Well We Are Back to A Two Party System

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread


I have looked at the results. I heard Nader say that his 3% had made the Green Party the third largest party in the country and was a victory.

Well, I don't know. It seems to me that if you took all of the folks who didn't vote for one of the two parties you wouldn't have enough people for a good sized pig roast at Paul's.

I know that there are a number of people here who support the "others". For example, Brian is green and Cap is Lib.; this is not meant to question their values.

The question is: Do you think that this election essentially eliminated these parties as a viable alternative for the the next decade?

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 08, 2000


I never really paid much attention to how much of a pompous ass you are Z, until this post, and your smarmy "help" 3 post down. People want to talk, and give an opinion, but the slick way you qualified the question only allows "correct" thinking.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

4 post. (Deckers)

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.


Thanks for moving this over. I appreciate your effort.

Question: You call me pompous, a term usually applied to Flint or Decker. This is really an honor and I wish to thank you.

For everyone else, this is a serious question.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 08, 2000.

You really are a pompous ass.

Being in the same company with Flint and Decker is NOT a "good thing". =)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), November 08, 2000.


NO!!!, If nothing else this election has demonstrated nothing less than the mediocrity of the D's & R's,with everyone voting for the lessor of the percieved evil.The Party Of Principle,The Libertarians,will continue to vocalize the grievances of the common people who want an intrusive,elitist government out of our lives and bank accounts.Those who want a government with integrity and honesty have a home with the Libertarians,even if I am the last one standing.So again,my answer is HELL!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I asked you this question in an earlier thread but you left and it has slipped away.What did you mean by leveling? Did you mean monetarily or in fairness?

If anyone has a link to that thread I would appreciate it.

Patriotic wishes,

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 08, 2000.

In 1992 the Reform Party got 15%? Indirectly, they nominated a President. In 1996, they were much less a factor and this year they were below the radar.

The Greens will have to demonstrate continued growth before they can even qualify as a running joke on Letterman. And, they will have to do it without Ralphie.

Pompous regards, Lars

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 09, 2000.


I have to agree. Good thing is Buchannon is kaput. I think Ralph burned his bridges with the Dem. party. I suspect it will be downhill for him as a national voice from here on out.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000.


I don't know if I agree, but I know Flint and I am certainly no Flint. Just an understudy. Personally, I appreciate Flint's comments.


Sorry to cut and run. I was thinking in the long run. I was talking about money [which means access and opportunity]. I believe that the transfer of wealth that has occurred in this country is one of the more serious social problems that we face [ask the last Czar of Imperial Russia]. I am not an EZ board fan and don't believe that this will lead to armed revolution [as in the white album] in the streets tomorrow [they do]. I believe over time it will be a problem.

In the cities, you know the problem. It is more acute, at this moment, where population density is low. For example, in Montana, wealthy people have bought the land that provides access to hunting and fishing sites that have been used by locals for generations and have forbidden access [ol'Ted comes to mind]. I actually have seen the problems that this has caused. Just expand that into school quality and access [think Paul in Seattle], access to the islands in the San Juans, etc. The problems will arise. In San Fran, it has had the effect of driving up housing prices to the point that normal residents have had to move. Same thing is happening in Seattle.

Now, what do we do. The Greens want to solve the problem with legislation which limits total income [a top down solution]. I am not comfortable with that approach. I would prefer another. I just don't know what it is [some economists argue that the market will collapse and destroy the differential; I'm not so sure].

I haven't even identified what all of the problems are that result from this massive redistribution of wealth. Many argue that the extremely wealthy give the money back in grants to the community. That they do; but it often carries conditions which reflect the philosophy of the donor and not that of the community.

My post was just meant to ask what others see..

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 10, 2000.

So, Z, you are a Green afterall!

cin, I would take Flint and Ken on my logic team any day, well, depending upon salary requirements of course. I would be pleased to be included in their company.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.


Me a Green; you must have missed the discussions that Brian and I had. Still, I think that they have identified an important problem; in contrast, the Libertarians haven't; that of course explains the difference in the vote talley between the two parties.

I just don't agree with the solutions that they have advanced at this point. But who am I, I don't have a better solution. I hoped that you would have one. If we don't come up with a better one, theirs will prevail. History is full of examples. Imperial Russia was just one example.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 10, 2000.


