Should We Have More Than Two Parties?

by Valorie Delp | More from this Blogger

08 Jul 2008 05:26 AM

The Democratic National Convention is next month and the Republican National Convention is shortly thereafter at the beginning of September. While Obama has announced that he's going to accept his nomination from the stadium--presumably to a full stadium.

McCain on the other hand has a different problem. Ron Paul, who has officially ended his campaign recently, is holding his own convention, the same night as the Republican convention. Not only that, but he's holding it right around the corner from the Republican National Convention. Let's not forget Bob Barr either, who by many is seen as this election's Ralph Nader effect (who is also running Independently, or was, or is or something like that.)

Many wonder why on earth you would continue to bedraggle a campaign that clearly is not going to win. Shouldn't Bob, Ron, and that other Nader guy just go home? If they can't vote Republican, then at least they can avoid dividing the more conservative vote. The never ending campaign strategy did Hillary Clinton no favors--one would think they'd take the cue.

A Two Party System

It is true that demographically speaking, the Independents, Libertarians and "Others" tend to split the fringe Republican voters thus taking away some of what McCain would otherwise get--or at least that's the presumption.

But I have to ask if we're really served best by a two party system? If we're not, why are we as a society content with it? We certainly have made no moves to change it. Some might say that's because they don't share views with the Libertarians--and that's fine.

But as Sherry pointed out in an earlier blog, it is not a matter of simply finding the best qualified candidate. Our perceptions are filtered through the media and we have access to the information that the media deems appropriate. Don't believe me? How much do you know about Ron Paul, Bob Barr or even the Libertarian party for that matter? Granted they don't raise nearly as many millions as the Republicans or the Democrats--but they're not even invited to debate.

I'm afraid we have come to an age where there is a popular group on the playground and they don't invite the other kids to play. Perhaps they are afraid that the other kids will want to change some of the rules or perhaps even worse, that the other kids will invite undecided kids to their side and choose an entirely different game.

Learn more about Valorie Delp

Hello everybody! My name is Valorie and I am one busy lady! When I'm not writing or editing for families, I am busy trying to get my brood of 5 in line.

View Full Profile | More from this Blogger

Heather Long (16954) 08 Jul 2008 06:34 AM

I think it's also interesting how many people don't realize that the Democrats and the Republicans are basically private parties -- private corporations for lack of a better term - that set their agendas. They aren't 'public' agencies at all. They have memberships, dues, rules and party elders and leaders. You have to 'move' up in these parties -- one of the joys of a free society is the ability to do these things -- to have these conglomerates -- but it's also about grass roots and the mom and pops -- so I'm glad the Independents are keeping it up. I would love to throw a third party into the mix and not just as a 'fringe' group.

Valorie Delp (49340) 08 Jul 2008 07:11 AM

Yeah I agree. There is another blog coming soon on that idea, along with how the parties got started. ;-) The problem with 3rd parties though is that their ideas are very fringe. So in the race of the lesser of two or three or four evils, I tend to agree most with the Republicans. To be honest, I would like to see a mix of Obama, McCain and a little Ronald Reagan. ;-) But that blog is coming soon too!