"Which part of that is a conspiracy theory?
Who in their right mind would pick Romney? Or McCain? Theres not *that* many retards out there. You're left with one candidate, just one.
How easy would it be to open up elections to more candidates? Instead of choosing between two or three you'd choose between six. Thats a choice.
Then you're never left with having to choose based purely on who you thinks less of a dick. Odds are there would be at least one who actually has the interests of the country at heart instead of honoring the numerous deals and handshakes they made to get where they are.
Doesn't happen, why not?"

You seem to be suggesting that it is carefully engineered whom we must choose due to the scarcity of available choices. I suggest that the choice between two may not be the choice between six, but it IS a choice-or the choice between six is NOT.

(July 2, 2012 at 10:39 am)Epimethean Wrote: "Which part of that is a conspiracy theory?
Who in their right mind would pick Romney? Or McCain? Theres not *that* many retards out there. You're left with one candidate, just one.
How easy would it be to open up elections to more candidates? Instead of choosing between two or three you'd choose between six. Thats a choice.
Then you're never left with having to choose based purely on who you thinks less of a dick. Odds are there would be at least one who actually has the interests of the country at heart instead of honoring the numerous deals and handshakes they made to get where they are.
Doesn't happen, why not?"

You seem to be suggesting that it is carefully engineered whom we must choose due to the scarcity of available choices. I suggest that the choice between two may not be the choice between six, but it IS a choice-or the choice between six is NOT.

I suggest no such thing and claim to have no such knowledge. It might be or it could be that it simply is, it makes little difference. There isn't a single thing I've typed here that isn't true and you still have not answered my question.
Why only two or if your lucky three? Why such limited choice? When the solution to a nation having to pick between the lesser of two evils is as simple as increasing the number of candidates why isn't it implemented?
I don't have the answer, if you don't either would you kindly just say so?

Quote:We basically have a hostage situation. Republicans have a gun to the head of child welfare (amongst other vulnerable groups) and I fully believe they intend to shoot .. unless we keep them out of office. The democrats may not be the most awesome people we know but the republicans can and do out bad them every day of the week.

As Lewis Black has observed, "the democrats are the party of No Ideas and the republicans are the party of Bad Ideas."

We desperately need a 3d party.

(July 2, 2012 at 11:58 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Why only two or if your lucky three? Why such limited choice? When the solution to a nation having to pick between the lesser of two evils is as simple as increasing the number of candidates why isn't it implemented?
I don't have the answer, if you don't either would you kindly just say so?

If there were no political parties and there were 6, as you said, candidates for president then the two guys with the most money behind them, would end up being the only "real" candidates, so instead of Obama and Romney, it would be Santorum and Romney. Right now 11 out of the top 15 politcal donors (soon to be 14 out of 15 thanks to superpacs) are coporations who donate to republicans.

So if there were 15 candidates, 11 of them would be republicans and they would control the debate and the basis of the election.

Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourages political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and harmony, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments. Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement.

What's your problem with Obama anyway?