Steely_D wrote: 
Probably much the same things you are willing to do, or are doing.

I firmly believe that each of us has to look at ourselves and our involvement, or lack of involvement.. It is too easy to lay all the blame on the politicians, the media ,Wall Street, etc. When  we do that, we tend to absolve ourselves of any blame for these problems. We all share the responsibility. We live in an era in which there are abundantly more sources of information than any other time in history.  Excusing  people for not voting based on the claim that they are being bamboozled does not ring true to me.

 

Cash-Strapped Trump Campaign Auctions Chris Christie on eBay

*

R Crumb, the Father of Underground Comix, Takes Down Donald Trump in a NSFW 1989 Cartoon | Open Culture

 steeler wrote: 
That's fine, but it immediately invokes the question what are you willing to do?

 Steely_D wrote:

 

I am not willing to give a pass to all of "us"  and lay all the blame on those seeking to game the system. (As in:  I'm ok, and you're ok, it's just these guys over here that are the problem)

 

 Steely_D wrote: 
 
lawyers 
 
 
                                           
  

 steeler wrote: 
I don't think of that as a problem with the same magnitude as: folks go vote without being able to understand what they're voting for/against.

This isn't just about literacy or language - which I think are very important issues. This is not race - this is voting with an understanding of the topic.

But, more obnoxious than that: the inability of people to understand the topic and the consequences of their vote because of deliberate obfuscation. Not only is it an issue of the intent of the law - it's simple grammar that folks without a PhD can understand.
This isn't the fault of the electorate; it's the fault of the folks who craft laws - even down to their verbiage.

I'm always hesitant to vote for or against anything for fear I'm being tricked. Don't you hate Hitler? (Well, yes) Then let's vote to prevent Germans from ever holding office! (What?) But it'll prevent HITLER, man! So I can put you down for the Anti-Hitler law? Thanks.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Multi-party systems, especially those with relative parity among several parties, run the risk of unstable minority governments frequently holding office. A minority government is required (depending on the constitution) to be constantly making compromises with one party or another to retain office.  It may seem at first glance that this is not a problem; possibly even good.  An unfortunate consequence is a splintered political society with little continuum and resulting consistency in policy.  There are unintended consequences to all the compromises and deal-making the ruling coalition must make. Inconsistent foreign policy and international economic policy will provide two examples.  The interwebs reveal lots of scholarship and debate on this subject.

An advantage of a two-party government, especially in our non-parliamentary system, is that the winning party represents a majority of voters. Or close to a majority.  When we have a plurality winner, the third party loser quickly becomes marginalized bcs their party holds few or no seats in Congress.  e.g.  Nader and Perot. 

The two-party system is not ideal, certainly.  But it's durable, reliable, and serves a majority of the population quite well, imo.  The system must continually strive to ward off racism, xenophobia, and many other social and systemic ills.  That is something our two-party system allows quite well. We have a national conversation every four years.  Predictably. Civil Rights progress since WWII has been quite notable, for example. I suggest caution to those who want to see a "dismantling" of our current system. The result of a "dismantling" is not likely to be free of casualties (economic and physical) and with no guarantee of a "good outcome".  We can hope for a "velvet revolution", but how common are they? 

Edit: voters = those citizens who actually cast a ballot.

 steeler wrote: 




Yea, that really gets old. I am just hoping the incredibly high disgust quotient for both candidates is starting to erode that illogical mode of thinking. If not now, when?

 steeler wrote: 
Ayup. So we wind up with the government they deserve.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

 
I think a big part of the 2-party stronghold enduring is the American preoccupation with "winning."  I have heard it over and over and over during discussions in past elections cycles and in this one:  I don't like either of these candidates (Democrat or Republican), but I'm not going to vote for a third party because he or she has no chance of winning so that would be a wasted vote.

Another problem is that most eligible voters do not vote. 

 

        

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
No one is running anything, and that's the problem.  The only thing they all agree on is the system is built on massive debt and we can't keep that house of cards from collapsing.  Since the recession, global economies have added about $60 trillion in debt, with govt debt adding close to half that, to a debt stockpile that is now over $200 trillion.  But the headlines still show the stock  market climbing, job #s improving and the economy growing, albeit modestly.  Meanwhile, govt debt yields are at all time lows (the entire Swiss yield curve went negative last week).  Govt parties dont matter, Trump or Sanders couldn't make a ripple...the socialist Obama did a nice job keeping the boat from rocking.  What are the key global risks?  Debt, climate change, water shortage, and migration due to war and/or economic reasons.  Terrorism is in the mix, but not at the top.  Hey, at least abortion isn't making the headlines anymore. 

In my mind there is no political party or govt that can fix any of this they could only make it worse.  That's why I believe Clinton is a safe bet, regardless of who she is running against...she's not likely to start adding to the woes, despite the fact she won't address any of the real problems.  The only way is for the white knight of technology to save us.  Safe nuclear energy, or some other way of providing, cheap, reliable and safe energy to all the world's populations, combined with access to clean water and decent food....freeing up the majority of time, energy and resources used up daily by most of the 7+ billion people on this planet.  Maybe Apple has an app for that?

 Coaxial wrote: 
ooh, "here I come to save the day" would be perfect as the donald, then he pulls off the mask/wig. 

 ScottN wrote: 
I think a true, multi-party system would be the best thing to happen in a long, long time. It's difficult tho, because the bankers and other money interests that run politics in this country find that having only two parties makes things a lot easier to control.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
You are an optimist, imo, to believe that a "dismantling" of the two-party system will inevitably be replaced by something better.  Not a safe assumption.  Not safe at all.  Watch out what you wish for.

 islander wrote: 
I hope he sings the Mighty Mouse theme first.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I'm still waiting for him to pull off the wig and mask and reveal himself as Andy Kaufman, he'll take a bow and say "T'ank you veddy much", thus ending the longest running gag of his career. 

 sirdroseph wrote: 
+1

I remember from the beginning wondering aloud whether Trump was part of the Clinton machine, now with him potentially taking the entire party down I am beginning to wonder if he is working for the DNC? hmmmm.   In the end, I think it is good.  The Republicans are closer to the end anyway, get them out of the way, shines more of a spotlight on the Democrats and then we can bring them down too.  I think in the end, the farce of Clinton and Trump is so obvious this could really be the beginning of the dismantling of our present system.  Hey I am in an optimistic mood.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Completely agree. Apparently a lot of people in Congress privately feel the same way: they spend almost all their time dialing for dollars and traveling to hustle up more money. Would love to see Citizens United overturned and very restrictive laws imposed on lobbying.