One possile future...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

...  The people have no voice and the politicians make no progress.

Exactly as Umbrella Corp* intended...




____________

* in a reference to the villian in both a video game and a movie franchise....

[Aggie]

I have been making a conscious effort to keep my nose out of provincial politics, because it angers me so much I'm likely to feel obligated to run as an independent if I pay attention to it... 

But seriously, the only way out of a two-party system is to start electing independents.  Now, the chief complaint against independents is that they can't get anything done, as their voice is too small.  However, if a vote is close between two evenly-matched opposing parties? Independents have all the power, and a wily independent can probably make some deals in favour of their constituents in exchange for supporting a particular vote - even while voting how they think is best.

The ideal situation would be to have an Association of Independent Representatives  that takes no stance on politics but imposes ethical standards on its members; act like a slimeball or get caught in the pocket of one of the major parties and you lose the stamp of approval.

With social media and other modern communication technologies, an intelligent, articulate independent representative could keep her/his constituents informed in a way the parties will never do - you know, things like actually reading and explaining the contents of various new bills, explaining why they wish to vote a certain way on a particular bill (beyond the almost-irrelevant sound-bite politics one usually gets fed) and perhaps even be enough of a real human to be able to draw a distinction between their personal beliefs and the act of representing the wishes of the people (i.e. explaining that even though I personally would vote for X, I will vote for Y because that's better for y'all according to what you've told me).

However, in today's climate of multimillion-dollar shit-slinging campaigns? Good luck getting an independent elected in the first place.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I like the sentiment, Aggie.

Unfortunately, history teaches us the lesson:  anytime an independent party starts getting traction?

One or both of the entrenched Machine finally wake up, and start spewing their usual empty promises that match whatever issue was giving the independents traction.

Remember Ross Peroit, and his "independent" party?

Remember McCain's rhetoric about the same time?   

One thing Peroit's party had traction on, was campaign finance reform.  Remember the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill of a few years later?   The one that never went anywhere?  (long after Peroit's party faded into obscurity.... naturally....)

One example out of many where the Machine pretends to Pay Attention to a Real Issue Of The Day--

--- and why not?  Lip Service is free after all...

[Swatopluk]

--- and why not?  Lip Service is free after all...

Not anymore. Many have been punished on the Right for the heresy of paying lip service to reality for the base does not realize that it was only lip service in the first place.

[Roland Deschain]

Exactly as Umbrella Corp* intended...

It's more a case of, "Do I want the T-Virus or the G-Virus?" (yes, i'm an old school RE fan). Two parties is pants. The problem is, as voiced above by Aggie and Bob, the main parties in any country (it does seem as if there are only two choices in most countries) love the status quo. They both get their piece of apple pie, and alternate between themselves, further supporting themselves. I hate it, I really do.

I like the idea of a loose alliance of independent politicians who stand for what they truly believe in, attempting to force out corruption, but only as long as it doesn't turn into another party. As an aside, how do the really corrupt politicians taking what are essentially bribes (aka campaign contributions) from companies survive? Why do they never seem to be voted out of their office? Are people really this thick? <---rhetorical question there

I really wish politicians would say what they really mean, instead of tying people up in trivialities all the time. Ignore the rumour that candidate X is having an affair with 20 men/women/non-gender specific people, as that's really the least of your worries. Focus on what their policies are, and ensure that when they're in power, they fulfil their campaign promises. The issue comes when a large percentage of the people actually agree with their candidate when she/he says that "X is morally wrong according to [insert biblical passage here]", or something similar. This gets my goat too.

/further thread topic deviation.

[Griffin NoName]

...continuing

I just completed my voting slips for London Assembly and Mayor of London. It doesn't offer much in the way of good things to vote FOR, my votes essentially go to prevent the worst. The vote for Mayor comes down to utter silliness like which sorts of buses we want :

[Roland Deschain]

...continuing

It's sad that in a city the size of London, there are only two candidates thought of as viable for mayor. Just once, i'd love to see what an independent or Green Party candidate would do.

Does anyone else see the irony in a Uruguayan ex-national being the BNP candidate?

[Griffin NoName]

Does anyone else see the irony in a Uruguayan ex-national being the BNP candidate?

Re. only two candidates..... I'm not sure if it's because they are the two main parties, or because they are both so extra noticeable........... I wonder if we had one of the less loud candidates win, would they get as much coverage of their activites as Mayor as Borak does?

[Roland Deschain]

I don't know, but i'd love just once to find out. The BNP get more coverage than the independent candidates, and it's pretty bad, although they did get the least number of votes, so that's something at least. I live in a district which has had the Tories consistently win every MP and local election seat for time immemorial. I'm pretty tired of seeing my area in blue.

Talking of local elections, I had one of the tory councillor hopefuls come to my door. I had a nice chat with him about politics and the political structure in the UK, US, and Europe, and he told me a funny anecdote (He was at a party a few weeks ago, and met Cameron. He looked at him and said jokingly, "Who are you?" It did not go down well, apparently, Cameron looking like an offended Jack Russell. ). When I got to the polls, there were 2 Labour candidates to vote for and 3 Conservative. Talk about the lesser of two evils! And yes. I did tell him I wouldn't vote for him. :evilgrin:

[Griffin NoName]

.........He was at a party a few weeks ago, and met Cameron. He looked at him and said jokingly, "Who are you?" It did not go down well, apparently, Cameron looking like an offended Jack Russell. ).

How silly of Cameron. The clever thing would have been to smile.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Actually it's very telling, regardless of the reason not to recognize him (a joke, or honest ignorance) getting angry proves that his ego is too important for him to manage the situation. That's the kind of reaction I would expect from a Newt Gingrich for instance.

[Griffin NoName]

It's almost inconceivable that the guy didn't recognise Cameron (unfortunately). It was almost 100% assured to be a joke. It's also almost inconceivable that Cameron took it seriously. However, I have long thought he is only in the job to massage his ego. It's certainly how he comes across.