Originally Posted by Timbo
On the 3 party thing, I've always considered myself an Independent voter, the left is too far left for me on some issues, and the right is equally too far right on some too. I agree with about half of each party, but cannot get 100% behind either one.



As someone mentioned earlier, the fact that these two parties could only produce these two candidates is pretty sad. Mark laid out why we have a two party system, but also if we were to have 3 parties, and say they were evenly split, 33% support of each, then no matter which party won an election, the other two parties, or a 66% majority of the population, would then be governed by a clear 33% minority, and nobody wants that.

I think both R+D are willing to submit to being governed by the other, as long as it's about a 50-50 split, they know the pendulum will swing back to their side eventually, just like it's been doing for years. 8 years of Clinton, followed by 8 years of W followed by 8 years of Obama.


Well done. You describe how what you value is divided between D's and Rs. That is the case for almost every voter.
You get the process.... you vote for one of them...(an as an american... you demand a fair and inclusive process) Nobody ever said... you had to like the choice.... just choose!

So, Why would just two parties form.... The answer is... How could you get anything done in the real world?

Do you have any examples in life where you have 3 groups who have to make ONE decision at a time and then repeat the process...for the next and the next.. and it never stops. I can't because human brains don't work that way... A forced choice design works and thus the two teams.

Three factions always work their way down to two... again... a forced choice.. the winner of course is always in the "public's interest" (cause they won)

So, its just one self interest beating the other self interest in the public arena with a lot of marketing.

How does that work... The system gets buy in... when they convince you, a voter, that you REALLY have autonomy and you can individually make a difference in the unicorn called a public interest.
Nope... you need group action that is directed... compare Tea Party... don't take my stuff and give it to undeserving "others" A special interest used that noise to preserve their self interest in medical and insurance policy. with MOVE ON, "we want banksters locked up and suffering" Lots of noise that went no where... Hmm whats the difference?

The republican PARTY used the noise and the system to make total resistance to insurance reform acceptable as part of a public interest fight (its what they value) ..... the democratic PARTY did not find it in their interest to use the Move on noise. (they were in power and had passed banking reform as consistent with what they value)

Yesterday, the Woman's movement generated EPIC noise on a world stage... I suspect the Dem's will follow the Republican model and mount total massive resistance with the Noise to whatever Trump and the Republicans eventually come up with.

My point... you need group action that is managed by a strong political party to get results. its hard ball! don't fall for the unicorn... of "it's the public's interest..." don't believe in fairy tales of how things work.
Its mobilized group action that is manipulated by a PARTY to move a self interest that is a shared value.

Got have both bits... and you can't undervalue either one AND the next value could differ... nothing is perfect....

Bottom line... We need to have STRONG partys... not weak ones to make a difference. Misunderstand that relationship... and you amp up your partisanship. As an individual, YOU THINK that your strong Partisanship is important...

Nope... you just made it easy for shadowy special interests to petition the government and get what they want from a weak party structure that gets rolled and paid off. (The Republican Party collapsed after McCain and Romney got crushed by a black politician in america.... the weakness in the rules and PR campaign allowed Trump. MEANWHILE, Democratic weakness allowed Bernie Saunders to rebrand himself and now they are trying to weaken the PARTY further...
You note that the weak parties we have rotate power every 8 years.... umm.... the true special interest ALWAYS win in this environment.. the more PARTISANSHIP... the easier their job to roll the individual politicians and further drive up hyper partisanship.







Last edited by Mark Schneider; 01/22/17 03:12 PM.

crac.sailregattas.com