Can The Internet Destroy The Two Party Political System?
from the worth-a-shot? dept
Two things it pays to be a bit skeptical of when it comes to politics in the US: any claim that the internet somehow changes everything (this applies to more than just politics) and any claim that there's a way to work around the two-party system. We've all seen how well third parties have worked lately in Presidential races, where they've done little more than act as spoilers. However, a new group is trying to shoot down both of these theories by organizing an internet-based campaign to focus on the issues that actually matter to most people (rather than the few polarizing issues the press loves to focus on). The goal is to find a 2008 Presidential candidate who transcends a party label while actually offering ideas and policies that the majority of American agree with. In other words, a fantasy that sounds good in the movies but probably doesn't exist in real life. It does involve some serious political insiders, and the goal sounds admirable in many ways. However, by this point, it's pretty clear that any idealistic political concept will get totally obliterated once run through the traditional Washington DC process. Perhaps this group will prove us wrong, but it's hard to see how a bunch of DC insiders will be able to suddenly jump on the internet in an attempt to avoid the typical political dance of the two party system.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Great Two Party System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Great Two Party System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Great Two Party System
2) There is no idealistic system or candidate, no matter how you want to think. Democracy is anything but ideal, regardless of how it may be the best situation for freedom. The reason for this, is there is corruption and selfishness even in the most altruistic conservative. Liberals are just as closed-minded as they think Conservatives are. Republicans and Liberals are one in the same these days, and every person is after thier own views and their own interests.
Summary - the reason there hasn't been an ideal situation yet is because there will never be an ideal situation. The reason - what to you is ideal is most likely the exact opposite for me, just as my ideal is likely to be the opposite of yours.
So, all of you need to stop your bitching and just do your best to make your views the ones that win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Great Two Party System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The country as a whole has failed when it comes to knowing the issues, voting, and not making politicians accountable for their actions.
Wake up and be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately people have not realized our current two party system represents two sides of the same bad coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Party system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
propaganda
It just seems to me that the author is selling a pre-bubble internet business model, or is saying "You put up a page and everyone in the world comes, and your mlm works". This stuff has already been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh the two party system...
One wants to control your wallet- the other wants to control your mind.
Whats not to love?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahhh the two party system...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My fingers are crossed
One of the best things that can happen to this country are to abolish the 2 party "system" and to actually elect smart, inspiration people into office. To vote on ideas instead of colors (think red vs. blue). Voting for colors is for pre-schoolers. Voting on ideas is for adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting for colors
Too true, but when and where in the past two Presidential elections was the choice being made cast in anything but Red vs. Blue? Ergo, the ruling elite views us "plebes" as pre-schoolers.
Actually, it's not just the past two elections. The citizenry has been at best an afterthought for closer to 50 years, as the ruling elite have moved to concentrate their power. And make no mistake, it is all about power. Money is merely the scorecard. But the problem with abolishing the 2-party "system" is that it would disenfranchise the current holders of the reins. In politics, no one ever volunteers to give up their power.
Does this mean the current system is irretrievably broken? Perhaps. The next election cycle will be interesting, if only from a clinical perspective. If the current meltdown continues, I think we'll move closer to one of those cusps they talk about in Catastrophe Theory. That could prove to be interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with a third or non-party candidate
A good example of this is Jimmy Carter. His energy plan was far reaching and even addressed some of the issues that we are just starting to tackle today. He wasn't even a third party candidate, but he just wasn't interested in playing Congress's politics. They simply chewed up and spit out his energy plan. If you look at the books, yeah he got an energy plan passed, but it wasn't anything like it was when it began.
So assuming we ca get someone from a third party in the White House, how do we prevent Congress from turning him or her into a four year lame duck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with a third or non-party candidat
Remember - every pork barrel project was backed by someone we voted for. Every a'hole that jumps in bed with the RIAA is the same.
So when we vote for our regional reps, we have got to know where they stand and how effective they are in a large group of discordant interests.
When you young people vote, do it right. You might get to start down the road to changing the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with a third or non-party cand
Seriously, why should I suffer because the NE is full of dipshit scumbags?
Maybe it's time for "The South to rise".
Mitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with a third or non-party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with a third or non-party candidat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with a third or non-party candidat
Habitat for humanity my arse. Habitat for fat lazy scumbags that can't think or act like humans and think the US taxpayers owe them a free ride.
It's about time the USA gets back to personal responsibility and indivdualism instead of socialism/communism. Those ideas from the 60's have nearly destroyed the USA.
Enough is enough.
