We don't need to hear from 40 different kook fringe wackos who each only muster 1-1.5%. We need to pay attention to the people who can actually be seated.
OK, but why then can we only here from 2 kook parties? Maybe 40 is right out, but why just 2? We're not paying attention as is, what's a few more added to the mix? Maybe enough to spur intellectual debate. Don't know, y'all don't want to have open political competition in an Republic....which is baffling.
Ah, going personal now. Nice.
Just used your own phrasing. Was there a problem with using your words?
You were just asking my permission to let all these kook-fringe parties in.
I'm not asking your permission, you're demanding that I ask your permission. I want a system open to political competition and to allow the People to hear the platforms being presented by various politicians, not just two, so that they can better choose the candidate whom best represents their political ideology. You don't like that idea, not sure why, but you seem rather staunchly opposed. To such degree that you demand that they be viable according to you set by the standards you endorse and screw me or my ideals on it.
I am not asking your permission, you are demanding I do.
yay for you, that does nothing of the argument. You have no clairvoyance of the future, so you can't tell where a party will finish off. You are not the god of politics and I don't think we should be basing a system off of your assumptions and denials of an open system. Particularly in a free Republic which requires such an open system to continue.
I don't have a party. I have a lean, but I don't have a party. I could just as easily agree with a conservative Democrat as a Conservative Republican; sadly there aren't many conservatives in power today.
Partly because of the closed down system, the parties don't actually have to listen to their constituents. Without third parties allowed to compete, there's nothing in the wings waiting to replace the main parties should they lose their way or act counter to their platform. If you happened to have an open system, you would be more aware of the various platforms (well maybe not you personally if you pay attention, but America on whole would certainly be presented with further options than the stagnate Republocrats), and could vote for a candidate best suited to your platform. Not being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils just because some guy over there says no other party is "viable" and thus they don't get to compete.
Freedom isn't free, no one has to give you a god-damned thing so put your hand down before it get's cut off. If you want political power then you have to go out an earn it. 1.5% is truly pathetic.
Freedom ain't free, but that was a very stupid retort. The future of the Republic requires open political competition so the People can better servo the government. I don't know why this fact eludes you, or seemingly pisses you off to such extent; but it's true. The system is set up so that the third parties CANNOT OBTAIN the criteria you call for. Specifically set up to stifle their importance and their ability to participate because if they freely participate it can severely screw up the plans of the main party.
But you call for the Catch-22, and it's illogical and irrational. Above all else, it is damaging to the very future of the Republic. All this is self-evident for anyone wishing to take the time to understand the system and what is at stake. For those who WANT to keep the Republic.