Topic of the Day: Why we need to end the two-party system
Posted 11 weeks 3 days ago byHere's an interview Ben and Joel had with Jesse "the Body" Ventura, who served as Minnesota's governor from 1999 to 2003. He is author of "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me!," which was published this year.
Q: What is the one point you want Americans to take away from your book?
A: Stop being Lemmings! Ask questions about your government's decisions and stay informed. "A foolish faith in government is the worst enemy of Truth! Albert Einstein
Q: What is the revolution you would like to see, why is it necessary, and will it be televised?
A: The revolution would be to take our government back from the two party system. It is necessary because the two parties no longer work for the American people. They work to further their power and influence over our government.
Q: Americans have a love-hate relationship with independent candidates for president. At best, even a dynamo like a Ross Perot could win only 18.9 percent of the vote. Throughout the 20th century, in fact, third-party or independent candidates have entered the stage with a bang and left with a whimper. What would you do differently?
A: What you describe is a natural result of the two party system working to ensure a third party won't win the election at the expense of the public. Whatever the Independent party carries as an agenda, the two major parties will then focus on that agenda basically telling the people, "You do not need this Independent candidate, we can take care of that."
Q: Probably the most eyebrow-raising part of your book is the material about the CIA operating domestically, which, as you point out, is flatly illegal. Should the CIA be abolished?
A: No, it should not be abolished, but it should be brought back to it's mission statement of gathering intelligence and not setting policy.
Q: You're pretty critical of the American system in the book. But haven't you done pretty well under that system?
A: I am not criticizing the "system" we know as the American Dream! I am criticizing the government. What does the two party system have to do with my success? Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissention is the highest form of patriotism."
Q: You depict yourself being assassinated while making an independent run for the White House. How do you think readers will perceive that?
A: I want them to understand that it is a likely possibility if an Independent candidate ever threatened to win the presidency that they could very well be assassinated. Either physically or by destroying the candidate's character.
Q: You suggest that we live under a "two-party dictatorship." But you won as a third party candidate. Doesn't your experience disprove that theory?
A: No! They did not take my candidacy seriously until it was too late. After I won, they worked very hard together to try to diminish my ability to make any significant change. I don't think they would make that mistake again.
Thoughts
shemale escorts
Submitted on July 14th, 2008 by AnonymousLooks good! I've got new pics of ass young ebony girls and
ass ebony or
ebony shemale and
shemale dick at
shemale movie
ELIMINATE SOME HATE
Submitted on June 19th, 2008 by janmbWe would not have a Constitution or a UNITED STATES if we didn't ALL agree on more things than we disagree on.
The mainly two-party system may have served a good purpose at one time but many people feel that today it does not, for all the reasons stated herewith on this thread.
Either Party Split or Grass Root upward
Submitted on June 19th, 2008 by John 2000It is not realistic to hope or expect that you can successfully run for President, or, in the remote chance that you did get elected, that you could be successful for long in the position. In order to accomplish such a thing, you would have to be a super charismatic thief of popular hearts and minds. This alone would spur intense resentment within the party machineries of the betrayed parties. Things would spiral downhill rather quickly.
No, I don't think you approach multiple party success by trying to start at the top. But, I do believe it is possible in one (or both) of two ways.
The quickest and most likely to succeed approach would be for a party to split due to difficult-to-reconcile and endemic internal factions within a given party. Currently, both D&R parties bear the possibilities of sufficient strains, and potentials are somewhat dependent upon the results of this current election. Everything is far from hunky-dory in either of the parties in an historic sense. It would seem seismic 9.0 in our 24/7 noise-mobile, but it could actually occur, and such a thing is probably long overdue. The most caustic issue would be : who gets to keep the old label(s)? Another difficult hurdle is how does it reverberate through all of the various states with its many aftershocks? How about D&R both split with a splinter from each coalescing into a new party that might not initially WIN, but would definitely possess the clout to swing policy and voting away from either/or partisanship and one that was more considerate of the well being of the nation in general.
The other way would have to be from the ground up, by slowly building constituencies across the country and acquiring sufficient popular support to begin winning at local, state, and House levels. Such a movement requires powerful personal leadership and a great deal of patience. Wide spread frustration with the status quo would greatly expedite the chances of making serious inroads. It would also require a good deal of encouragement from some mass medias.
Other than that, I would only offer that I have never been very impressed by the governments of democratic states which limp by under the format of multiple parties using coalition techniques to fashion policy and maintain a focus on long term objectives. If anything, they seem to be dominated by more bickering and patchwork than our 2 party approach has here in the US. The pettiness and nastiness is every bit as much in those as here, and the 'agreements' reached are usually just as under-the-table.
So far as Mr Janos aka Jesse Ventura goes, he is interesting and has said some daringly accurate things, but he is no one that I would ever take seriously.
From my blog
Submitted on June 19th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerRead the whole thing, if you have some time.
"Some Learning...Some Discussion"
This is from the conclusion.
"If the parties are the same, why do we have two parties instead of returning to the Democrat-Republican party of the 1790s? And if party labels don’t mean anything any more, why continue with them? And if party labels and therefore parties are no longer meaningfull, isn’t the two party system, as a result, no longer usefull?
My thesis. In this information age where a candidate’s beliefs are accessable to virtually every member of society at any time, the two party system and the primary system should be totally revamped.
I believe a better system would be that if citizens are able to meet some prerequisite they could be listed on the primary ballot. Whatever this prerequisite milestone (I will let some smart people figure that out), it should not be monitary and should limit the number of prospective candidates to around 10 nationally. Citizens of each state would be able to vote for their top choice in the state primary (all state primaries would be on the same day) regardless of party affiliation…because there would be no more parties with which to affiliate. Points would be awarded to candidates based on the partial credit received in the primary. The two candidates with the highest number of points would be the candidates for the general election.
I like this idea for a couple of reasons. Probably the number one is the power peddling and big money within the two parties today. I have listened to people who have been politicians or have run for office tell stories of how disgusted they became after seeing how politics really worked. The party will only support you if you toe the line…and party support is the only way to get elected because the party is where the money is. Basically, the party will scratch your back but you have to scratch it’s back for the remainder of the time. There are numerous direct consequence that I believe would be very helpful if parties were no longer allowed to be big business. First would be a decrease in centralized big money with the parties which would decrease money in politics as a whole. Next would be fostering a debate on ideas rather than the current debate based on party affiliation and name calling (names we have already determined no longer have meaning).
Another benefit would be the quality of people in the general election. With state open primaries all on the same day, the two people whose ideas the greatest number people identified with would be on the ballott. No longer in states with late primaries would you be forced to vote for the “presumtive nominee.” No longer would you run into the situation where a candidate wins a state by one vote but gets every elector from that state…leading to a situation where Hillary has more popular votes but Barack has more delegates.
There are many benefits to this set up but the final one I will discuss is the more direct feeling of influence in the political process. Your vote for the person whose ideas you like the most counts directly toward making him or her one of the two presidential candidates. There are no competing distractions, just the candidates’ platforms. This leads, once again, to a debate of ideas rather than the name calling slugfest that politics has become."