The Ideal President Would...

[v-girl]

I know this is cheating, but...my ideal election season would drop all the negative campaigning crap.

Seriously.

[Sheherezade]

Funny -- I was reading comments on a political website the other day and ran across an exchange between to other members. The first asked why they didn't have debates like this (ours) in their country. The reply told them that in their country they only elect a party - not a person. Hence, the person that is the head of the party doesn't come in to play so much. I think it's probably "the grass is always greener" affecting my reaction here but I couldn't help but feel that would be so much better. I'm so tired of the personality politics. I'd much rather evaluate the party platform and see if its in line with my own ideas.

My current aversion to Mitt Romney has little to do with him personally (although I do have some complaints there as well) and more to do with things that have been proposed or acted on by other Republicans over the last twenty years. So, maybe we are already acting on the "party" system - but with a figurehead/punching bag at the top to take the blows for the whole shebang across the country.

I'm more than ready for a third party or independent candidate to help escape the vicious battle we've pitched between these two "teams" across the U.S. It's not getting us anywhere -- and this election will once again be a 49% - 51% decision with patriotic, thoughtful, intelligent and caring "real" Americans on both sides.

[bobk]

In an ideal election we would have two or more sides factually stating their goals and their possible solutions to various hypothetical situations. In other words, we would have non-human beings running for election. lol I think sociopathic liars are deeply attracted to power over others. Thus we have our modern day politicians. What we need are statesmen/women instead.

I don't know that modern politicians are necessarily sociopathic liars. It could be equally true that they know the electorate will severely punish them for telling the truth. so they're just being pragmatic. It's also hard to say if this is a modern trend. I think American culture has always been optimistic. Even if people have a sense of hard realities, they'd prefer not to hear about them.

[bobk]

I'm more than ready for a third party or independent candidate to help escape the vicious battle we've pitched between these two "teams" across the U.S. It's not getting us anywhere -- and this election will once again be a 49% - 51% decision with patriotic, thoughtful, intelligent and caring "real" Americans on both sides.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but am just arguing the other side here. By having just two parties, it forces the presidential candidates to build a consensus among the people as they work their way towards the final election. You see this happen as soon as they win over their own party and shift their campaigns towards the general election. Imagine if each of the serious primary candidates formed their own party, so you had ten different candidates and platforms to choose from in the general election. If your favorite wins, great, but it also means that as many as 89% of the people might not want anything to do with that candidate and his/her ideas. That's no way to be effective. With the two party system, we at least have a near majority of people who can feel that their views are represented, even if they're not entirely in agreement with that party.

Another issue with third parties is that they can throw off the elections in a major way. I'm quite certain that George Bush would have been reelected in 1992 if Ross Perot hadn't run. It's also likely that Al Gore would have won in 2000 if Ralph Nader hadn't run. In those case, the majority of country at the time may have preferred a more conservative or liberal candidate be elected, but the third party fractured that side of the vote, ensuring that the opposite happened.

[Sheherezade]

I see pros and cons to the multi-party system as well. I'd imagine that the times and current thinking within the parties play a role in what's successful. I think the gridlock now can only be improved by a third party. Splintering the 50-50 hold and providing voters with an allegiance that doesn't play in to the "Your ruining our country!" "No, YOUR ruining our country!" tug of war we've got going on now seems like a good idea. Also, I think requiring a coalition government across two parties in order to gain a majority vote might give these guys practice at compromise again. But what do I know? I'm just your average semi-educated trying to be informed voter.

I do think that SOMETHING needs to be done so we can stop banging our head against the wall.