America Vs. Third Parties Dick Meyer Is Tired Of The Two-Party Political System

CBS News ^ | April 13, 2006 | Dick Meyer

[ruffedgrouse]

"special interest"

There is no ATLA political party, no NEA political party, no Pharma political party, no insurance polticial party, no NRA political party, no AARP political party, no US chamber of commerce political party, no tobacco political party, no NARAL poltical party etc. etc. These alphabet organizations are not parties, they exist to funnel campaign contributions (i.e. "buy") "demopublican" people whom they like, not to get THEIR OWN MEMBERS to office.

[benjaminjjones]

A) Thanks for totally ignoring the point of my post by ruffedgrouse

B) Since Oct 25, 2006

C) Consistently contrarian attitude

D) Upon further review:

High probability of:

Smooth sailing and hava nice trip.

[ruffedgrouse]

So I don't like smoking. Sue me.

[Sofa King]

"There is no ATLA political party, no NEA political party, no Pharma political party, no insurance polticial party, no NRA political party, no AARP political party, no US chamber of commerce political party, no tobacco political party, no NARAL poltical party etc. etc. These alphabet organizations are not parties, they exist to funnel campaign contributions (i.e. "buy") "demopublican" people whom they like, not to get THEIR OWN MEMBERS to office"

Only because most of them aren't big enough to do so in a two-party system. The large ones (such as the environmental special interests) already have their own parties. Some of the very parties that you listed as potentially forming are special interests, albeit the larger ones. Most of the people on this forum would have few qualms about voting for a gun-rights party.

The special interests that aren't big enough to form their own parties will just be able, with more parties to choose from, find a party that represents their interests well enough to just get more bang for their buck. A real Libertarian party would be a perfect fit for the tobacco industry in trying keep the government from passing laws against smoking.

Oh, wait, I forgot, in your system third parties will fund their campaigns with sunshine and pixie dust.

[ruffedgrouse]

--Oh, wait, I forgot, in your system third parties will fund their campaigns with sunshine and pixie dust.--

True, you'd need some real public funding to prevent a small party from being bought off by a lobby or some wealthy sugar daddy like a Soros or Scaife. Some people on this board would scream murder at such a suggestion, though.

[Sofa King]

"True, you'd need some real public funding to prevent a small party from being bought off by a lobby or some wealthy sugar daddy like a Soros or Scaife. Some people on this board would scream murder at such a suggestion, though."

A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan...

[ruffedgrouse]

"A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan..."


OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund). The only other option would be totally "neuter" lobbies by preventing ANY money tracable to a lobby to go to ANY candidate (i.e the ONLY way a candiate could raise money--if no public funding--would be by strictly limited private contributions). At least that solution would ensure that a politician "danced with the one who brung him." I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either. I'm just trying to suggest improvements in the system--and Lord knows there is plenty of room for them!

[Sofa King]

"OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund)."

Keeping things clean? You're handing the keys to the asylum over to the inmates. Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please. You might as well let them decide whether or not their opponents will be allowed to run against them at all. It'll the founding of the first genuine American aristocracy. On top of that, nothing short of an act of God is going to prevent politicians who you've just given direct access to government money from funneling it into their pockets.

Really, I'd much rather see my politician's campaigns funded by the NRA. At least then I can choose somebody who is being bought off by groups that I agree with.

"I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either."

That tends to happen when you lead off with "Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."

[ruffedgrouse]

--"Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."--

OOOH-KAAAY. I'm sorry. :-(

--Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please.--

If that be the case, then what about the second suggestion--keep lobbies out of the financing game entirley. Let the $$$ flow ONLY from private contributions of a certain amount. This way, like I said before, the politician/party has no choice but to "dance with the one who brung him/it."