- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh, I agree that there's no solid third party alternatives.
But what I'm saying is that that's because of our first-past-the-post voting system. The only way to allow solid third party alternatives is to change the voting system. Science says so.
Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where I disagree with you concerns how the rest of Congress would treat such alternative Congressmen. I don't think they would be quite as conspiratorial as you make it seem. After all, Ron Paul is barely a Republican and had left the GOP to run for President on the Libertarian ticket in '88.
Despite that, Paul's committee assignments are as follows:
* Committee on Financial Services
** Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology (Chairman)
** Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
* Committee on Foreign Affairs
** Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
So Ron Paul, despite being an avowed libertarian, is actually a chairman on one subcommittee and is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs despite being a critic of the U.S.' interventionism on the world stage.
So I'm not disagreeing with you on the lack of 3rd party alternatives - rather, I'm disagreeing with you on how such 3rd party alternatives would be treated by Congress.
I'm aware of Duverger's law, which is only a hypothesis. And I agree there are some advantages to a two Party system but they begin to fade as the members become complacent and unchallenged to change from ineffective stances. Ron Paul has been in Congress off and on since the mid 70's is outspoken making him a peoples favorite and someone the Republicans want on their side. So he's politically active and has seniority, which is the biggest prerequisite for Committee positions. And even though he espouses Libertarian views he's still a Republican. He also made a lot of political friends when he joined a 17 member coalition to sue Bill Clinton over the Kosovo War.
I'll agree the two Parties aren't completely out of their minds corrupt, only fostering to their own ilk but there is definitely a culture of Party Line voting, which is evident on big bills. And it is usually to protect each sides vested interests, which is not usually in the best interests of their constituents. Both Party's essentially try to say Politically Correct statements for public consumption, then grab all the funding and resources they can for their positions. It's a reward system to the big campaign contributors, lobbyists and inside players. And I've heard several Congressmen in TV interviews say in so many words "you either vote for what the Party heads want or you're not in their good graces." Trust me they defend their Party and reward their supporters more than we see, especially from outsiders.
Last edited: