We, the two parties vying for power, in order to form a more perfect protection of the system as it stands, will do anything to eliminate the possibility for any others wanting to create something to successfully challenge the electorate to rationally choose something other than our two parties. In this quest, we will thwart at every turn by erecting insurmountable bearers; impossible petition rules, exorbitant filing fees, draconian legislation only which will not apply to the two existing parties. Within this union we will form a bond of kinship to protect ourselves from all idealists, young and old. To this we pledge.
You know, I've read the Constitution and no where in that document is there anything about a party system of government. Yet, here we are some 250 plus years later and all we're talking about is which party is in the ruling majority or the outside minority.
In fact, we've devolved into such a state now, where we're not even discussing the reason for voting in a sound ideological methodology of governance, but just shouting at each other and quite rudely at that.
All of this is a simple distraction. It distracts us from an even simpler truth. The American system of governance was designed to exact compromise. Period.
We have reached a point of stasis - A condition of balance among various forces; motionlessness. If we don't move, we die. Compromise is movement. It is where two or more sides reach an agreement which not all sides are able to get everything they wanted, but everyone can live with what is agreed on in the settlement. At that point everyone moves on to the next issue.
We are entrenched in our ideological bunkers and no one is willing to compromise. Wait, let me be more correct in stating the facts. There is a well-healed, entrenched minority wielding ownership of the mechanism in which they've worked the system to such a degree, no one else has a snowball's chance of competing against said juggernaut.
There. So why try? Well because they may have the juggernaut, we have the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are of "them" and they are scared spit-less we're going to figure that out soon.
I read in a response to an article posted here on KOS where the person was saying not to vote for HRC because she was a neo-con, a corporatist, etc. I followed the discussion and someone else started talking about a third party and the inevitable name Ralph Nader comes up like a Babe Ruth bar in a pool...
All of this got me to thinking, what if? What if there were no parties? What if each person had to go in front of the electorate without some party affiliation? What if the Electoral College was like it was in the past instead of "Winner take all"?
What if someone successfully argued the discriminatory practice, not for voters, but for those willing to run for office? Isn't affiliation, or being marked on a ballot with an "R" or "D" or even an "L" discriminatory?
Shouldn't a primary system be open and a time for the electorate to choose a person for their message not for a party? If I am not affiliated with one of the two parties, why should I have to go through additional processes to be included on the same ballot?
It is because the two party system makes it easier for the money to be concentrated in one of two directions. It also makes it easier for those developing "the message" to concentrate on as few ideas as is possible. The two-party system creates a lazy electorate. We don't vote for a message, we don't vote for a way of governance, we vote for a party, we no longer vote for the person.
This is very sad. If we continue down this road, we will continue to remain in stasis and we will no longer be able to govern as intended; to compromise and move forward.