A very good alternative would be to have more political parties, and allow for more competition. part of the problem I believe is that the two parties act the same as monopolies do in the corporate sphere.
With 3, 4 or more parties, there would be a greater degree of competition for votes, more people would find a party that it more in tune with their beliefs etc. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:28 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > I posted this link previously, but my solution is contained > in this column: > > http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_101 > 3185,00.html > > Summary of the key points: > > -- > No state-funded party primaries. The parties conduct their own > nomination processes at their own expense. As part of this, > parties would > have the option of charging dues and requiring members to > sign a statement > of principles agreeing to the party's agenda. > > -- > When you register, you would no longer be asked to join > a party. The > question is really a violation of privacy anyway. You would > join a party by > contacting the party of your choice and joining. You could > even join more > than one party, if you wanted. Of course, you would be bound > by a contract > to that party, so you would open yourself to a potential lawsuit by > belonging to more than one party. > > -- > Primary ballots (to select the two nominees, regardless of party > affiliation, to advance to the general election) and general election > ballots would not carry political affiliation with candidates > names. Voters > would need to be informed about candidates, their parties and > their views. > > I believe over time, this would weaken the two major parties > and allow for > greater diversity of candidates, as well as, perversely, > strengthen the > parties. > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Nukes > > > With this, I totaly agree. What we need to do is come up > with a way to > reduce party power, or eliminate it, without forcing such a > change through > laws that would just cause more red tape and open up further > possilbilities > of abuse from within the system. > > Anyone have any ideas? > > Todd > ----- > Todd for President > Holding a can of worms and a can opener, for a better tomorrow. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:41 PM > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > We need to rise up against the system that allows such > agendas to take > more > > sway than doing the people's business. The problem isn't financial > > contributions, or dumb elected officials -- it is political parties, > parties > > that pressure elected officials (and the parties carry a > very big stick) > > into putting partisan cause ahead of people causes. > > > > The biggest danger the republic faces is the unmitigated power of > political > > parties. > > > > H. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
