On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Craig White
<craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 13:31 -0700, Nathan wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 13:24:30 you wrote:
> > Nobody was forced to take part in a 2-party system. Don't argue that a 3rd
> > party candidate is a waste of vote. Face it, your vote is infinitesimally
> > small, in fact 1 in a million. The idea of voting for lesser of two evils
> > has delivered a president with a 30% approval rating and a Congress with a
> > 19% approval rating. We, as a people, need to determine our own values and
> > vote based on these values, not trying to prevent someone else from getting
> > in office. Its not a horse race.
> >
> > Eric
> >
>
> I agree it's not a horse race. You're right. I'm sorry Paul did not win.
> Maybe the fairness doctrine would have required the media to give Paul an equal chance...
----
I think that a parliamentary system allows for other voices and more
participation but that is not what we have in the US. Too bad for us I
think because I rather admire the notion in England of 'loyal
opposition' - a concept that is foreign to the political system here.
I do think that across the board, the political system does not
typically encourage the best/brightest and I don't recall an election
where one of the presidential choices was my ideal candidate and I don't
see that changing any time soon, either.
Ron Paul is a marginal voice with a marginal message and his adherents
were so over the top this cycle that his message couldn't be considered
reasonable. He is incapable of sticking to a libertarian agenda.
Craig