third party.
In other countries (Canada for example) votes for a third party lead
directly to increased representation in the House of Commons. Here the
loser of the presidential race is just that: a loser. You really don't get
a thing for coming in close (I was hopeful after last time that Republicans
would at least attempt to mollify the Dems a bit since the race was so
tight, but even before 9/11 they just made no motion in that direction).
The main problem we have now is that any potential third party would,
invariably split one of the existing parties more than the other (Nader
anyone?) thus making it much easier for the other party to stay in power
indefinitely. Somebody could do it, but I think it would take MANY
elections to build up enough support to be a true third party. And in all
that time the remaining dominant party will just dig in like ticks.
I'm actually really worried about Nader this time around: I simply can't see
his involvement in the race as anything but really good for Bush.
Jim Davis
He made an interesting comment, that I wouldn't have expected from him. We
need a third party to add balance. The far right and far left have taken
ownership of each party and the soft-spoken middle is left without a voice.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
