2 party system a bad thing?

[ QUOTE ]
A libraterian could run as a republican and simply change the parties policies to reflect thier own, the party would adapt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul (Tom DeLay's predecessor) tried that. The party didn't adapt.

[lehighguy]

Did he run for president? Was he popular? Is he charismatic?

[ QUOTE ]
Did he run for president? Was he popular? Is he charismatic?

[/ QUOTE ]
He ran for prez on Libertarian ticket.

Very popular with Libertarians.

My dawgs got more charisma.

[lehighguy]

I don't see the relation to my post then?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the relation to my post then?

[/ QUOTE ]
And that doesn't surprise me. At all.

[lehighguy]

Am I missing something. My sarcasm detector is through the roof.

[FishHooks]

I think interest groups are what has really screwed up american politics. That was the main thing madison talked about/refered to in federalist 10 regarding factions. I think he would be amazed how much they have grown, and I myself also believe they are out of controll. But one of the things he talks about is not controlling the existence of factions but limiting their control, and he says thats basically the job of democracy. I really dont know how us voters let these interest groups have so much controll.

[ QUOTE ]
I think interest groups are what has really screwed up american politics. That was the main thing madison talked about/refered to in federalist 10 regarding factions. I think he would be amazed how much they have grown, and I myself also believe they are out of controll. But one of the things he talks about is not controlling the existence of factions but limiting their control, and he says thats basically the job of democracy. I really dont know how us voters let these interest groups have so much controll.

[/ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are exactly right about the original intent of the two party system. I don't think he, or the other "old white guys" who put the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights together, would be amazed. I think they'd be disappointed and, possibly, disgusted.

They'd be disappointed at what's happened to this country. What we've allowed to happen. Slowly, small step by small step.

The original idea of limiting control of the "factions" was in line with the idea of limiting control of the government. That's also why they devised the system of checks and balances.

We voters allowed the special interest groups to gain so much control by not controlling the people we elected to represent us. Nominees make elaborate plans, promise everything, get elected and then settle in. Comfortable that once in office, they can pretty much do what they damned well please.

We voters tell them what they're doing/not doing is OK by us by re-electing them. We don't insist/demand they account for their actions.

I keep hearing/reading about, "It's all those other guys/women. Not my guy/lady." Well, it's all those guys/women.

OK, it's getting late. I'm packing up my soap box and heading to bed.

btw, I admire folks who can refer to one of the FP's and seem to actually have read it. Good job.

[lehighguy]

An uninformed and incompetent voting block should be assumed for democracy. Our elections are working as intended.

Our founders realized the flaw of mob-democracy and thus placed extremrely high limitations on the legislator. It was always assumed congress would be stupid but powerless. We have steadily given them more power over the years.

[ QUOTE ]
It was always assumed congress would be stupid but powerless.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "stupid" congress? "Always assumed" by who(m).

I thought the original intent was that the Legislative Branch not be stupid. They were to have the good sense to write reasonable law.

"We, the people," elect them to represent us. We give them the freedom to make decisions in our behalf. Isn't that what's meant by a democratic republic?