Quote:
Originally posted by fluffho
THAT is what im complacent abuot. is i realize that theres alwyas going to be the 2 sides. so what? im gonna cry and complain every time i dont get my way? ill let whoever the idiots who are running here in SD worry about that. politicians can stick with politics, ill do my cop thing... etc etc.
|
I don't mean to get in the middle of your debate with bwind22, however, here goes. If voter turnout, (participation) were not so pathetic, seemingly more then a 2 party system would be possible, but not necessarily needed. As it is now, individuals, (there's that word) are making a stance, or statement by voting outside of the Democrats or GOP, and typically pull votes away from the Democratic candidate. At one time the 2 major parties had voters or candidates who ranged from far left or right, to moderates, and fence riders, or crossovers. whereby giving our primary system, (in theory) the opportunity for voters to choose the candidate who best shares their political or personal views on the issues, which greatly reduces, (not eliminate) the need for an independent candidate(s). This by no means or implies that independent candidates or voters are restrictively labeled Liberals and/or Conservatives. The 2 major parties have less and less voters who are afforded this opportunity, thereby making a 2 party system so unattractive to a lot of them.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm voting for Bush. For me Kerry goes back and forth on so many of the issues, and many, say if not all. At least Bush tends to stay with his original plan, like it or not. A firm and consistent hand is needed to effectively carry out our nations issues. No two people are going to do all things the same way, or share the same opinion on how best to accomplish these things. We know what to expect from Bush, All we know about Kerry, is that he originally voted for many of Bush's ideas, and now votes against them, IMHO, Kerry needs to make up his mind.