Why A 3rd Party System Might Be Worse

From Encarta.

No, not a majority, popular vote, but a blow out, electorally, but with lunatic Perot as a spoiler, I doubt any serious candidate could have gotten popular majority. Just an other reason why more than 2 parties is not a good idea.

 

I doubt many Germans would have been considered a sterotypical Nazi either. All it takes is blind faith, fearmongering, and misinformation to follow a charismatic leader to whever he may lead...

Our checks and balance are being eroded. A constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from "activist judges"?
How many executive orders has Bush invoked in his first term to get around congress? And we all saw the Integrity and Unbiased nature of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election didn't we?

Patriot Act. All it takes is enough fear and a public willing to give a little ground whenever they're scared.
Our government today is scary in it's power. It's the most powerful on earth, and it's not modest about showing it.

 

Even though Perot helped throw the election to Clinton, I wouldn't want to rob him of the opportinity to run. The spotlight he threw on the deficit was undoubtedly helpful. In that sense, I wish he'd run again!

Hitler exploited a long history of German anti-semitism. Of course, once in power, he vanquished other political parties, all for the sake of the "stability" that you crave.

These activist judges are the very ones eroding our checks and balances, inventing new "constitutional rights" out of thin air as they see fit.

I doubt that he's issued many more than Clinton, and I wager that several of them are simply overturning Clinton's.

Right. We should've crafted new rules for interpreting dimpled chads after the election . . .

That was passed by Congress, not decreed by Bush.

This is somehow helped by having only 2 corporate-dominated parties?

 

Last time I checked, it was the judicial branch who decided whether laws were constitutional or not. certain rights not protected by the constitution? Fine, let it work it's way through the appealet(sp) courts, thats why they are there. Instead though the president and his party bypass the system and write their version of what the constitution should say. If that doesn't undermine the Judicial branch i don't know what does.

I don't know, but i'll try to find out.

The problem was that they stopped the counting. We now know of serious "mishandling" of the voting process in Florida, including taking thousands of voters off the rolls illegally.

Don't kid yourself, it was a party agenda. Regardless that it recieved support by power hungry poly-tics from the other party, it was spearheaded by Ashcroft.

Maybe not, the title of the thread is "Why A 3rd Party System Might Be Worse". Just one theory out of many.:H

 

When Cheney, the #2 man of the Executive Branch (and effectively the man put together with W by Daddy Bush to ensure sonny does as the PNAC has long intended) counts Scalia, The Chief Justice, as his best friend and fishing buddy, any belief that the checks and balances have remained intact after the 2000 election is utter naivete!

 

The problem is that the judiciary rarely relies on the actual text of the Constitution (or its historical context) in determining "constitutional" rights. The Roe v. Wade fiat is a perfect example of judicial usurpation of legislative authority, as are recent lower court decrees mandating that gay "marriage" be legally sanctioned.

Neither Bush nor his party have the power to amend the Constitution. Amendments have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states.

They were no longer "counting." They were attempting to divine voter intent from improperly marked ballots, even holding them up to lights to try to discern what incompetent voters "meant" to do!

The purging of voter rolls is a separate issue that never made it to the Supreme Court; Gore was presented with the evidence and declined to pursue the matter.

Write your Congressmen.

Fair enough, but I remain very unconvinced. I think our political process would be greatly served if we had debates today as substantive as Lincoln & Douglass!

 

Yay, Huck and I agree!!!!!!! I will take complete and full responsibility if Bush wins this election because I'm voting third party and I'm proud of it. How many people voting for Kerry can at least say they are proud of it. Most of those voting for him are only doing it because " he is not Bush" afterall that is his platform isn't it? Hi I'm Kerry, I don't stand for anything and I change my mind every other day, but at least I'm not Bush. Please vote for me.

My name is Jennifer (aka cutelildeadbear) and I approve this message.

On a different note, I think we should have instant runoff voting.

 

I CAN!!!!

I also refuse to be responsible for four more years of W. REFUSE. This isn't a game, no one is being impressed or shown a "lesson" the biggies don't care if some are "making a statement." The only important thing is that a dangerous man (along with his staff) may well have this country in his clutches for an other four years, and NO amount of Idealism or "Making statements" is worth that to me.

I am 42. I am done "making statements" I am now "Making changes." BIG difference.

 

Maggie,

when I typed that exact sentence, you are the only person who popped into my mind. LOL and I don't even know what you look like, so I was picturing your avitar.

I know that you truely believe in Kerry and Edwards as well. I don't think that the majority of the people voting for him feel the way that you do though. Just what I get from people.

Also, I'm not proving any points or teaching anyone any lessons. I believe in what I believe in and I can't change that. Nor am I willing to set aside my beliefs and settle for someone who isn't going to do what I believe is right. I don't feel that it is idealism either. I believe in specific issues and how they should be handled. Kerry does not plan to handle them the way that I want, or even close. I mean I am willing to compromise, don't get me wrong. This just seems like too much of a compromise for me. This isn't a statement for me. No one is going to know who I voted for so how could I be making a statement. This isn't some "movement" that I'm just a part of. This is how I truely feel deep down within myself. People can hate me for it. People can even blame me if Bush is elected. I don't care, because I still believe that I have to follow my heart. No matter how persecuted for my beliefs I am, I'm doing what I feel is right. I hope everyone does that, but I know better.

You know that I've weighed the options with an open mind. I've come to you and others here with the hope that someone would convince me that I can vote for Kerry. But even with everything that you and some others have told me and shown me, I still can't do it. I have to vote for Nader, or I would be a hypocrite to myself.