This presidential campaign has been ugly. The two candidates offer radically different platforms. The two party system divides us, rather than uniting us. Every Democrat and Republican must support all of the party's position on issues including foreign policy, taxes, abortion, health care, economics, and more.
If we abolished the two parties and allowed candidates to run on their own merits, each candidate could choose his or her position on each individual issue. We could vote for a candidate based on values and positions on issues, rather than having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Under the current two party system, we are voting for a political party rather than for a person. These parties have too much power. It is power that should be in the hands of the American people.
The last three elections have been very close, which demonstrates how deeply divided our country is. The upcoming election has the potential to end the same way. We have left and right, liberal and conservative. The parties are poles apart with no middle ground.
The two party system does not offer enough options for excellence to a free people. Imagine having five or six choices of candidates. Imagine having to choose between two or more candidates that are so accomplished that it's hard to decide. I believe that, without political parties, we would have a better chance for sincere, honest leaders. If each candidate is equally funded, there can be no unfair advantages.
George Washington's Farewell address warned against the danger of political parties. Nevertheless, the two party system was formed during the administration of his successor, John Adams.
What do you think? Was George Washington correct in warning against political parties?
Is it time to end the current parties and open a free election with more choices?
"Between two stools lies the fall" - John Gower
"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it." - Oscar Wilde
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
The other problem is the other parties do not organize themselves well enough to get their own messege out.
Other parties try to run themselves as, "anti", the 2 major parties, instead of having anything to offer, of any real value, to people in a way that would solicit a, "YES", vote.
I don't know if that's the problem though. I think the negative campaigning is the actual problem. I think any candidate should have to run on their own merit rather than slandering the other candidates. Unfortunately the media gets off on negative news, so they actually entice the candidates to run negative campaigns. The example is Fox News, who has been airing negative hype about Wright and Ayers since summer. McCain didn't want to go there and stayed away from it until the campaign got desparate. It wasn't until after the conventions that McCain took the bait from Fox. So, I'd say the media is who has too much power over our elections.
As for the funding, this election has been interesting because instead of special interests buying the election, we've seen the people donate more than ever, especially on the Dem side. I would attribute that to having a unpopular President, the people donating is really the only way for them to speak out, since everything else comes from the media.
I think this election has been different though, and may change our system, because of the internet and cell phones. I don't think the polls are even close to reflecting the truth this year, and we saw that in the Primaries. It's because they haven't figured out how to poll cell phones. We have a generation on the go who is chosing cell phones simply because they cannot afford both a home phone and a cell phone. Then too, we're getting better info on the internet than on the news!
There are 250 million Americans. Every 4 years we each pay an additional $1 in taxes for the election fund. (If your family has 4 people you pay $4, if my family has 2 we only pay $2). That money is divided equally between the candidates and that is ALL they get. No private donations.
The reason being that so many candidates come into office "owing" the people who financed their campaigns. There are too many strings attached and they become puppets.
Whoever aspires to a position of power in the government (Senator, President, etc) must take a vow of poverty for their time in office and, once they leave office, may make no money whatsoever from their time in office. (No income from book deals, interviews, even speeches.)
Who would ever want the job of President then? Well, Mother Theresa took a vow of poverty and look at what she was able to accomplish-- and with her dignity intact.
I don't think of this will actually happen. I think we'll slog it out for time eternal, always a this side and a that side. One day a billion dollar campaign will not even sound expensive. Sigh...
if special interest groups and companies / corporations are excluded from contributing, and the only monies available are from the people, themselves ..... then, it may help the candidates "remember" that they are only beholden to the American PEOPLE ... and, since they will not have obligations to any outside special interest groups ... perhaps they will actually work for the good of the people ...
one thing it might do ... is to create confusion and more chaos in an already chaotic process ....... you know, this process should be very simple .... how in the world did we wind up with an election process that is all tangled up like it is ..... ????
Democracy is about compromise. The only candidate who will agree with 100% of your positions looks back at you in the mirror. And there ARE people in Congress who vote against their party when their conscience dictates. Hell, that's what McCain has been braying about for the past year.
The downfall of the current political system is the people who don't bother to research the candidates, whose only knowledge of them comes from those 30-second sound bites everyone decries.
The one thing democracy absolutely requires is an educated, informed electorate. Absent that, it doesn't matter what system you have, it'll be lousy.
I don't want my congressman to vote his party's choices. His/her job is to vote ours, or at least the majority of his constituents' wishes. As our representative, he/she has a sacred obligation to represent his/her constituents. If they don't, they should be voted out.
"Working across the aisle" or "across party lines" doesn't impress me. The parties are the equivalent of street gangs. The congressmen are our representatives, not their parties'.
They spend too much time complaining about the other side and too little time working on real issues.
I really like the Nextel commercials showing firemen running Congress. It puts humor to the sad state of our leglislative process.
I would like to have more choices in leadership and break up the monopoly of the two parties. I think they have outlived their usefulness to the American people.
Something needs to be done, but I think there is so much work involved in the changing of the two party structure to carry more flexible ways of thinking, that I don't see much hope for political change, not in my lifetime anyway.
Thanks Jan.
René
but have a nagging concern that an unopposed
Democratic Party will hasten our strides in the
race to the bottom.
(We can already see it with outsourcing jobs,
self-induced financial chaos, our "problem"
with the extreme right, and our declining
position in the world.)