It Worked [Was: Wikipedia Blackout (& work around)]

S. Dale Morrey sdalemorrey at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 17:12:13 MST 2012


On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Barry Roberts <blr at robertsr.us> wrote:
> So, what you're saying is, if closed primaries were made illegal, that
> would destroy the 2-party system?

Well no that's not what I was saying but you do have a very good point.

> I had never thought of it that way, but being no fan of the 2 party system,
> I kinda like it.  Unfortunately, not enough to give up the First Amendment
> to the U.S. Constitutuion.  If a bunch of people want to get together and
> use their time, money, and influence to put someone on the ballot, they
> have that right.

I actually have no problem with the party system, I just think that 2
parties who consistently vote against the best interest of their
constituents and in many cases even against the professed beliefs of
the party is a bad situation.  However what I was saying was more
along the lines of the current party system has made laws which make
it very difficult to get anyone but a party representative on the
ballot.

> If Utah election laws are so screwed up that they strengthen the 2 party
> system, then I would think changing those laws would be a much saner
> solution than tossing free speech out the window.
Not necessarily, there is always the write in option.  While the
person may not be on the official ballot per se, you do have the legal
right to place their name on your own ballot and thereby vote your
conscience.

The big problem is that most folks seem to look for a D or R next to
the name and vote for the one matching their preference of letter.
This is nearly state of complete voter apathy, is nearly as bad as not
even voting.  I mean why bother to show up and vote if you haven't
bothered to become informed on the current issues and past voting
history (and/or stances) of the person you are about to put into
office to supposedly to make laws and enforce them on your behalf.

They get a lot of flak but the Tea Party is a good example of what can
happen when people who are committed to a belief system, attempt to
change an organization from within.  Although in my personal opinion
they are more than a little left of field in most of their stances,
they have organized under a banner of stated beliefs and made a real
change to the existing party that closest matched their existing
beliefs and prejudices.

Why didn't they just form a new party?  Well the overhead to start a
new party is pretty heavy as I mentioned before, but they also
realized that the 2 party system is so entrenched in the mind of the
average citizen that any new party that forms is practically laughed
off the political stage.

We are a consumer society in all that we do.  We have stopped
producing anything and as such, we eat what we are fed by the media.
We lap this content up like the good little consumers that we are.  I
guess in a way this makes the Tea Party and other similar movements
the "New Coke" of the political system.  :)


More information about the PLUG mailing list