I found your post reactionary and unfounded.lawrnk wrote:Perot got clinton in. You deny that?
First, you somehow make the assumption that Hillary is going to be the Democratic candidate. The primaries haven't even started, but you seem to have it worked out in your mind what the outcome will be.
Secondly, I don't find that my vote for a third party is a vote for someone's opposing party. I vote for whomever I please, and I have no allegiance to one party or the other. Saying that a vote for an independent is a vote for the democrats is short-sighted, in my opinion. If we continue to vote in response to fear mongering that the status quo parties are the only real option (regardless of how bad the two choices are) and an independent vote is wasted, we will never have any fundamental change.
If enough people stop listening to the partisan divisive drivel spewed by the two reigning parties and refuse to support their nonsense, the politicians are going to wake up and realize that this country wants something more than inflammatory partisan hackery. Politicians are going to have to wake up and realize that they have to do more than run a campaign of polarizing divisiveness and actually address the problems that face this nation. At the very least, they'll have to reassess their actions in order to win over support.
If an independent candidate causes a "loss" of votes to the Republicans, maybe someone will realize that they need to start listening to the people they seek to represent.
As for who "got Clinton in", no one but the voters did that. People voted for their candidate of choice. If the majority of people had thought Bush was a better candidate, he would have won, but he didn't. Ross Perot ran a legitimate campaign, and garnered a significant number of votes. So did Bush and Clinton. Clinton won the most.
What I find offensive is that the political machine, such as it is, makes the patronizing assumption that voters can only think in 2 dimensions, and that people only belong to one of two opposite sides of a spectrum. It pretends to be 2 diametrically opposed groups, while in reality it fights over the majority in the middle on the fringes of both party ideologies. It is a superficial "us vs. them" mentality without regard for the fact that we are a single nation of mostly moderate people. In my opinion, partisan gridlock is the best state of this system, because it best addresses the needs of the moderate majority and minimizes overly-partisan legislation.
[edited for additional content]
