Toribash
Breaking the duopoly
How does it feel, as Americans, to know that you have one more political candidate to choose from than the Soviet Union? You've only got two choices, Democrat and Republican (pretty much left-leaning centrist vs. right-leaning centrist). It sounds very grim when some people call it a 'duopoly' (even grimmer when they call it a two-party dictatorship).

The bi-partisan Commision on Presidential Debates essentially excludes third parties from national debates by requiring candidates to meet very high standards (made even tougher because Perot kept crashing the party) and strict ballot access laws stagnates the growth of any third party and acts as a roadblock to the debates for third parties.

tldr;
The American system is fucked because it doesn't allow for people outside the traditional political box to make a difference.

edit: forgot to even mention the effect of a winner-takes-all voting system on third parties (hint: it's bad), as opposed to proportional voting.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 21, 2015 at 05:36 AM.
The reason there are only two (real/active/influential) political parties is because independent parties have tried (and largely failed) to gain dominance. The last third-party presidential election was in 1800, and by then the Democrats had already started to get a foothold in the government. Sure, other parties put up their own lesser-known candidates, but in the end, only two candidates stand. I suspect a good number of US citizens don't even know that there are more than two parties to choose from.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
The reason there are only two (real/active/influential) political parties is because independent parties have tried (and largely failed) to gain dominance. The last third-party presidential election was in 1800, and by then the Democrats had already started to get a foothold in the government. Sure, other parties put up their own lesser-known candidates, but in the end, only two candidates stand. I suspect a good number of US citizens don't even know that there are more than two parties to choose from.

It's not like the US Citizens vote means anything outside of popularity. The electoral college is who actually decides the president.

If anything, the idea of parties is meant to divide and conquer the voters minds.
Hoss.
Mhm. Seems like this 'representative' system ain't what it's cracked up to be, ey?
The next president will be Hillary Clinton because she is woman and its USA so why not. "Who cares, lets just act like we were nice people and dont give a ... about economy and decisions." The next will be a black woman. After that an asian, a gay and finally conchita wurst.
"Why?"
Originally Posted by etoria View Post
If Hillary Clinton wins, it would be quite revolutionary for America. I don't fully agree with her political stance, but pretty much anybody would be better than Bush. Bush has demonstrated his failure to lead a country multiple times.
Ex. The CIA knew that Al Queda (sorry if I mispelled that) was located in Saudi Arabia, and Bush simply attacked Iraq for no reason other than personal reasons (which shouldn't have an influence with peoples lifes).
Although, I would have to admit that under Bush, the American unemployment rate was 4-5 in 2007.

Hillary would be good, for she believes in gender equality (contrary to Bush who believed that women should submit to men), and she didn't do many things bad when she was a senator.


Edit: Feel stupid that I forgot George Bush had 2 terms already. However, stupidity runs in the family.

Women get no rights
neither do you
Last edited by siku; Jan 23, 2015 at 12:14 AM.
https://discord.com/channels/1111838427143487559/1125103577149481011/1190935707125043240

OG Nugget.
Originally Posted by McNuggets View Post
Women get no rights

Are you implying that women shouldn't have basic rights such as voting? If that is you're intent, I have lost all respect for you.
He should've explained his position more (and you should do that McNuggets), but I don't know how you got that from what he said. Look at what he bolded. He's arguing against that point.
I believe he was saying that women should not have rights in a very trolly sort of way. I highly doubt his post is serious.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Maybe. He said 'women get no rights', not 'women shouldn't have rights', though, so I think he's making an observation (which seems ridiculous anyway), rather than a suggestion. It'd help if he wrote more than four words.