Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Justin Mohareb]

Are you referring to Senator Sumner?

We have a Sergeant At Arms to prevent such a thing.

JJ Mohareb

On Jan 10, 2008 9:51 AM, Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just like any system where if you don¹t agree with someone, regardless of
>  party, you can jump over a table and punch them in the mouth. Sometimes, a
>  punch in the mouth gets a lot done and saves the tax payers a lot of money.
>
>
>  On 1/9/08 10:53 PM, "Justin Mohareb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >  > wrote:
>  >> >
>  >> > i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.
>  >
>  > Yeah, it kinda rocks.
>  >
>  > JJ Mohareb
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  



-- 
Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy.
http://thebitterguy.livejournal.com

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Martin]

If we had a system like this, I might reconsider my reticence towards running 
for office, because I live in fear of beating the crap out of some numb-noggin 
who steps the wrong way with me.

Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  I just like any system where if you 
don¹t agree with someone, regardless of
party, you can jump over a table and punch them in the mouth. Sometimes, a
punch in the mouth gets a lot done and saves the tax payers a lot of money.

On 1/9/08 10:53 PM, "Justin Mohareb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > wrote:
>> >
>> > i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.
> 
> Yeah, it kinda rocks.
> 
> JJ Mohareb

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 


"There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get 
organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A 
Country"
   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Martin]

Gotta "amen" that, sister!

"Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  
I rather have a fourth Clinton admin then one year of a Bush 
administration. It that had happened the constitution would still be intact

ravenadal wrote:
> It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
> democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
> democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system. I have long
> been in favor of the parlimentary system. If we had the parlimentary
> system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
> long time ago. On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
> Clinton adminstration by now.
>
> ~rave!
>
> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
>> 
> third. McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
> Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
> line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
> Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
> who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side). Heck, it might be
> possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
> clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
> 
>> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
>> 
> has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
> little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
> two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
> of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
> silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
> absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
> selling their souls. 
> 
>> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
>> 
> badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
> inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
> quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
> if we could craft a country where party was less important than
> principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
> different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
> Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
> party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
> if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
> having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys? What if here in
> Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
> party in the primaries? It seems to me that this two-party system,
> this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
> strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 


"There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get 
organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A 
Country"
   
-
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)]

Can't disagree with you there.  The Obama, Hilary, Edwards solution is 
all smoke and Mirrors.  I would not mind a gore prime minister, though

Daryle wrote:
> I can pass you along to a bunch of Brits and French people who heartily
> agree with you. The world would be a different place with Prime Minister
> Clinton in the center seat. That being said, if the United States switched
> systems today...I¹m not feeling Prime Minister Mrs. Clinton OR Prime
> Minister Obama, really. We¹d have to come up with an entirely different crew
> to choose from...which, I believe, is really the point.  We¹re looking at
> who could be a good CEO of the United States, Inc. , but not who could
> really represent the country¹s best interests.
>
>
> On 1/10/08 12:51 PM, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>> I rather have a fourth Clinton admin then one year of a Bush
>> administration.  It that had happened the constitution would still be intact
>>
>> ravenadal wrote:
>> 
 It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
 democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
 democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system.  I have long
 been in favor of the parlimentary system.  If we had the parlimentary
 system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
 long time ago.  On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
 Clinton adminstration by now.

 ~rave!

 --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com  ,
 
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>   
   
 
>> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
>> 
>> 
 third.  McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
 Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
 line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
 Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
 who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side).   Heck, it might be
 possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
 clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
   
 
>> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
>> 
>> 
 has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
 little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
 two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
 of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
 silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
 absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
 selling their souls.
   
 
>> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
>> 
>> 
 badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
 inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
 quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
 if we could craft a country where party was less important than
 principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
 different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
 Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
 party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
 if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
 having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys?  What if here in
 Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
 party in the primaries?   It seems to me that this two-party system,
 this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
 strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
   
 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> 
>> 


  
 Yahoo! Groups Links





   
 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>  
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
h

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Daryle]

I can pass you along to a bunch of Brits and French people who heartily
agree with you. The world would be a different place with Prime Minister
Clinton in the center seat. That being said, if the United States switched
systems today...I¹m not feeling Prime Minister Mrs. Clinton OR Prime
Minister Obama, really. We¹d have to come up with an entirely different crew
to choose from...which, I believe, is really the point.  We¹re looking at
who could be a good CEO of the United States, Inc. , but not who could
really represent the country¹s best interests.


On 1/10/08 12:51 PM, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> I rather have a fourth Clinton admin then one year of a Bush
> administration.  It that had happened the constitution would still be intact
> 
> ravenadal wrote:
>> > It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
>> > democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
>> > democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system.  I have long
>> > been in favor of the parlimentary system.  If we had the parlimentary
>> > system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
>> > long time ago.  On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
>> > Clinton adminstration by now.
>> >
>> > ~rave!
>> >
>> > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com  ,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >   
>>> >> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
>>> >> 
>> > third.  McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
>> > Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
>> > line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
>> > Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
>> > who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side).   Heck, it might be
>> > possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
>> > clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
>> >   
>>> >> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
>>> >> 
>> > has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
>> > little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
>> > two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
>> > of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
>> > silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
>> > absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
>> > selling their souls.
>> >   
>>> >> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
>>> >> 
>> > badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
>> > inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
>> > quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
>> > if we could craft a country where party was less important than
>> > principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
>> > different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
>> > Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
>> > party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
>> > if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
>> > having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys?  What if here in
>> > Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
>> > party in the primaries?   It seems to me that this two-party system,
>> > this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
>> > strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
>> >   
>>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>> >>
>>> >> 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[KeithBJohnson]

freakin' hilarious!

