A Third Party? by 1358
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
Description
Not on our watch! been watching the American Presidential candidates debates on TV (because I need a laugh), and I notice that both sides are over-populated by POOGs (Pompous, Officious, Old Goats) heavily burdened by old money, old politics, old promises, and old corruptions. I notice that their accents change depending where they speak (You go south, you hear twangs, you go east and the speach is precise and clipped, you go west, and it sounds casual... you go north, oh wait, nobody goes north.... Alaska isn't considered a State by many American politicians).
Time for a third party to step in and represent the people..... not bloody likely. Why? The two major parties (which appear like one major party) don't like to share power.... it's a fear thing. The voting system is set up specifically for a two party election (and how can you call it a party if nobody's having a good time?)
So, best of luck electing someone who looks good in a blue suit with a red tie, someone who looks out for the little guy (and hey, until you are a billionare, you are still a little guy), vows to end big government and corruption, and above all, says "You've only got two choices.... how hard could that be?"
comments welcome, let the political mudslinging begin!
Comments (9)
akulla
Ya, we need one. Nice.
chachi
welp, IMHO, you shouldn't critisize the American government if you are not a citizen. It's like whining about someone else's parents-it's not your business. BUT, if you want to get rid of "Big Government", get rid of the Democrats cause they are all for it as well as more taxes! As far as the corruption thing, gimme a break, EVERY government in all of history on the planet has that problem!! And you have more than two choices, there are Independents and the others. Also, as far as them sounding different, well they have to appeal to different people all over the place. And don't come down on them too hard, they have to talk to ignorant people in the slums,ghettos, and other places that I wouldn't step foot. If politicians spoke the way they were educated it would go over most people's heads---trust me. They can't represent ALL people, cause there will always be someone who disagrees no matter what. "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." It's an ongoing losing battle that will always be part of humanity....get used to it... -chachi
Denys234
Nicely done!
turner
LOL, I love visiting this part of the site, you get so many opinionated people here (including myself!!) "you shouldn't critisize the American government if you are not a citizen" huh? Why not? Are we all not allowed to speak freely about what we believe is truth and honest? Isn't that what the good ol' U.S. of A. stands for, Peace, Truth and the American Way? or is it 'Peace, Truth as long it's the American Way'? Mmmm...... ;)
awadissk
Excellent work!!!!!!!!!!!
Valerie-Ducom
LOL !!! I can say it's the same history in all the world !! Excellent work Dear Collin and I like your creativity and imagination ! Good day and be good, as always :)
RubyT
LOL, this is great!!! And, I always enjoy your commentary. Ahhhhhh, American politics......a true lesson in the creative rediculous!
intro
I often ask myself: "Why do we need ANY parties?" Frankly I don't understand how limiting our politics to "left" or "right" does anything positive. What if a candidate had to "just be him or herself"? Let's make affiliations illegal.
Talain
The Founding Fathers had wanted to avoid the formation of political parties. But there is really nothing that can be done to stop like-minded individuals from banding together to further their common political agenda, which is essentially the formation of a political party. The biggest flaw in our electoral system, and the biggest obstacle to third parties actually being viable, is our plurality system, where the candidate with the most votes wins outright even if he does not get a majority of the vote. (A majority and a plurality are two very different things; in the case of receiving merely a plurality of the vote, it means that a majority of the voters did NOT vote for that candidate. In a crowded field a particularly polarizing figure could take something like 30% of the votes and have it be more than any other individual candidate on the ballot, and while the 70% who didn't vote for him all disagree on who they do want, they all universally agree that they would take anyone on the ballot other than the guy who actually won the election). What happens in this country is that voters will end up voting for whichever of the big-party candidates they dislike the least because that guy actually has a chance of winning, and their vote could mean the difference between that guy and the guy they dislike even more winning. Nowhere could this be more apparent than in the 2000 election, where Nader still siphoned off enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to end up winning the election (I will say nothing about the electoral college here). Nader still only ended up with a miniscule portion of the vote because many voters who preferred him over Gore (myself included) nonetheless voted for Gore anyway to try to prevent Bush from winning