Title: Film of DC rally (How many does it look like to you?) Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Sep 14, 2009 Author:. Post Date:2009-09-14 12:37:53 by christine Keywords:None Views:1155 Comments:117
Honestly, unless there is a third party movement from this, if it is called "The Tea Party", or what ever, I'm not paying much attention.
Honestly, if it turns into a third party movement, I'll stop paying attention. Get this: It is mathematically impossible for a third party to be viable in a winner-take-all election system, such as the one we have in the US. Got that? 2 + 2 = 4, and third parties cannot be viable. Both statements are true with the same level of strength and certainty.
Yes, I know. The Republican Party displaced the Whig party. The operative word, however, is replaced. That's not just an accident of history. It was mathematically required.
The question, then, is what are the chances of a new party replacing one of the existing ones? A rough estimate would have to be once every 235 years, based on US history. Not good odds. It's much more likely that a determined group of activists might be able to take over an existing party from within. That's happened many times in US history.
It's much more likely that a determined group of activists might be able to take over an existing party from within. That's happened many times in US history.....
You are probably right about replacing a party, but change from within at this point, I don't think will happen.
Get this: It is mathematically impossible for a third party to be viable in a winner-take-all election system, such as the one we have in the US. Got that? 2 + 2 = 4, and third parties cannot be viable.
That is pretty much true. The laws regulating who and how someone gets on the ballot have been rigged in favor of the existing Republicrat Party. If you are not a Republicrat the hurdles are so high that it is virtually impossible for a 3rd Party Candidate to get on enough ballots to win - even if 100% voted for it.
Honestly, if it turns into a third party movement, I'll stop paying attention. Get this: It is mathematically impossible for a third party to be viable in a winner-take-all election system, such as the one we have in the US. Got that? 2 + 2 = 4, and third parties cannot be viable. Both statements are true with the same level of strength and certainty.
Yes, I know. The Republican Party displaced the Whig party. The operative word, however, is replaced. That's not just an accident of history. It was mathematically required.
The question, then, is what are the chances of a new party replacing one of the existing ones? A rough estimate would have to be once every 235 years, based on US history. Not good odds. It's much more likely that a determined group of activists might be able to take over an existing party from within. That's happened many times in US history.
This is why Ron Paul decided to stay in the Republican Party.