On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Lloyd W. Hanson wrote:
> I am not sure this is a proper topic for the Vocalist discussion group.
Never stopped us before ;-)
> In our system, each party must represent many viewpoints. No party with a
> single point of view can survive in our climate. Witness the lack of
> success of the Green Party.
Dear Lloyd,
Thank you for educating us about the original purpose of the electoral
college. I agree it is not the electoral college system that forces a two
party system. I do not agree, however, that the Green party's "lack of
success" was do to narrow a agenda. The real problem was that the
Democrats and Republicans have a oligopolic control over the debate
commision (is run by big-wigs in the two main parties) and a campaign
finance system that encourages corporations to fund parties that are
front-runners.
There are many reports of how Nader was not even allowed to ATTEND the
presidential debates, let alone speak. The rule about requiring 15% polled
votes is perpetuates the parties in power. People simply did not know
about the Green party - their funds were two orders of magnitude smaller
than Bush's.
The green party also lost a lot of votes due to the "Spoiler" issue.
Again, the two party system perpetuates itself. Voters felt they could not
vote their consciences because they felt their vote would put Bush in
office.
Nader's agenda is not a narrow environmental one as the name "Green" would
suggest. As you know, he is also anti-WTO and pro-union in addition to
being a PIRG-ist.
Tako
|
