While I am voting for Obama over McCain, I really think that most political progress will be VERY limited until the 3rd party candidates are allowed to debate and receive federal matching funds.

The two party system is a SCAM from the beginning because there is always a scapegoat waiting in the wings.

"we tried to do this but the Republicans voted against it!!!"---and vice versa.

A two party system is a ridiculous system because I would bet that 90% of the people do NOT believe all of any candidates platforms but vote instead with the party they are registered with at the time.

But, shame on me because while a 3rd party really makes sense, I'm still going to pull the lever for Obama--depsite being a registered REpublican.

__________________
----------------------------------------------
SL2, Boombox, Soloist
Samsung P3
Sennheiser CX-300's
Rocketfish Bluetooth Headphones

It's nearly impossible since both dems and repubs are against it. Debates are run by the parties so all they have to do is disallow 3rd party candidates from participating.

The debates used to be run by the League of Women's voters until Ross Perot got 20% of the vote. Then the two parties changed the rules to eliminate the 3rd party participation.

Bullsh!t.

__________________
----------------------------------------------
SL2, Boombox, Soloist
Samsung P3
Sennheiser CX-300's
Rocketfish Bluetooth Headphones

The two party system works well when at least one of the party's reflect the true priorities of the majority of voters. Right now during the Bush years, I would say that neither party did right by their supporters. When we had the republican congress under Clinton, I felt we had a congress that was speaking for the taxpayer and smaller governemnt. But the republicans have completely deviated from their principles under Bush, and I think McCain is ready to pull them back to fiscal conservative values.

BTW, I think complete credit goes to Ross Perot for the Republican Revolution, because he caused Clinton to get elected, and he made a strong case for balancing the budget. So the Republicans were poised to deliver on this focus on spending, especially with Clinton as President. I voted for Ross Perot because of his focus on spending restraint and balancing the budget.

__________________
Help find the cure to major diseases, Join the DRC Folding team 49633

http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/m...&teamnum=49633

I was very close to voting for Perot but ended up voting Clinton. I was mostly voting against Bush though.

you could always vote for nader.

[quote=hank-the-dwarf;12023]you could always vote for nader.[/quote]

What little I've heard from him makes too much sense for him to be elected! Why does it scare the hell outta everyone when someone makes sense?

[quote=Easy Money;12075]What little I've heard from him makes too much sense for him to be elected! Why does it scare the hell outta everyone when someone makes sense?[/quote]

Americans like being lied to.

We won't have a third party until we get a fourth. It's too easy for the two established parties to gang up on the third. When you add a fourth or even a fifth, the alliances become less clear.

Right now, the most likely third party to emerge would be a group of disgruntled conservatives. But I don't see that happening.

__________________
FM radio-free since 12/25/03.

[quote=Casual Fan;12090]We won't have a third party until we get a fourth. It's too easy for the two established parties to gang up on the third. When you add a fourth or even a fifth, the alliances become less clear.

Right now, the most likely third party to emerge would be a group of disgruntled conservatives. But I don't see that happening.[/quote]

The libertarians would have a shot if they'd get rid of some of their more extreme positions. Problem too is that even those of us that call ourselves "independent", still tend to vote a straight party ticket. Very rarely do you see people vote dem or repub on the presidential ticket and then the opposite party for house/senate seats.