It is not something many kossacks like to hear since this site is dedicated to electing more and better democrats, whereas the problem has always lain in the 'better' part.
I have long argued that two parties cannot represent honestly the wide diversity of opinions across over 200 million electors, perhaps long ago with a much smaller and less diverse electorate this was possible.
The majority of those in congress tend to represent the special interests of the elite and the corporations over and above any concession to we the people. Either we take our politicians/parties back or we give them some real competition.
I'm glad Thomas L. Friedman took this issue seriously today in the NYT
"These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans."
~Larry Diamond
The reason we are in this situation is that both the Democratic party and republican Party take it as their god given [financially] right that one or other will run the country. neither really tries that hard to hide just how much those special interests influence the legislation the produce and sign into law.
These two parties also decide who runs the highest court in the land [let alone the others] and hence the interpretation of the constitution. It may have worked up to a point in the past but the system is stagnating.
They have a financial stranglehold on the representation we can have because running against both of them is just too expensive except for the odd billionaire who decides to mess up the presidential election fun. The failure of these third party presidential candidates is less to do with grass roots movement and more to to with personal ego.
I'm a progressive/socialist and I whine at the party which sort of represents me, I vote for them because there is no real possibility [apart from my beloved Bernie] of any other party having a say in DC. I have voted for Jeffords in the past because he like Bernie is an honorable and independent spirit.
The reason why we never get to campaign finance reform nor any real debate over the citizens united ruling is that neither overfed party has any real reason [apart for temporary glitches] in fighting for reform.
As individuals we cannot compete against the electoral distortion caused by excessive donations to the two parties by special interests, sometimes what we want is also converges with their interests but not often enough. We cannot reform the system because their is no will nor pressure applied in DC to so so, hence we are stuck in the same pathetic and horribly expensive show every election cycle.
This time it has been presented that one of the main interest in voting for the Democrats is to prevent republicans gerrymandering districts, or more precisely so Democrats can gerrymander them themselves. If that doesn't show just how worthless this has become I don't know what else can.
"We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country," said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond
We do indeed.
In the meantime I will keep voting for one; and keep working in the hope that another viable party on the left can find support and at that point say goodbye Democrats.
Voting is a right; and a very special one at that since it is at the heart of our democracy and with the present farce in DC is it any wonder voter turnout is so low time after time?
Somehow I cant believe Americans would be confused by having more than two real choices on the ballot but the special interests may well have a meltdown.
Third party? Why not five? Then you might see some negotiations before we are sold down the river.
I'll vote Dem at the federal level, but I am looking at candidates by merit on a local level.
--------------------
I have to walk the dogs even though it is tipping down, happy to see discussion going on as that was the intent of the diary. I'll pop in later