Is America A One Party State

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:09 am

Re: Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

Why should the parties work together to split the electorate - unless you are suggesting that they are two halves of a single controlling organization then it is in their interest to compete for the available votes.

Originally Posted by Accountable I've suggested that time and again. They work in harmony to keep the competition to only the two parties, which makes them a single defacto unit. We can continue this conversation in a separate threadl if you wish.

Are the Demobilcans two halves of a single power structure controlling America?

I take it as read that they work in concert to prevent any third party becoming a force in American politics as that is in both of their interests but, for one of the parties not compete for all of the available votes it must go beyond that to a single beneficiary group who gets the power regardless of who is elected.

Is this possible? Is it likely?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:23 am

The two parties absolutely do work together to keep it a two party competition. Are the two parties mirror images of one another? In that they both have to play by the same rules and are equally subjected to the same political elements, yes IMO. BUT, they are not YET philosophically the same. The republican party is the party of big business, there is not many who dispute that, in fact republicans boast its ties to big business. The democratic party, which is a group of people who believe capitalism is fine as long as it is willing to do its part to support the less fortunate. However, that no longer appears to be the case because commerce is now using the republican party, along with some tea party elements to free itself of taxes which is how our under privileged is supported . The democratic party has been being infiltrated by moderate republicans for several years and those moderate republicans have been taking the party over. So they're not true mirror images yet, but they appear to be headed there.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:13 am

Ahso!;1339150 wrote: The two parties absolutely do work together to keep it a two party competition. Are the two parties mirror images of one another? In that they both have to play by the same rules and are equally subjected to the same political elements, yes IMO. BUT, they are not YET philosophically the same. The republican party is the party of big business, there is not many who dispute that, in fact republicans boast its ties to big business. The democratic party, which is a group of people who believe capitalism is fine as long as it is willing to do its part to support the less fortunate. However, that no longer appears to be the case because commerce is now using the republican party, along with some tea party elements to free itself of taxes which is how our under privileged is supported . The democratic party has been being infiltrated by moderate republicans for several years and those moderate republicans have been taking the party over. So they're not true mirror images yet, but they appear to be headed there.

The suggestion is more that the powers that be, the people who pull the strings and manipulate who is selected for the major posts are the same group for both parties. Only then would it not disadvantage a party if they chose not to compete for all available votes.

Another possibility comes to mind - does the Republican party think that they might loose all of the black vote by the policies that they're putting forward but that loss is more than compensated for by the number of white purist votes they gain from having those policies?

I know we have not yet confirmed Yaaarrrgg's statement that the Republicans have effectively lost the entire black vote but is American society *that* divided?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:26 am

I believe it was Jefferson who said that the two-party system would destroy America. Seems he was right. Other than their platforms, which only seem to matter during the election years, I can't really see much difference in their day to day operations. they both spend a huge amount of time trying to gain and keep power, they both seem shot through with incompetence and corruption. They both demonize the other.

I'm REALLY sick of it.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1339158 wrote: I know we have not yet confirmed Yaaarrrgg's statement that the Republicans have effectively lost the entire black vote but is American society *that* divided?

Here's a stat from a few years back: "Black Americans have routinely given Democrats about 90 percent of the vote in presidential elections."

From:

Bush May Get Larger Portion of Black Vote (washingtonpost.com)

This is a result of the "Southern Strategy".

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1339140 wrote:

Are the Demobilcans two halves of a single power structure controlling America?

I take it as read that they work in concert to prevent any third party becoming a force in American politics as that is in both of their interests but, for one of the parties not compete for all of the available votes it must go beyond that to a single beneficiary group who gets the power regardless of who is elected.

Is this possible? Is it likely?

It's true that a two party system will always compete against each other which means each side has that much more knowledge on how to manipulate anyone and anything to get what they want, which is essentially to take the vote away from the other as opposed to gaining a vote. This cannot and does not work in favor of the majority, it sets up smaller groups to be the beneficiary.

The irony is how individual politicians go in to the game truly trying to do well for the people only to realize the machine swallows them whole. The republicans are for big business and the democrats are and always have been in favor of the common worker.

I thought this article was a very good read... Why would a mayor ever want to be a governor? - Google Search

Ahso!;1339150 wrote: The two parties absolutely do work together to keep it a two party competition.

