Your reason America doescnt have more political parties?

[Going Postal]

We do have a dozen choices on wiping our asses...why not voting? Hamburger joint...a dozen. Etc.

Is it because the NWO didn't want to have to infiltrate a lot of political parties?

Opinions are asshoes and America has 340,000,000 (or there abouts) asshoes. Can two drawels really accomplish it?

Even for the sports-centric amongst us, races has lots of competitors.

[DngrMse]

In a nut shell, because of Ross Perot. Had he not run, Clinton would never have been president. Bush 41 would have beat him easily.

To overcome that today, you'd have to start at the bottom, and work your way up, not appear on the national stage at the last minute. It's why the Tea Party, (which is not a political party), has enjoyed some successes.

[antiquity]

In a nut shell, because of Ross Perot. Had he not run, Clinton would never have been president. Bush 41 would have beat him easily.

To overcome that today, you'd have to start at the bottom, and work your way up, not appear on the national stage at the last minute. It's why the Tea Party, (which is not a political party), has enjoyed some successes.

That and the ability to raise tons of money.

[BooRadley]

Because the people who control the two parties also control the electoral process and the media and the campaign money. Look how badly Paul was dismissed by popular media, including Fox News, as inconsequential, right from the start of the race, even though he was polling higher than their "major" candidates. He was dismissed by all major media the same way, and he's a Republican. It's about a billion times worse for 3rd parties, because they can barely even be mentioned as inconsequential.

Plus, the rules for getting on the ballots favor the two parties, and all the debates ignore 3rd parties. Add to that, that when a 3rd party does get some time, all major media starts doing stories about how it's throwing away your vote, because the candidate can't win.

And if all that weren't enough, you can't win without advertising, and major corps and financial houses that own both parties won't give any money to a 3rd party they can't control. If you have 10k in donations to advertise against two candidates who each have $500 million, you're not going to get anywhere. That's where the real damage is done.

As long as Wall St and major industries give hundreds of millions in advertising cash to the candidates who play ball, any candidate who doesn't play ball can't compete. And advertising does work.

[Pho King]

Because the people who control the two parties also control the electoral process and the media and the campaign money. Look how badly Paul was dismissed by popular media, including Fox News, as inconsequential, right from the start of the race, even though he was polling higher than their "major" candidates. He was dismissed by all major media the same way, and he's a Republican. It's about a billion times worse for 3rd parties, because they can barely even be mentioned as inconsequential.

Plus, the rules for getting on the ballots favor the two parties, and all the debates ignore 3rd parties. Add to that, that when a 3rd party does get some time, all major media starts doing stories about how it's throwing away your vote, because the candidate can't win.

And if all that weren't enough, you can't win without advertising, and major corps and financial houses that own both parties won't give any money to a 3rd party they can't control. If you have 10k in donations to advertise against two candidates who each have $500 million, you're not going to get anywhere. That's where the real damage is done.

As long as Wall St and major industries give hundreds of millions in advertising cash to the candidates who play ball, any candidate who doesn't play ball can't compete. And advertising does work.

Lets not forget those unions.

[kellyb]

Lets not forget those unions.

They're not very powerful at all any more. They used to be, but that ship has sailed (for now.)

[Chachma v'Oz]

Funny how the income gap got so big after workers turned their backs on unions. Go figure.

[Pho King]

They're not very powerful at all any more. They used to be, but that ship has sailed (for now.)

In the private sector that is true. Not many private sector unions. The ones that do are powerful though. But public sector unions- thats a different story.

Besides, they give considerable amounts to campaigns. Enough to include them in the screed against Wall Street and Major Industries.

Additionally, while the money donated by Wall street and Industry is split fairly evenly- we all know that Union money is funnelled directly into one party.

[kellyb]

Funny how the income gap got so big after workers turned their backs on unions. Go figure.

No, No! It was the government increasing taxes and regulations that caused the gap! And, the evil unions, somehow!

[kellyb]

In the private sector that is true. Not many private sector unions. The ones that do are powerful though. But public sector unions- thats a different story.

