“Our Terrific Two Party System” (UPDATED)
From moderate cartoonist Tom Briscoe:
Note that there is increasingly a lot of talk now about some kind of third party. Whether it’ll come to fruition (and do more than undercut one of the main parties and help the other win) is another matter.
But note this article by Peggy Noonan.
And, if you missed it, be sure to read this.
(Note: We really like Briscoe’s cartoons, so we’ll run select ones from time to time on this site with a link to his site).
UPDATE: Bull Moose today takes up how both parties are seemingly working to drive away moderates and centrists. Read his post in full. Here’s a small part of it:
While the Democrats will likely benefit in ’06 from the Republican collapse, the leadership of the party has done little to appeal to centrists. At this point neither party has demonstrated that they have the capacity to unite the country.Our country is strong, but citizens are losing confidence in the leadership class. Americans are largely moderates who don’t live, eat and breathe partisanship. They just want their leaders to get things done for the country. Yet, the two parties are more concerned with partisan advantage than national progress.
2 Responses to ““Our Terrific Two Party System” (UPDATED)”
stupid cartoon
1. Our govt is said to run under a two party system
By whom, exactly? Straw man.
2. The constitution doesnt specify a 2 pary system. No it sure doesnt. But it does specify a first past the post system for most offices, or at least allows states to implement a first past the post system. Thats what enforces the 2 party system, more than anything else.
3. Campaign finance laws are biased – How so? make your case? In any case we seem to have had as much 3rd party activity as we did when we didnt have campaign finance laws.
4. If the two parties are alike, and present no choice, why do we have folks complaining they are alienating the MIDDLE?
1. For starters SCOTUS when they rule against equalizing ballot access laws that are in some cases the worst of any democracy in the world. Throw in the media, politicians, political scientists, and about everyone you ask on the street.
2. First past the post doesn’t enforce two parties any more than it enforces two candidates in a primary. Tradition, incumbency, gerrymandering, and money are a bigger influence. First past the most leads to two candidates getting most votes not which party’s candidate gets those votes.
3. Campaign finance laws are biased in favor of the incumbent simply because they are the incumbent and political donations these days are used to influence their votes on policy. Losers can’t vote in favor of what helps the donor. Campaign finance laws also stifle “other” candidates with red tape, wasted time and efforts, makes it more difficult to move money from parties to candidates or candidates to candidates. Enforcement of campaign violations like late reporting are tougher on “other” parties because the fines are the almost the same whether you are a $10 million committee or a $10,000 committee.
4. They are both alike and not alike. It depends on the results you look at. They both shower pork on their voters. They both waste our money on useless programs. They both pander to whoever just to get re-elected. They both ignore the pressing issues. They both polarize around less important issues that are the hot topic of the day. They both put gaining or keeping power above good government. I could go on and on.