What exactly is your Contract with America

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Flint

Our present system functions as if there is only one party. It's a fixed game.
The voters have no real choice in this system. I will not vote to perpetuate this broken system.

I understand, but there is no viable third option today. As a practical matter, the best we can hope for is gridlock.

Well, I think "we, the people" have lost the country on the national level, anyway. Corporate and powerful special interest groups buy themselves congressmen for Christmas.

At least if Washington was gridlocked, they couldn't take away anymore of our personal liberties.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

I understand, but there is no viable third option today.
As a practical matter, the best we can hope for is gridlock.

I propose that, since either of the two main parties we presently can choose from do not provide us with a viable choice, but rather simply project a contrasting "image" to the caricature of their opponents, a vote is wasted on either of them, and would be better spent on chipping away at their collective stranglehold, regardless of any immediate results, which we sould not be getting anyway, from the choices which are presented to us. I personally believe that the time to break from the current system is past overdue. Complacency will only be perpetuated if we continue to play along. Every voting cycle that we send the message "we accept the status quo" the worse it gets.

The standard media message regarding third party voting is that we will be "throwing our votes away" . . .
I ask you: what the hell do we get for our votes now? It's insane to keep bouncing these two goliaths off of each other.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Flint

The standard media message regarding third party voting is that we will be "throwing our votes away" . . .

Do you really think there was virtually no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000? Third party candidate Nader got almost 3% of the total votes. Votes that probably would have gone to Gore instead. So the media message is wrong. A vote for a third party is simply a vote for your least favorite of the Dems or Repubs.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

Third party candidate Nader got almost 3% of the total votes.

And with a few more votes than that, a third party gets "invited to participate" in the election, IE getting the same recognition, visibility, and funding as the big boys. So, what that 3% shows me is that, we almost did it. We should have tried just a little harder to vote with our conscience, instead of voting against a boogey-man from the "bad guys" side.

Edit: To clarify, what percentage of the votes for the main parties were essentiually votes "against" the other guys, versus how many of them were actually votes "for" somebody? If we're playing hypotheticals, let's shift those "against" votes around and see what we could have come up with.

[glatt]

Even Ross Perot, who got invited to the party, did little more than to spoil it for Bush 1.0 and open the door for Clinton.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

Even Ross Perot, who got invited to the party, did little more than to spoil it for Bush 1.0 and open the door for Clinton.

That's one interpretation. Another one is:
"fearful right-wingers, afraid of Clinton getting elected, throw their votes away on Bush, and score another victory for the fixed two-party system..."

Edit: ironically Clinton gets elected anyway

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

I won't vote "against" either of them, because it's a ping-pong game. I will only vote third party, any third party.

That sounds like you're voting "against" to me, if you don't care what the third party is "for".

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That sounds like you're voting "against" to me, if you don't care what the third party is "for".

That's right. I'm voting "against" the entrenched two-party system. Believe me, the irony isn't lost on me.
The difference is that I'm not voting "against" a boogey-man that mud-slinging political ads have indoctrinated me against.
I'm voting "against" a system that I have personally observed to be broken.

[Flint]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

[glatt]

I've heard that quote before. Did Albert actually say it? He was a smart guy in physics, but he was no expert in mental illness.

I would call that foolish, but not insane.

[Flint]

Many of the Google hits of that quote attribute it to Ben Franklin, so I have no idea really.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Part of the strategy of those mud-slinging political ads, is to turn some of the voters off completely. It's so much easier without all those silly votes to tally.

[Griff]

We got a flyer in the mail smearing Carney (Rep Sherwoods opponent) as a *shudder* LIBERAL. Some stuff about high taxes as well. I wonder if the term is loosing its negative vibe with the voters?

[richlevy]

This is a good article summarizing the overall problem.

Authors describe shambles of Congressional system

Two of the most knowledgeable congressional scholars are Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Their new book is "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track." They recently answered questions about their findings and views.

Q Is the current Congress demonstrably more partisan than those in the past? Why does it matter?

MANN: Partisanship particularly increased after the 1994 elections and then the appearance of the first unified Republican government since the 1950s. Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order -- the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process -- was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.

BTW, the Brookings Institute might be described as liberal, but the American Enterprise Institute isn't and is credited with giving Bush economic advice, most of which he apparently ignored.

Q Don't voters deserve some blame -- maybe a lot -- for Congress' shortcomings? Do we get the government we deserve?

ORNSTEIN: Sure, voters -- and even more, nonvoters -- deserve some of the blame. The low turnout we get exaggerates the power of the ideological activists who do turn out, skewing the system away from the middle.
But voters do not create the system that shapes the districts into noncompetitive ones, nor do they play a meaningful role in recruiting the candidates we get. ... And we cannot expect voters to pay close attention to the ins and outs of the legislative process, until some crisis demands it.
It is the voters' surrogates, including the press, who have to alert them when something is seriously wrong. But ultimately, only a credible threat that the public is prepared to throw the rascals out will change the ways in which politicians in Washington operate.