The "Two" Party System
By FireHorse
@FireHorse (293)
United States
November 30, 2007 8:37pm CST
The has been a great deal of revisionist history in our politics and history classes in the United States. As an example, are you aware the Democratic and Republican parties use to be one and the same? Are you aware that before the Democratic-Republican party changed it's name it was the Anti-Federalist party? Are you aware there are over 300 "third" parties with virtually no voice or real chance at being elected to federal positions? Are you aware that incumbant Democrats and Republicans get funding for their campaigns from YOUR tax dollars? The Democrats and Republicans seized control of the United States in the early 1800s. I think Jessy Ventura stated my point best when he said, "It's great that the United States has two parties! That's one more than Nazi Germany or Communist Russia!" He was of course being sarcastic.
The Anti-Federalist party are the ones responsible for removing important ideals from the original draft of the Constitution. In the original, slaves were to be freed and even given a vote, women were to be given a vote, the country was intended to be a democracy with a popular vote instead of a republic with a house of representatives and an electoral college. The Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution until these things were removed. After all, they simply didn't want to pay taxes to the king, they surely couldn't trust commoners to rule themselves!
2 responses
@urbandekay (18278)
•
1 Dec 07
From a European perspective your two parties still look pretty similar, both extremely right wing. Yes I was aware your constitution was sabotaged by vested interest before it was ratified.
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@FireHorse (293)
• United States
1 Dec 07
They look pretty similiar from an American perspective, as well. Each will say whatever they think is popular to get voted in then will vote for bills according to their TRUE constituency which are the ultra rich. They don't seem to care what the majority of us believe until election time. They spend millions of our own tax dollars to study what the public wants them to say in order to get positions that only pay $150,000 or so per year, why? So that they can fool us all into believing this is a democracy and NOT an oligarchy! By the way, the exact same occurs in all European contries that also claim to be democratic, they just use more parties to hide the fact that you have NO say in your own government! Study what your government is doing. Look at what they've done, you'll see I'm neither lying nor exagerating the problem.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
1 Dec 07
British politics is far from honest, there are however some significant differences between the parties, though less than there used to be. And of course we have a free constitution; we are at liberty to do anything unless it is prohibited by law as opposed to a constitution that only guarantees certain 'rights.'
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Dec 07
The bill of rights wasn't suposed to be in the original document either.
While it is true that encumbants get some financing not given to others, there are still a number of available funds to other candidates. while I couldn't name programs specificaly or where to find them, I do know they exist. But funding alone does not a candidate make. Exposure is essential and that doesn't always take money. The major news agencies seem to grant exposure to cadidates who can make a story, get viewers and basicly can sell.
The deeper thing one cannot ignore above all this though, is that the vast majority of the other parties cannot seem to put together a candidate with the right formula of philosophy, leadership and solid universal views that apeal to the majority. In short most people though aware of the other parties, simply seems to identif themselves with the views of the democrats, if your ideals lean left, and the republican or libertarian, if your ideals lean right. People feel almost complacenty that it is a "safe" choice with one or the other than take a chance on an unknown who a.) may not be electable in a general election, b.)may not have the ability to impliment his idology, and c.)is just considered too fringe to be an effective leader and servant of the masses.
In even shorter form, it is OUR fault. We the people over time have created a 2 party system simply by our complaicency and heard mentality.
In this day and age, with the internet becomming such an ingrained and intregal part of running a candidacy, it has truly leveled the playing field in many ways. Case in point, Ron paul, who's campaign has used the net as it's main workhorse and in doing so, raised over 4.7 million dollars in funding over night last month.
It's our country folks, as FireHorse said,there are 300 other political parties in this country, (47 active officialy registered to be exact, still a lot), find one who you truly feel you can hire and start supporting them and voting for them. Petitition your state reps to make it easier for a candidate to get on the ballot in your state, that is a state issue and not the federal government so those are the people you need to hound.
There truly is no excuse in this day and age for a "2 part system" and there truly is no one to blame but ourselves.
1 person likes this