They don't have to work very hard at it when so much pride is floating around.

f the republicans win office they'll shoot down everything Obama worked for and they'll bankrupt this country just like they've wanted forever. The less money in the common worker's pocket the more money is in theirs, it's sick.

Anyone voting for Palin? Come now don't be afraid

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:13 am

Ahso!;1339150 wrote: The two parties absolutely do work together to keep it a two party competition. Are the two parties mirror images of one another? In that they both have to play by the same rules and are equally subjected to the same political elements, yes IMO. Saint_;1339197 wrote: I believe it was Jefferson who said that the two-party system would destroy America. Seems he was right. Other than their platforms, which only seem to matter during the election years, I can't really see much difference in their day to day operations. they both spend a huge amount of time trying to gain and keep power, they both seem shot through with incompetence and corruption. They both demonize the other.

I'm REALLY sick of it.Exactly. Sure they sing different songs during election time, but every law that passes is aimed at increasing government power and decreasing liberty. Sure, they argue about which powers they should usurp first, but never about whether to usurp them.

"Both" parties say what they have to to get votes, and do what they have to to get campaign contributions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:19 am

Accountable;1339341 wrote: Exactly. Sure they sing different songs during election time, but every law that passes is aimed at increasing government power and decreasing liberty. Sure, they argue about which powers they should usurp first, but never about whether to usurp them.

"Both" parties say what they have to to get votes, and do what they have to to get campaign contributions.Exactly as a true capitalist would design it, no? Would you agree it would be best to take the 'business' out of elections?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:22 am

Ahso!;1339347 wrote: Exactly as a true capitalist would design it, no? Would you agree it would be best to take the 'business' out of elections?

There is a strong argument that the funds spent on an election campaign should be capped to prevent the rich buying votes - public office should not be dependant on how rich you are but on the abilities you have to offer in that role.

Suggestion :-

Each party pays into an escrow account up to the declared funding cap for that election. The account is open to use by the party but owned by and fully visible to the Electoral Commission.

All activity related to the election is to be paid from that account.

It would be illegal for any private individual or company to pay for large scale canvassing on behalf of a party (to include media coverage deemed to be overtly biassed) in the same way that it is currently illegal for any private individual or company to make an undeclared donation to party funds.

Any activity beneficial to the party's election prospects brought to the attention of the Electoral Commission that has not been paid for out of the party's escrow account leads to penalties, up to and including disqualification from the election, for the party deemed responsible for the activity.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:29 am

We had something similar until our supreme court opened the flood gates for a corporate free-for-all.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:06 pm

I would like to see all political advertisement banned, like they did with tobacco. It's all sound bites and non-sense anyway. If they want to get their name out, they can go on public TV/Radio and debate each other.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:22 pm

yaaarrrgg;1339406 wrote: I would like to see all political advertisement banned, like they did with tobacco. It's all sound bites and non-sense anyway. If they want to get their name out, they can go on public TV/Radio and debate each other.

We have a degree of control here for the television with the Party Political Broadcast. A PPB lasts five minutes and all terrestrial channels must broadcast it at about the same time. Each major party has an equal number of slots (maybe two or three during a campaign) and every effort is made to keep things balanced.

Newspaper and billboard adverts are under the control of the Advertising Standards Agency and there have been several high profile cases recently of them slapping down one party or another for overstepping the mark.

Definitely agree though, I'd like to get rid of the adverts altogether.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:15 pm

Ahso!;1339347 wrote: Exactly as a true capitalist would design it, no? Would you agree it would be best to take the 'business' out of elections?
In the military we always said our job was to defend liberty, not practice it. Along the same lines, Our representiatives should defend our right to privacy but have not right to it themselves. I think no organization, corporation, political party, PAC, lobby, union, or any other collection of anonymous people should be allowed to participate in any way with our election process or the operation of government. Citizens, individual human beings, should be the only "entities" allowed to participate, contribute, or influence our political or governmental system - and the politicians should have to make public every pound, penny, and farthing collected along with the identity of the citizen that provided it.

The best and most effective way to break the stranglehold the Republicrat Party have on the system is to eliminate political parties altogether.

eta: I'm pretty sure this is a deviation from my position the last time we had this conversation.