On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:06:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political
discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so
that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two
major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both
parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and
creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.

I can't really argue with any of that. About the only thing we can do
as a nation is get fed up and toss all the bums out one of these days.

I'd submit that if we all were participating in the general political
discussion, we'd have a pretty good shot at coming up with a third
viable option. While it's been two-party Democratic V. Republican for
quite some time, that hasn't always been the case. The problem (IMO)
comes from waiting until voting day, and then choosing from what
somebody else put on the ballot. I don't know anyone who is very
enthusiastic about either of the two parties (though I have met a
number who are very supportive of the President). Out of 300 million
people in the country, there have to be at least enough decent people
to start up a new party that can challenge the big two.

Problem is, the big two are both so crappy, most of us (and I'm
ashamed to say I'm guity of it as well) feel like we have to vote for
the "less bad" candidate in every election cycle.