We aren't really set up for third parties. Single member districts work against that. Sometimes a wealthy and/or charismatic personality with a single key issue of narrowly focused platform can get some votes in a national election, but this isn't a "third party" as the term is commonly understood. It's simply a reflection of the fact that a large but not large enough minority exists within that narrow purview, for the time being. Hey, go back and look at our "third party" candidates that showed up on the radar. What do John Anderson, Ross Perot, George Wallace have in common anyway? Well, they have money and/or a core of supporters. But no common issues. And Nader didn't get enough votes this election to get anyone's attention.

Here's a metaphor for you. Think of the electorate as being like bathers at a beach a mile long. You want to sell them hot dogs, so where do you set up your stand? Right in the middle of the beach, of course. You are the Democrats. Now along come the Republicans. They notice you are busy as hell, so they set up an ice cream stand. Where? Right next to you, of course, right in the middle.

Now, is this optimally efficient? No, it's not. Optimally, one stand would be 1/3 of the way up the beach, the other would be 2/3 of the way, and both would sell both hot dogs and ice cream. But that's not what happens.

So along comes a third party, and they decide to set up their stand halfway between the two of you and one end of the beach. They will always have their clientele (those at the far end of the beach), but they will never be mainstream or compete with the "majors" in revenue. After a season, they go broke. Maybe next season someone else tries that spot. Maybe they can hang around a season or two. But still, they'll never be competitive. The prime territory is already taken.

Sometimes a "me too" party setting up as a third party in the middle can do well -- the Republicans replaced the Whigs. But the result is simply a replacement of one major party with another. You still cannot have a *three*-party system so long as you have single member districts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 10, 2000.


Thanks for the comments and the metaphor; but I'm not sure that I agree. It isn't process or anything else. The early Republican party rode to power on a lot of ideas that resonated with the electorate. The one that we remember was the anti-slavery feeling. There were others.

I don't think that the present Green Party will survive the conflict between rational members and the fruitloops, but I do believe they have identified a number of problems that resonate with the electorate and aren't being considered by the two major parties.

Of course Gore is an environmentalist; environmentalism based on foggy science and politics. But environmental damage is a problem; let us hope it is translated into a pragmatic vision by some, yet unknown, party. Social disruption caused by the redistribution of wealth is going to become a problem. Let us hope it is addressed by rational people and can be solved by a mechanism other than private giving with catches [two I am familiar with required teaching of fundie religion or action against the ownership of guns].

I just believe the Green Party has identified the problems that the electorate considers important; hence they got 3% of the vote. I don't think that the Green Party will survive in this country. I think that they, will in their present form, implode [they already have here] just like the Reform Party. I do think that someone else will take up the more rational of their ideas [that doesn't include the killing pets part :^)]. Their agenda will be the stuff of politics for the next decade.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 10, 2000.

So I guess that mine is the only computer in the universe that has the text in green since Z's quote of cin?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.


I'm seeing green also.


Yes, sometimes third parties capture an issue early, before it has blossomed onto the national stage. Usually such an idea emerges in extreme form (send the niggers back to Africa, or expel all humans from Kansas and repatriate the buffalo), but if it's a real resonating issue, the major parties will pick it up, centralize it, and adopt it in some acceptable form (pay the niggers not to work for their own good, and don't subsidize mega-agribusiness quite so much), and debate the margins. Where you sit determines whether you view the issue as co-opted or just sanitized.

If the issue has no real compelling force or no centralizability (every human must live in *some* animal's habitat, and fining, penalizing, and regulating *all* businesses out of business hurts everyone), then the issue will die, and the third party along with it. The issue remains procedural and structural.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

LOL! Z is still having a hard time with his HTML, and it ended up starting an entire conversation about the Green Party!

-- no green here (just.black@and.bold), November 11, 2000.

The text I see is black,is this a Mac oddity I wonder.


Thanks for catching up with me.I have a real hard time accepting anything to do with the redistribution of wealth,though I do see by some instances how the wealthy have succeeded in forcing the regular people out of their own environment(a good example are the Keys).But still,the forcefull taking from one to give to another is tyrannic,THAT will cause a white album revolution in short order.

I will have to vehemently disagree with most concerning 3rd parties,as I'm a little biased.But as long as the current political parties abuse their power and the people we will be here to call them on it and do our level best to dismantle the corrupt machinery that drives our government.

It may take many years for people to come out of their denial and to the abrupt epiphany that the current parties are and have been distorting the Constitution and committing crimes against the good citizens of America.

And the Libertarians will still be here.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 11, 2000.

Yes we will.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

This text is bold black in Netscape, and green in Explorer.

Z, the guy who is always lecturing others on HTML, screwed up big time.

-- LMAO (professorZ@dim.wit), November 11, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