Besides, they give considerable amounts to campaigns. Enough to include them in the screed against Wall Street and Major Industries.

Additionally, while the money donated by Wall street and Industry is split fairly evenly- we all know that Union money is funnelled directly into one party.

I don't think they even made the top 20 for Obama's campaign. On the local level, they do hold some sway, though.

[Pho King]

I don't think they even made the top 20 for Obama's campaign. On the local level, they do hold some sway, though.

The SEIU gave 60,000,000$ alone. Which is very significant given your statement that new parties cannot emerge due to such donations.

[kellyb]

The SEIU gave 60,000,000$ alone. Which is very significant given your statement that new parties cannot emerge due to such donations.

Do you have a source?

I'm not seeing it:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

[DamnYankee]

Your reason America doescnt have more political parties?

Two parties full of those sumbitches is good enough.

[soylentgreen]

Boo's explaination is the most accurate. The two major parties have rigged the system to exclude anyone else. For instance, for a small third party to get ballot access in all 50 states consumes just about all of their resources. The two major parties have automatic access.

The other main problem is that dumbass Americans only pay attention to presidential elections...and third parties have historically only sought the presidency. It's pure stupidity. If you want a viable third party, you're going to have to get off your asses and support (or even run yourself) local small-time candidates. You're also going to have to pay attention to politics every day of every year...not just a few months prior to November every four years.

These third parties which run presidential candidates every four years but have no congressional seats or control of any state legislatures are nothing but empty suits. They can not and will not ever win until they build a grass-roots organization. The presidency will be the last office a third party will capture...not the first.

Many third parties are a cult surrounding one personality. Ross Perot is a perfect example. Notice how the Reform Party imploded once Perot lost and wasn't going to run again? They didn't believe in the party. They didn't believe in liberty. They believed in Ross Perot.

Bottom line, the stakes are way too high in presidential elections. Voting for a third party candidate with nothing but a shadow of a party backing him or her IS a waste of a vote. But, there is a chance that a third party candidate can win at your local water reclaimation district. The stakes are not as high and people are willing to vote for a third party candidate. It is also possible for such candidates to campaign hard locally. This is a multi-decade project. Does America have the will and ability to do it? I have serious doubts.

[kellyb]

Boo's explaination is the most accurate. The two major parties have rigged the system to exclude anyone else. For instance, for a small third party to get ballot access in all 50 states consumes just about all of their resources. The two major parties have automatic access.

The other main problem is that dumbass Americans only pay attention to presidential elections...and third parties have historically only sought the presidency. It's pure stupidity. If you want a viable third party, you're going to have to get off your asses and support (or even run yourself) local small-time candidates. You're also going to have to pay attention to politics every day of every year...not just a few months prior to November every four years.

These third parties which run presidential candidates every four years but have no congressional seats or control of any state legislatures are nothing but empty suits. They can not and will not ever win until they build a grass-roots organization. The presidency will be the last office a third party will capture...not the first.

Many third parties are a cult surrounding one personality. Ross Perot is a perfect example. Notice how the Reform Party imploded once Perot lost and wasn't going to run again? They didn't believe in the party. They didn't believe in liberty. They believed in Ross Perot.

Bottom line, the stakes are way too high in presidential elections. Voting for a third party candidate with nothing but a shadow of a party backing him or her IS a waste of a vote. But, there is a chance that a third party candidate can win at your local water reclaimation district. The stakes are not as high and people are willing to vote for a third party candidate. It is also possible for such candidates to campaign hard locally. This is a multi-decade project. Does America have the will and ability to do it? I have serious doubts.

Holy shit.
That's by far the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say.

[Šñøü†ê®]

It is nice to see many here are realizing the false dichotomy used by the establishment to RETAIN THEIR POWER not trick us into thinking we have voting power. I used to think that it was important to vote, that it means something even if it is a vote for the less repugnant candidate. But the more honest statement is to not vote unless there is someone honest and supportive of the power of the people like Ron Paul. It is really easy to see in local elections. The republicans and democrats running for offices are often in the same social circles. That way it is kept all in the family.