-- Original message -- 
From: Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I just like any system where if you don¹t agree with someone, regardless of
party, you can jump over a table and punch them in the mouth. Sometimes, a
punch in the mouth gets a lot done and saves the tax payers a lot of money.

On 1/9/08 10:53 PM, "Justin Mohareb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > wrote:
>> >
>> > i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.
> 
> Yeah, it kinda rocks.
> 
> JJ Mohareb

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)]

I rather have a fourth Clinton admin then one year of a Bush 
administration.  It that had happened the constitution would still be intact

ravenadal wrote:
> It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
> democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
> democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system.  I have long
> been in favor of the parlimentary system.  If we had the parlimentary
> system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
> long time ago.  On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
> Clinton adminstration by now.
>
> ~rave!
>
> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>   
>> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
>> 
> third.  McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
> Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
> line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
> Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
> who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side).   Heck, it might be
> possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
> clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
>   
>> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
>> 
> has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
> little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
> two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
> of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
> silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
> absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
> selling their souls.   
>   
>> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
>> 
> badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
> inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
> quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
> if we could craft a country where party was less important than
> principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
> different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
> Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
> party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
> if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
> having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys?  What if here in
> Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
> party in the primaries?   It seems to me that this two-party system,
> this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
> strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
>   
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Daryle]

I just like any system where if you don¹t agree with someone, regardless of
party, you can jump over a table and punch them in the mouth. Sometimes, a
punch in the mouth gets a lot done and saves the tax payers a lot of money.


On 1/9/08 10:53 PM, "Justin Mohareb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > wrote:
>> >
>> > i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.
> 
> Yeah, it kinda rocks.
> 
> JJ Mohareb




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Justin Mohareb]

On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.

Yeah, it kinda rocks.

JJ Mohareb

-- 
Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy.
http://thebitterguy.livejournal.com

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)]

Me too.  Not going to happen  unless there is some type of revolution.  
I don't see that happening anytime soon

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.
>
> -- Original message -- 
> From: "ravenadal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>
> It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
> democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
> democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system. I have long
> been in favor of the parlimentary system. If we had the parlimentary
> system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
> long time ago. On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
> Clinton adminstration by now.
>
> ~rave!
>
> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>   
>> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
>> 
> third. McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
> Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
> line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
> Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
> who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side). Heck, it might be
> possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
> clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
>   
>> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
>> 
> has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
> little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
> two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
> of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
> silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
> absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
> selling their souls. 
>   
>> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
>> 
> badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
> inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
> quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
> if we could craft a country where party was less important than
> principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
> different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
> Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
> party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
> if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
> having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys? What if here in
> Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
> party in the primaries? It seems to me that this two-party system,
> this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
> strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
>   
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> 
>
>
>  
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[KeithBJohnson]

i like the idea of a parliamentary system as well.

-- Original message -- 
From: "ravenadal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system. I have long
been in favor of the parlimentary system. If we had the parlimentary
system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
long time ago. On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
Clinton adminstration by now.

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
third. McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side). Heck, it might be
possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
> 
> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
selling their souls. 
> 
> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
if we could craft a country where party was less important than
principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys? What if here in
Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
party in the primaries? It seems to me that this two-party system,
this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scifinoir2] Re: OT: Why a Two-Party system?

[ravenadal]

It is noteworthy that when Japan lost World War 2 and basically had
democracy forced upon them, they studied the various forms of world
democracy and decided to go with the parlimentary system.  I have long
been in favor of the parlimentary system.  If we had the parlimentary
system Bush would have been voted down in a vote of no confidence a
long time ago.  On the other hand, we might be in our third or fourth
Clinton adminstration by now.

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hillary wins, Obama second, Edwards a solid (and sadly, consistent)
third.  McCain wins, flip-flop Romney second, Huckabee, Guliani, Ron
Paul small but significant percentages. What will happen? Down the
line Hillary and Obama will have to court Edwards, same for the
Republicans (can't say who must court whom there, 'cause not sure
who'll be stuck in third and fourth on that side).   Heck, it might be
possible that we actually go all the win to the conventions before a
clear winner is chosen! Backroom deals, party favors traded--what a trip!
> 
> The thing that saddens me is that despite all of the above, America
has become a two-party system. True independents, populist movements,
little known but important issues--all get ignored in the wake of the
two behemoths that crush or absorb the smaller town criers. The voices
of the Kucinich's, Edwards and even fringe guys like Paul get
silenced, or at best, made promises of inclusion, then get used,
absorbed and forgotten. Or, perhaps they get a seat at the table by
selling their souls.   
> 
> True change doesn't come often when you force all issues into two
badly fitting paths of Democrats and Republicans, whose labels are
inconsistent and inaccurate. The two-party system allows the status
quo to continue. But if we Americans could force a multi-party system,
if we could craft a country where party was less important than
principle, where true coalitions could be built, maybe things would be
different? How cool would it be if Congress had 17% people from the
Progressive party of John Edwards, 10% from the Take Back America
party of Ron Paul, 11% from the Real Patriot party of Kucinich? What
if an independent or third party candidate could actually win without
having to declare for the Elephants or the Donkeys?  What if here in
Georgia and other states, we didn't get forced to declare for only one
party in the primaries?   It seems to me that this two-party system,
this lack of coalition building, is hurting us. The process is
strange, skewed, inaccurate and broken.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>