Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘party’

Please think wiser about the effects of a third party. In regards to the 2000 election, don’t just add 2 to 48 to beat 49; it doesn’t work that way. Suggesting that a third party is a “spoiler” is just plain political bigotry. We all have the right to run for president so under the same logic either we are all spoilers or none of us are.

Speaking with Marx in mind, the progression of government under capitalism is purely economical. The democrat and the republican parties are corporate parties. Since the corporation was given “personhood” in 1886, (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) it achieved the same constitution rights that you and I share. This has corrupted our government beyond any measure, criminal wars, torture, economic depression, the list goes on and on.

To break away from corporate and political slavery, we will need to think and vote different this year. He’s not the president we deserve but he’s the president we need, vote Nader.

votenader.org

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Addressing two major problems when electing the Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader.

First, Nader will need major media attention to reach a large enough audience to even possibly become electable and second, the problem that occurs when the electability of the more likely candidate is reduced by the independent vote thus causing the less favorable candidate to win. (In this case I assume the scenario would be the democrat losing votes to the independent causing the republican to win.)

There is a trick to getting Nader access to a major audience. He would need to do one of two things, either get authorization from the private company that controls the debates which happens to be owned by the democrat and republican parties or he can appeal to another corporation to sponsor a debate, one that can offer an audience that can’t be turned down, as to insure the acceptance of the major parties. Nader has accomplished the latter, he has managed to convince Google to fight the aforementioned corporation for its monopoly over the debates. Now Google has agreed to hold an open debate live on YouTube that will allow multiple parties to participate, as long as the party has at least 10% in the national poll.  (Which is 5% less than what the Dem & Rep owned debates accept, even thought getting it doesn’t necessary insure acceptance) Nader, by the way, has around 6%. That being said, I do believe that there is a big problem with Nader not having enough media coverage, you can see him expressing it when he says buzz-word-phrases that attract media attention but he’s been able to sway Google to help him with this obstacle.

Concerning the second probelm, a two party system which forces us into voting for a party in fear that the other party would be elected is in itself problematic to the concept of democracy. (Which we hold to be conducted by a series of free elections) Furthermore, in denying the possibility of a third party we are condemning ourselves to the polarizing and monopolizing effects of a two party system. I think that in exposing this flaw common sense logic tells us that a two party system is counter intuitive to a democracy.

Read Full Post »