On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:43:15 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:01:54 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the
cream of the crop or the best of the best become the candidate for each
party? It seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out
in mass, and they control the primaries which leave the vast majority
of the voters going WTF.

We get the democracy *we* deserve. It seems to me, we don't get the
chance to choose our candidates, they are appointed. IMHO, the two
party system is overrated. I became excited about Perot's candidacy,
not because I thought he would be a good President, but because he could
send a message to the two parties that they weren't doing their job of
representing us. Much has been said about the American non-voter,
perhaps they are voting, none of the above.


I'm beginning to admire the British parliamentary system.

I'm not sure it's our system or us. Our forefathers warned of the tyranny
of a party system. We have allowed our politicians to serve their "party"
rather than serve us. It is our own fault. In any event, I wouldn't
change the system. It has provided a heritage and stability that has
carried us through trying times. The benefits of that continuity can not
be disregarded.