Replies

Columnist Vin Suprynowizc once asked his readers to imagine that they were citizens of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. ... “They told us that our only choice was between the Nazis and the Communists. So I had to choose the lesser of the two evils”? Or would they rather say, “I refused to support either the fascists or the Bolsheviks. Because of this, I was shouted down, marginalized and abused for refusing to acquiesce, but I stayed true to my conscience and to my principles”?

Really bad analogy. The Weimar Republic was a parliamentary multi-party system in which governments were usually formed by coalitions among the parties. If enough people supported the non-Nazi and non-commie parties, then these extremists stayed out of power.

We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.

This, in theory, could change at some time in the future. This year, it is quite obviously true.

We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.

When the two parties have the same agenda and promote the same agenda then a vote for either of the two parties is a waste for with or without a vote the outcome is the same.

We have, for better and worse, a two-party system.

I disagree. The word "party" does not appear anyplace in the constitution or in any amendment to it.

We have a "party-not-mentioned" system, so to assert as so many have that it is a "two party system" is only to repeat an opinion about a current way of doing things.

Proof that this is so is that the Constitution only requires a plurality for election to the presidency.

“We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.”

I would disagree in this regard...

We have a multi-party system inside each of the two parties.
On the R side, we have everything from the John Birch Society to the Libertarians.

When a party runs a candidate that is not acceptable to the majority of those across the full spectrum,
the disaffected have strong temptation to support a candidate outside the party that best represents their
interests. To assume that just because someone has an R by there name means they share an equal passion for
every issue, is I think, a false assumption. The party is not monolithic in regards to interests.

THAT is where we are with Romney. He represents weakly, SOME fiscal ideas, weakly, SOME (but not all) social ideas,
and comes with a history of representing the opposite side of most of what many of us are committed to.

It is no surprise that he is not a much-loved candidate. It won’t be a surprise when some significant percentage
of our side goes fishing that day in November...

We have, for better and worse, a two-party system.

There may have been a time when that was the case. Today, we have two divisions of a single party - the inside the beltway, elitist party, who are both beholden to special interests. They main difference between the two are which group of crony capitalists and insiders get the larger portion of the spoils.

Left completely out in the wilderness is the average American citizen.