The Myth of the Third Party Solution

[festive1]

Silly internet commentators. If voting actually could change anything it would be illegal to vote.

The only way to change the US government in a fundamental way that benefits the working class is to abolish it and replace it with another. Which is no easy task, I grant you. But, tinkering around with third party creations and "better" candidates won't unseat the US ruling class from controlling every major aspect of life for the majority of people in America, in their own favor, not yours.

Not if we can overturn the use of unlimited funds for political candidates. I'm for leveling that playing field. Give each party a specific amount, and that's it. No outside donations. Keep corporate money out of politics.

[Whateverist]

Silly internet commentators. If voting actually could change anything it would be illegal to vote.

The only way to change the US government in a fundamental way that benefits the working class is to abolish it and replace it with another. Which is no easy task, I grant you. But, tinkering around with third party creations and "better" candidates won't unseat the US ruling class from controlling every major aspect of life for the majority of people in America, in their own favor, not yours.

I agree. Our problems go much deeper than who runs or how many candidates are running. As it stands this country is pretty nearly ungovernable, which serves the monied status quo. Not a fan of blood in the street so I'll probably go right on voting for incremental change.

[Minimalist]

Not if we can overturn the use of unlimited funds for political candidates.

Six billion dollars was spent on this election - mainly by republicans - and it failed miserably. I read in TIME where there were over 207,000 separate TV spots for the presidential election in Ohio alone. One imagines that people were wearing out mute buttons all over the state.

[festive1]

I have to agree that this past election may have been a tipping point proving that you can spend a shit-ton of money on a campaign, but that don't mean you're going to win. Doesn't mean they still won't try again, though...

[TaraJo]

Not if we can overturn the use of unlimited funds for political candidates. I'm for leveling that playing field. Give each party a specific amount, and that's it. No outside donations. Keep corporate money out of politics.

I see your good idea and I raise you with another: stricter laws regarding libel and defamation of character in an attempt to crackdown on media being bought out by corporate interests and being used to promote political policies that specifically benefit those corporations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just what we need, political candidates constantly accusing and suing each other for libel and defamation of character with those handy -stricter laws-. Who gives a shit if the accusations have merit, they'll have to spend money defending themselves against them and time explaining themselves defensively to the media (the same media that moved the rumors down the grapevine to begin with).

[TaraJo]

Just what we need, political candidates constantly accusing and suing each other for libel and defamation of character with those handy -stricter laws-. Who gives a shit if the accusations have merit, they'll have to spend money defending themselves against them and time explaining themselves defensively to the media (the same media that moved the rumors down the grapevine to begin with).

Yeah, that's part of why it's important to write the law correctly. I wouldn't want the law to attack candidates or politicians, but I woud sure want it used on one sided media conglomorates. They need to be held accountable when they present lies as truth and they claim they're just reporting the facts when they do it. Truth is, we can't expect the American people to make intelligent choices about our politicians if we can't have access to accurate information.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's why said organs always fall back on the "it's entertainment" song and dance Tara. There is a reliable and spin free way of determining whether or not any given politicians record matches up to their ad copy. Motions and votes are recorded (and most of our talking heads don't come close to their own hype).

[Minimalist]

Give each party a specific amount, and that's it. No outside donations. Keep corporate money out of politics.

The whole point of the Citizen's United ruling is:

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un...Commission


By citing any restrictions on free speech as unconstitutional the court has left us in the position of any law which would rein in these corporate criminals would also be unconstitutional.

Your odds of amending the First Amendment to permit such regulation are precisely zero.

[TaraJo]

That's why said organs always fall back on the "it's entertainment" song and dance Tara. There is a reliable and spin free way of determining whether or not any given politicians record matches up to their ad copy. Motions and votes are recorded (and most of our talking heads don't come close to their own hype).

Yeah, they defend themselves with 'it's entertainment,' or at least the talking heads like Limbaugh and O'Reilly do, but Faux News consistantly reports bad information, they report it specifically as 'news' and not entertainment and nobody does anything about it. Rewrite the law and they wouldn't be able to call their station Fox News anymore.

Give each party a specific amount, and that's it. No outside donations. Keep corporate money out of politics.

The whole point of the Citizen's United ruling is:

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un...Commission


By citing any restrictions on free speech as unconstitutional the court has left us in the position of any law which would rein in these corporate criminals would also be unconstitutional.

Your odds of amending the First Amendment to permit such regulation are precisely zero.

No, I don't see the first amendment being changed, but I can see the Citizens Unitd case being overturned and it's the primary reason I supported Obama in this election. That was a close ruling for the court and just one or two more liberal judges could easily overturn it. I can't see a Romney appointed justice ever ruling against Citizens United. Hell, Romney justices would probably uphold corporate rights to flog people for a profit.