• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is incredibly simple!

While I rarely agree with anything that comes out of Jones mouth,
he has a point regarding the illusion that 2 parties equals real choice.
 
After watching three times and taking notes i finally got it! Its the green stuff against the red stuff, and the other colors dont get a fair break! Wow!!! Didnt understand the green stuff, though, it was presented a bit fuzzy. And whats the deal with the big eye on top?
 
Talk about beating a simple subject to death - and the solution is - well he doesn't mention that? Of course there are other parties but the two big ones do seem to contain the beliefs of most Americans.

I'm not sure a parlimentary system would be any better as minor parties tend to gain too much power.
 
I don't think the Parliamentary system would work in the US, I think us Yanks like the idea of voting directly for the President,rather then leave it to a group of party insiders.
 
That's six minutes of my life I'll never get back. And to think I could've been watching Fallout trailers instead...
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
So who actually votes for the Presidential candidates?
Click to expand...


No kidding, 538 people finally choose the President:

"Every fourth November, after almost two years of campaign hype and money, over 90 million Americans vote for the presidential candidates. Then, in the middle of December, the president and vice president of the United States are really elected by the votes of only 538 citizens -- the "electors" of the Electoral College" - Source
 
So there is no difference between a republican and a democrat? Then why does Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife disagree with George Soros, Warren Buffett and Ted Turner?
 
You know, it's funny... Plenty of people like to claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, as if it's a bad thing. However, if there's no distinction between the parties, you're actually forced to examine the candidates as individuals, and that's most definitely not a bad thing.

The pseudo-revolutionaries fail to mention that part.

I think that's because these people use that statement as a cop-out; a distraction. They're not angry because they actually think the two major political parties are the same, but because they feel personally jilted when the minor-political-party candidate they voted for doesn't win. That's a whole 'nother can of worms, though.
 
Last edited:
You know, one reason I really hate Alex Jones is because he spreads this propaganda, which is then eaten up by college kids - which I then have to try to teach political science 101.

The two party system is real, and it has real differences. A country ruled exclusively by either party would look vastly different than it does when they share power. While small-scale collusion among the parties exists its well researched and we know when and where it happens. It occurs in log rolling, where people vote swap to get their bills passed.

Beyond that, both parties really don't like the other and they certainly never lean on each other. The electoral college is a formality - the college will never in practice vote against the popular vote, as to do so would be to cause riots.
 
LightinDarkness said:
The electoral college is a formality - the college will never in practice vote against the popular vote, as to do so would be to cause riots.
Click to expand...

Has it Ever Happened? Has a presidential candidate ever lost the nationwide popular vote but been elected president in the Electoral College? Yes, three times:

In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.
Click to expand...


Full Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm
 
Oliver said:
Full Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm
Click to expand...

This is what you get from using about.com instead of peer reviewed sources.

In 2000 Al Gore did not win the popular vote when you correctly count the votes and remove people voting twice and other abnormalities, like the dead voting. 1888 is the last time this happened - although BOTH cases are heavily disputed by political scientists because they contained too much fraud to determine who actually won. And you are correct, I should have stated "in MODERN times" as it MAY have happened twice before.

For example, read:
Herron, M.C., & Sekhon, J.S. (2003). Overvoting and representation: an examination of overvoted presidential ballots in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Electoral Studies, 22(1): 21-47.
 
Last edited:
LightinDarkness said:
You know, one reason I really hate Alex Jones is because he spreads this propaganda, which is then eaten up by college kids - which I then have to try to teach political science 101.

The two party system is real, and it has real differences. A country ruled exclusively by either party would look vastly different than it does when they share power. While small-scale collusion among the parties exists its well researched and we know when and where it happens. It occurs in log rolling, where people vote swap to get their bills passed.

Beyond that, both parties really don't like the other and they certainly never lean on each other. The electoral college is a formality - the college will never in practice vote against the popular vote, as to do so would be to cause riots.
Click to expand...

Considering your lack of understanding of how money is created I'm not suprised by your weak attempts to provide an argument against those who criticise the 2 party system.

You fail miserably here because no one is claiming the 2 party system is not real. They are claiming it's not a proper democracy. And they are correct. There might be a perfunctory difference between each party but both sides are beholden to those who bankroll them and not the people.

A 2 party system gives the illusion of democracy by encouraging the voters to polarise themselves with something so they believe there vote actually achieves something.

There's no democracy in being able to vote between 2 heavily vetted candidates who are largely bankrolled by the same people.
 
Last edited:
Tin Foil Timothy said:
A 2 party system gives the illusion of democracy by encouraging the voters to polarise themselves with something so they believe there vote actually achieves something.
Click to expand...
you have that backward, the people polarized first and thats why 2 parties became dominant

its not a 2 party "system" as theres nothing that says there can only be 2 major parties and nothing that prevent smaller parties from running candidates

the problem is many americans dont vote for who they want to vote for, they vote for who they think will win, they feel as if voting for a losing candidate is a "wasted" vote, so instead they waste their votes trying to guess who their neighbor voted for

although i wonder how can claim its not democracy when its the people who always vote for the 2 parties? im not sure who said it first but the masses are asses
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
You fail miserably here because no one is claiming the 2 party system is not real. They are claiming it's not a proper democracy. And they are correct.
Click to expand...
Of course they are. A “proper” democracy has no leader. Rather than choosing a leader who makes important decisions, the People vote on the decisions directly.

There might be a perfunctory difference between each party but both sides are beholden to those who bankroll them and not the people.
Click to expand...
Not true. A politician with all the resources in the world but without people willing to vote for him won’t be successful. Imagine Donald Trump or Bill Gates running for president.…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom