Comments on: And They Think We Should Vote for Them Because … ? http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:08:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2518 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:49:01 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2518 The two-party system is entrenched because of the way we hold elections. People have worked their butts off trying to break the two-party monopoly since parties formed in this country. The only exception was in the 1850s, when the Whig Party fell apart. Several small parties competed to become the second major party, and the Republicans won. If we changed the system -- allowed runoffs if nobody gets a majority, for example, then it might work. But until then we're stuck with two parties. The two-party system is entrenched because of the way we hold elections. People have worked their butts off trying to break the two-party monopoly since parties formed in this country. The only exception was in the 1850s, when the Whig Party fell apart. Several small parties competed to become the second major party, and the Republicans won.

If we changed the system — allowed runoffs if nobody gets a majority, for example, then it might work. But until then we’re stuck with two parties.

]]> by: lurker http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2511 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:54:35 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2511 You know, I have thought for a while now that the time is right for a 3rd party candidate. And at this point, I'll consider any and all offers :P You know, I have thought for a while now that the time is right for a 3rd party candidate. And at this point, I’ll consider any and all offers :P

]]> by: Ian http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2510 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:37:16 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2510 What may be needed, I think, is an election cycle where voters are disgusted with BOTH major parties (this one maybe?), and there exists TWO viable independant parties, one for the disgusted republicans and one for the disgusted democrats ... maybe Libertarian and Green ... so that the vote gets split *4* ways, not 3 ... could work. -me What may be needed, I think, is an election cycle where voters are disgusted with BOTH major parties (this one maybe?), and there exists TWO viable independant parties, one for the disgusted republicans and one for the disgusted democrats … maybe Libertarian and Green … so that the vote gets split *4* ways, not 3 … could work.

-me

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2503 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:03:25 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2503 lurker -- "the challenger will split the Democrat’s vote." No, I don't think so. In some parts of the country, in state and local races, yes, but in the long run, no. You're still going by the old conventional wisdom, but the national mood is shifting. Bush has, what, a 39 percent approval rating? That's pathetic. I think if people were given a clear alternative to the GOP, they'd take it. Regarding Nader, <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/31/believe/" rel="nofollow">see what I wrote today</a>. lurker — “the challenger will split the Democrat’s vote.” No, I don’t think so. In some parts of the country, in state and local races, yes, but in the long run, no. You’re still going by the old conventional wisdom, but the national mood is shifting. Bush has, what, a 39 percent approval rating? That’s pathetic. I think if people were given a clear alternative to the GOP, they’d take it.

Regarding Nader, see what I wrote today.

]]> by: lurker http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2502 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:56:44 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2502 No, I don't think it's hopeless. On the other hand, Republicans react to their Democratic opponent having a progressive challenger with barely disguised glee. Why? Because it means the challenger will split the Democrat's vote and the Republican will have a better chance at winning. The challenge one would face is huge--you'd have to convince enough people to vote out the incumbent Democrat and still defeat the Republican challenger. Again, I don't want to be the voice of doom and gloom, but the two party system does have its limitations and, well, two words for you: Ralph Nader. Of course, none of this means that progressives should throw in the towel. Giving up is never a good option. If we go down, let's go down fighting.. not like the embarrassing display of "leadership" in the Alito fiasco of late. No, I don’t think it’s hopeless. On the other hand, Republicans react to their Democratic opponent having a progressive challenger with barely disguised glee. Why? Because it means the challenger will split the Democrat’s vote and the Republican will have a better chance at winning. The challenge one would face is huge–you’d have to convince enough people to vote out the incumbent Democrat and still defeat the Republican challenger. Again, I don’t want to be the voice of doom and gloom, but the two party system does have its limitations and, well, two words for you: Ralph Nader. Of course, none of this means that progressives should throw in the towel. Giving up is never a good option. If we go down, let’s go down fighting.. not like the embarrassing display of “leadership” in the Alito fiasco of late.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2499 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:38:40 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2499 <i>Suggestions?</i> We ARE having an impact. We ARE turning it around. Change is slow, but power establishments are big beasts that need a lot of shoving. Suggestions?

We ARE having an impact. We ARE turning it around. Change is slow, but power establishments are big beasts that need a lot of shoving.

]]> by: merciless http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2498 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:22:29 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2498 Lurker does have a point, and I have no clue how to get around it. My district has elected Heather Wilson (R:NM) three times. The first time was by the skin of her teeth, and it happened because there was a good Green candidate that got just enough democratic votes to put her over the top. Now she's an incumbent. I don't know what to do with Bingaman. He emailed me twice last week, expressing grave reservations about the Alito nomination (real correspondence, by the way, not the form letter that Domenici sends), and I urged him to support and particpate in a fillibuster. Bingaman is from Silver City, a small town in Southern New Mexico, and I know of no NM democrat who could come close to beating him in November. The good news is that Domenici is up for re-election in 2008, and rumor has it that he's retiring. That seat we might win. I intend to keep up my correspondence with Sen. Bingaman, and keep working to make sure my progressive voice is heard. Other than that, I'm not sure what to do. Suggestions? Lurker does have a point, and I have no clue how to get around it. My district has elected Heather Wilson (R:NM) three times. The first time was by the skin of her teeth, and it happened because there was a good Green candidate that got just enough democratic votes to put her over the top. Now she’s an incumbent.

I don’t know what to do with Bingaman. He emailed me twice last week, expressing grave reservations about the Alito nomination (real correspondence, by the way, not the form letter that Domenici sends), and I urged him to support and particpate in a fillibuster.

Bingaman is from Silver City, a small town in Southern New Mexico, and I know of no NM democrat who could come close to beating him in November. The good news is that Domenici is up for re-election in 2008, and rumor has it that he’s retiring. That seat we might win.

I intend to keep up my correspondence with Sen. Bingaman, and keep working to make sure my progressive voice is heard. Other than that, I’m not sure what to do. Suggestions?

]]> by: Rick http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2495 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:20:39 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2495 Life in America is not hopeless...as long a s you are a large corporate entity. Otherwise we are all, inevitabely, waiting to be milked for every cent we can be forced to produce. Life in America is not hopeless…as long a s you are a large corporate entity. Otherwise we are all, inevitabely, waiting to be milked for every cent we can be forced to produce.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2494 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:49:36 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2494 <i>I was agreeing with you, in case you missed it.</i> My impression was that you said the situation is hopeless. Maybe it is, but I'm not ready to concede. I was agreeing with you, in case you missed it.

My impression was that you said the situation is hopeless. Maybe it is, but I’m not ready to concede.

]]> by: lurker http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2489 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:04:04 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/30/and-they-think-we-should-vote-for-them-because/#comment-2489 Do you really have to be so snarky? Geez. I was agreeing with you, in case you missed it. Do you really have to be so snarky? Geez. I was agreeing with you, in case you missed it.

]]>