultified and unproductive. We haven't even been able to balance the books for nye on a half century now... yet each side of the Republi-crats continues to grease it's supporters. But the common good, where is that? "The fiddling with election laws probably reinforce this more than enforce a two party system." It's the two Parties who did the 'fiddling', writing laws in the States that did away with political rights Americans have had since the founding days... and an equally corrupted by politics Supreme Court upheld the Parties' machinations in one of it's worst rulings ever. The SCOTUS responds to the political winds of the times. It is supposed top just rule according to the Constitution. Even if they did that, therewould still be wiggle rome. Obviously they have been laking liberties of years. One example of the failure of the SCOTUS followed the failure of the POTUS on the heals of the legislature going too far. The McCain Feingold thing is a total disaster. A liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat team up to strip power from the parties because the current state gives an advantage to the Republican party. Why didn't POTUS veto it? Do you think he assumed the SCOTUS would strike it down? I suspect that he did. They waived it through despite the many un-Contitutional parts of it because President Bush had declined to veto what was obviously a bad bill. Who can blame the Supremes? The two party system is working for now. Yes, there is the two headed hydra problem. The problem in our government may be more related to the stage of democracy that to the two party system. Our populous has discovered that the ballot box contains the keys to the treasury. This democracy is destined to implode, the question is not if, but when. It is already one of the oldest governments on the planet, and certainly on of if not the longest running representative government on the planet. informedconsentofthepeople.com Can we do anything to decrease the rigidity of the two party system? We would probably have to go jurisdiction by jurisdiction and sue to get them overturned. You would need a new legal principal to give the courts cover for overturning what they already ruled on. It is likely that you would need conflicting Circuit Court rulings to get the SCOTUS to hear the case(s).