You get the fringe of each party having an outsized level of influence on the party agenda. The rabid of both sides are the ones that vote the most reliably, and thus logically the ones that candidates have to suck up to to get nominated. You can't get elected if you can't get nominated.

Having said that, Bachman should be investigated for inciting revolution and calling for insurrection. During war time, this should be treated with the severity it deserves. You can criticize the administraiton all you want, but they're openly calling for revolt and succession, and should be dealt with as we've dealt with any such criminals in war time before. They've even more than insinuated as to president Obama's assasination, they'e joked about it, laughed about it. Lets seem them laugh that shit off in Leavenworth.

opus512:

You get the fringe of each party having an outsized level of influence on the party agenda. The rabid of both sides are the ones that vote the most reliably, and thus logically the ones that candidates have to suck up to to get nominated. You can't get elected if you can't get nominated.

Having said that, Bachman should be investigated for inciting revolution and calling for insurrection. During war time, this should be treated with the severity it deserves. You can criticize the administraiton all you want, but they're openly calling for revolt and succession, and should be dealt with as we've dealt with any such criminals in war time before. They've even more than insinuated as to president Obama's assasination, they'e joked about it, laughed about it. Lets seem them laugh that shit off in Leavenworth.

I agree with you that it's the nastiest sort of anti-Americanism to make public calls for secession and/or revolution, and the pundits ought to be calling it just that. One of the really awful things rightwingers have done over the years is to sell a lot of people on the absurd notion that it's somehow "patriotic" to publicly howl hate for Americans and America.

But I disagree that "investigations" and/or imprisonment should be used as a tool to suppress vile speech. In the first place, it would likely only provide more ammunition to the "hate America" crowd on the right. And it's only really effective (over the long term) when there's an indisputable case to be made for lawbreaking. I do certainly agree that the Secret Service needed to give serious attention to the anti-American wackos who howled "kill him" at Palin's campaign rallies, or who brandished weapons at political events.

The condemnation ought to be coming from political leaders and pundits -- and from the rest of us non-whackjob Americans.

I agree with you both. One more thing; these people simply cannot handle the fact that their ilk lost the election. They are still trying to spit out the sour grapes with as much animated vexation that they can get away with, like spoiled children throwing an endless temper tantrum. America has seen them for what they are finally in the last Bush years and they have been rejected. They need to consistently be exposed and ridiculed, and they must continue to lose elections.

I don't think the "two-party system" is at fault. If we had a parliamentary government and multiple parties, then the fringe elements would have their influence by aligning with mainstream groups in coalition governments.

bsharporflat:

I don't think the "two-party system" is at fault. If we had a parliamentary government and multiple parties, then the fringe elements would have their influence by aligning with mainstream groups in coalition governments.

They would have influence, yes, but they wouldn't control the national agenda every time they were in office. The way it is now, one party gets in office and psses a bunch of laws and the other party gets in office and spends all their time undoing and redoing all the laws the last party made. And the best part, is we get to do that over and over and over and we flip back and forth between the only two choice we have, both of which are increasingly fringe to varying degrees.

I don't support a parliamentary government, just more national parties. I was hoping against hope that McCain would bail after the ass raping he got in 2000 and go indie, with his name recognition and press support at the time he would have had a very good shot. Instead, he sucked it up and bent over for more in 2004, as the two national parties are the ONLY way to get into the White House.

There's still a solid chance that the GOP will splinter, and I'm praying they do. Then we'd get real reform and real compromise from the Democrats aligning themselves with whatever non wingnut half of the GOP emerged.

