Just when you think it can't get any worse...

Amen to that. If I had my way, both parties would be dismantled, and we would start over with two parties, even though having different views, cared about the American people, not their power, and the power of corporate America.

I would then proceed to take the leaders of both existing parties, the lobbiests, lawyers associated with them, the company executives that have robbed the American people, and any other associated trash, open up Alcatraz again, and throw away the key.

 

If I had my way we'd get rid of the federal reserve, the CFR and the UN and get America back to a constitutional republic instead of the globalist's military arm it's been turned into for the profit of a few.

 

Whats the difference. Politicians in Washington and their associated thieves in private industry prostitute themselves every day.

 

Why start over with two parties?

Why not reform in such a way that each electoral vote has to be won by a majority instead of a plurality? Then, make it so that each state is like Maine and Nebraska in which the electoral votes are not all-or-nothing?

At the local, state, and congressional level, require a majority instead of a plurality.

 

Why start over????!!! I guess because the Democrats and Republicans and their associated power based thieves are beyond repair.

 

Re-read my question in its entirety: Why start over with two parties?

The key words are "two parties".

 

ok, sorry. Well, as far as elections go, which I think is what you are getting at, the only purpose parties serve is to make elections easier to decide. I just dont want the Democrats or Republicans in ANY area of American life. If you didnt start over with parties, I am not sure how you would do it. The important thing is honesty and having the well being of the American people in your heart, not your power base. I do like your ideas for electoral college reform.

 

Australian rules balloting is one way. You would vote on the candidate or party of your choice, but you would not be limited to two parties.

Right now, one of the dangers of voting for the best candidate is that you will be siphoning off votes from one person and thereby electing the worst candidate.

Requiring a majority prevents that danger, and Australian rules balloting makes it all possible on one ballot without the necessity of a run-off election.

 

That's the point, I think. If everyone voted for the best candidate, Kerry would have won. That's how Clinton won with something like 43% of the vote. If a majority were required, then that 43% would not win it.

Also, because the two major parties would fight it tooth and nail, that's why you have to start locally requiring a majority. But, every time someone tries it, then out comes the arguments: It's too expensive, it's racist, etc.

 

Considering the fiasco that Bush is having in this term I doubt it would be any worse if Kerry was the president.

With either one in office and either party in control of the Congress the size and scope of the federal government would get larger and larger and larger...

 

The only way that I think it would not have been worse if Kerry were president is because Congress would be fighting everything he's for, tooth and nail.

 

Some choice of leaders were given eh? Choose between two Skull and Bones globalists. Yippie. Neither one of them should be allowed to represent this country, wait a minute...neither one of them do represent this country they represent the global elite and their interests of centralizing money power and control into the hands of themselves.