Friday, April 11, 2008

A Thought To Ponder

Listening to Jesse Ventura on Neil Cavuto today, he made a very simple but poignant statement. It's about the state of the two-party system in America today, I will paraphrase:

We have two candidates to vote for. That's one more than the Soviet Union used to have, along with Cuba and North Korea.


He went on to use an analogy of soft drinks, stating that if you have just Coke and Pepsi to choose from, it leaves a whole lot of choices out of the mix. Think about it, you wouldn't get 7-Up, RC Cola, Dr Pepper, Root Beer, etc.

Discuss.


11 comments:

Mustang said...

It is possible Jesse has been on steroids too long, and if he can get on the Cavuto show, then we ought to get an invitation, too.

Lets see . . . two poltical parties, instead of only one. How is this different from having two political parties when one is really intolerable, and the other is worse?

Maybe I can form a different analolgy: We have two political parties; one is like Cyanide, and the other is akin to Exlax. The first will kill you outright, the other takes a bit longer.

Okay, I'm ready to vote now.

LASunsett said...

//Okay, I'm ready to vote now.//

Yippee-ti-yi-yay.

A.C. McCloud said...

Still haven't read Jesse's views on the 9/11 thing--I think he's now a truther-- but on this he's pretty much correct.

Thing is, we'd need to change the system. If we had 7 candidates and the most anyone got was 20 percent we'd need runoffs, otherwise Kucinich or Duke could possible win.

LASunsett said...

//If we had 7 candidates and the most anyone got was 20 percent we'd need runoffs//

This is how France does it.

Rocket said...

Given the results of the first round of French presidential elections in 2002, I wouldn't use the French as an example.

The final result wasn't much better.

Chirac 82%
Le Pen 18%

Almost sounds like prewar Iraq

LASunsett said...

The final result wasn't much better.

Chirac 82%
Le Pen 18%



Well, I would say that no system is foolproof. But given the chance of this kind of anomaly of occurring again (next to none), I would also say that we know that we'll get crap with just two parties (because it happens every year). Having happened in France only once. I like the odds France has in winning this one.

Rocket said...

"But given the chance of this kind of anomaly of occurring again (next to none),"

Oh really?

Not my opinion at all given the history of France.

LASunsett said...

//Not my opinion at all given the history of France.//

The last time there was such a gap was 1958, when DeGaulle beat the Communist. He 70%+. Unless I am forgetting something, the others have been much closer.

Rocket said...

When bi partisanship is weakened it isn't because the center is strong but because the extremes are destabilizing it. See Italy for example. Most political systems in Europe are going toward bi partisanship as they have experienced the damages to the electoral process that a handful or sometimes a plethora of micro parties have done to the real political debate.

In France there is even a hunting and fishing party and the LCR. League Communiste Révolutionnaire is led by a mailman.

Below first round 2002 participants in French Presidential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002

and in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2007

LASunsett said...

//When bi partisanship is weakened it isn't because the center is strong but because the extremes are destabilizing it. See Italy for example.//

You make a good point, but where does a person go who is socially liberal, economically conservative, and believes that the US should seek out and kill jihadis that are hellbent on destroying the nation through violence and the killing of innocent people?

Maybe you are right, having too many parties is counterproductive. But when you have an either/or situation many are left without a voice.

Rocket said...

"You make a good point, but where does a person go who is socially liberal, economically conservative, and believes that the US should seek out and kill jihadis that are hellbent on destroying the nation through violence and the killing of innocent people?"

Hollywood for the first two and I leave it up to your judgement for the third one.