Sorry in advance if comes out with bad formatting. The Fray editor is not letting me use the "Quote" function now. ---opus512 wrote the following post at 11/06/2009 11:59 AM:--- bsharporflat: I don't think the "two-party system" is at fault. If we had a parliamentary government and multiple parties, then the fringe elements would have their influence by aligning with mainstream groups in coalition governments. They would have influence, yes, but they wouldn't control the national agenda every time they were in office. The way it is now, one party gets in office and passes a bunch of laws and the other party gets in office and spends all their time undoing and redoing all the laws the last party made. And the best part, is we get to do that over and over and over and we flip back and forth between the only two choice we have, both of which are increasingly fringe to varying degrees. I don't support a parliamentary government, just more national parties. I was hoping against hope that McCain would bail after the ass raping he got in 2000 and go indie, with his name recognition and press support at the time he would have had a very good shot. Instead, he sucked it up and bent over for more in 2004, as the two national parties are the ONLY way to get into the White House. There's still a solid chance that the GOP will splinter, and I'm praying they do. Then we'd get real reform and real compromise from the Democrats aligning themselves with whatever non wingnut half of the GOP emerged. ---end quote--- Problem is that without dumping the single-seat constitutencies, a country will not get any long-term viable 3rd parties. Check out Duverger´s law: <link> USA has had 3rd parties which have gotten votes in the Electoral college, but those parties have not done so for more than a few electoral cycles. The problem is that a 3rd party is seen as a no-hope candidate in almost all single-seat constituencies, so voters do not want to wast votes, and the prediction becomes self-fulfilling. The only real chance of a non-top2 party to be longterm viable is for it to be very strong in a specific geographical area, in which it can assume top2-status. This is very clear when one looks at the British House of Commons: last election 2005, the greens got 1.0% of the votes, and none of the 646 seats. Their voters are spread all over Great Britain. In contrast, the Northern Ireland-only parties DUP and Sinn Fein got 0,9% and 0.5% of the votes, but 9 and 5 seats, respectively. Under the voting system used in GB - and USA - a party which gets less votes than another still can get more house seats. Some democracy. If McCain would have bailed and formed his own party - which GOP members would have jumped ship? To the other GOP´s, such a move would be near-sure political suicide, with little to gain. Even if he would have succeded in forming a new right-side party - a monumental if - why would that lead to a three-party system in USA? Most likely, it would have lead to a series of democrat wins, and strong competition on the right side. Either the new party, or the old GOP would have emerged victorious, and we would be back to a 2-party system again.

Oops! Sorry for the great mass of text, the editor is crazy. I DID have paragraph breaks in that lump.

I think I agree with simskola if can decipher that mass of words ;- ).

Numerous political, historical and cultural institutions drive the US ever back toward a two party political system. Attempts to diverge will be driven back, until some unequivocal major benefit is perceived. So far, no dice.

In my opinion our two-party system keeps both parties rather bland and centrist. Which is fine with me. Exciting political leaders making bold dramatic moves is most often a recipe for disaster rather than paradise on earth.

May you be cursed to live in interesting times- Chinese Proverb

Let´s hope it looks better this time. ---QUOTE--- bsharporflat wrote the following post at 11/06/2009 9:48 AM: I don't think the "two-party system" is at fault. If we had a parliamentary government and multiple parties, then the fringe elements would have their influence by aligning with mainstream groups in coalition governments. ---end Quote--- That is plain wrong. --------------- I live in a country that has a proportional parliamentary system, and the parliament has 7 parties represented. Those parties are organized in one right-of-center (currently governing) group of 4, and 3 to the left of center. Over here, what-passes-for-conservative shares the group of 4 with liberals, cristian democrats, and the centrist farmer party in the left-of-center. Many voters and politicians in the "conservative" party are to the left of Obama on several issues, BTW. --------------- --------------- --------------- In this system, parties which are a bit out of the mainstream of their respective group can still have power through coalition building, but the really off-the-deep end on either side form small parties which do not pass the 4% voter support limit, and therefore do not get any parliamentary seats at all. That means that the real crazies on each side form their own parties, without polluting the governing parties, and do not get any national power. --------------- --------------- --------------- As an added benefit, a multiparty system cleans up the debate to a large degree. Politicians of major parties can not attack each other with complete abandon, since they know that present voters for minor parties situated between them on the political spectrum might well vote for the other party, just as a response to rampant mudslinging. Since there is no viable in-between party in USA, this mechanism does not work there. it also means that politicians are less likely to treat some voter segments as their property. When there are 7 parties, it is much easier to find a new one if the leaders of the old one are misbehaving than if you just have 2 to choose from. --------------- --------------- --------------- bsharporflat - your prediction does not match the real behavior of present multiparty parliamentary systems.

bsharporflat:

I think I agree with simskola if can decipher that mass of words ;- ).

Numerous political, historical and cultural institutions drive the US ever back toward a two party political system. Attempts to diverge will be driven back, until some unequivocal major benefit is perceived. So far, no dice.

In my opinion our two-party system keeps both parties rather bland and centrist. Which is fine with me. Exciting political leaders making bold dramatic moves is most often a recipe for disaster rather than paradise on earth.

May you be cursed to live in interesting times- Chinese Proverb

You actually think the two parties are bland and centrist? Can you expand on that in some way? Because quite the contrary, I see them moving more and more to their respective extremes as, again, the hardcore base are the ones the candidates need to get nominated so they can then get elected.

As for some major benefit, sort of, it will change in the coming revolution. The US is well on it's way to class wrafare, and the haves should note that while they may have the wealth, the have nots have the numbers. And the have nots are doing nothing but growing their ranks.

Nobles and aristocrats of old used to know how to handle the rabble, they took care of them, or they got overthrown. The upper class of today have forgotten their duties and responsibilities, and the rabble is taking notice.