The media will NEVER allow a thrid party. As soon as they (Dems/pubs) as a group realize the threat all of a sudden we have all sorts of bipartisan agreement. Ross Perot wasnt crazy but as soon as both parties realized the threat all of a sudden the media gaurd dogs focused on him like wolves on fresh meat driving him away.
As mentioned in the OP all Perot ended up doing is putting the scumbag womanizer Clinton in office and we can clearly see what a failure that was.
It's called "Divide then Conquer". This phrase has been around for a very long time. We've been divided and they know it's a weakness of human nature and they fully exploit that weakness at every opportunity.
Mitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with a third or non-party candidat
(I certainly think it's possible that a 3rd party prez will be elected someday -- I also predict it will be either the biggest disaster we've seen, when the president has absolutely no political power over a congress dead set against the idea, or else the candidate will quickly realize that he/she is really just a Republican or a Democrat in the end and more less move to that side of the floor even without telling us. Witness Jesse Ventura, the erstwhile independent who was a Republican in disguise by the end of his tenure.)
(I allow for the fact that the Whigs were the 2nd party at one time, superceded by the Republicans, but that was more a matter of musical chairs than a temporary rise of a viable multi-party system. Given the entrenchment of today, I doubt that even that switch from one party to another could take place.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dorpus
The actual issue is that we actually treat out politicians like celebrities rather than the public servants that they are. Unfortunately because of this our "servants" have forgotten this as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respectable candidates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few steps further
A voting time can be announced and all elligeable voters (people that have proven that they are intelligent enough to understand issues only) can log on and add options to vote on before that time, and point and click on a form and submit their choice to a local server, which will count votes and at the end of the the voting time it will send its vote count to the main server which will add up all the local servers' votes and change the webpage to show the result.
I know there are a few kinks to work out in regards to human nature, but at least this system would have a lot less corruption after explaining some social psychology to the forum readers. This is without a doubt a radical idea, but it's worth considering, so tell me what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few steps further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few steps further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few steps further
And here are the pros to the idea: no one can be bribed since there would be way too many people to try and bribe, and the voters are anonymous. This means that no small organization can be completely self-serving like Congress is. The people won't have to get in contact with some high up guy and try to persuade him, realize he wants money, and then just sulk that they elected him in the first place but would have too much trouble getting rid of him. This leads to a much more flexible and adaptive government. The people can finally be proud of their government for it trully serves them.
The cons as I see them are that anybody trying to get their own laws passed might try to hack the servers, but hacking into the government already happens, so it's not going to get worse.
The system still may have some flaws, but less than the two-party system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few steps further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few steps further
Another concern I just realized might eventually come up: if you think someone who knows your SSN and DoB will log in as you and vote for something other than your own choice, you can create another password. The system only allows one vote per SSN per issue, unless the issue is brought up again at a later time.
If there are any more concerns please don't hesitate to present them. Like I said before, my idea has some kinks to work out, and it would require a lot of planning in order to get the best of human nature and the state of the world, but it is potentially a better system than most that are used in the world today. Oh, and the idea can definately be used by all other countries, considering that $100 laptop they're working on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the 2000 Presidential election didn't show that the voting constituency has little say on the process ...
If we weren't fighting a "war on terrorism" in Afghanastan and Iraq which, in truth, is nothing more than military intervention for oil company interests ...
We might see that the 20% of the voting public they hope to deceive will end up financing another rich, white, Protestant male who will talk about truth, justice and reform while actually being in the pocket of the same interests currently in power.
In the highly unlikely chance that Unity08 actually does more than split the vote ensuring another Republican victory, it will be a convenient way to end the facade of a two-party system and inform Americas that you either join ranks with the other brown-shirts under the Carlyle Group flag or face the consequences.
Take the blue pill: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short Answer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why a 3rd party won't win
Lets picture the parties as convience stores.. and the "voters" as houses on a street. Assume people will shop at the store closest to their house. (ie, people will vote for the views closest to theirs)
You get something like this:
_______A______B_______
______________________
(houses are on bottom, A and B are the stores.. they're cloesr to the center because they compete for those in between)
Now, where would a 3rd party go?
__C____A_____B______
____________________
would only succeed in taking votes away from A and allowing B to win... Likewise if we placed C on the right
______A__C__B______
___________________
would take equal votes away from both, and really have no impact..
As long as the issues of elections are 2-sided (the left and the right, pro abortion, anti abortion, pro war, anti war, pro stem cell, anti stem cell etc).. there can only be 2 parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people are dumber than you give them credit for. plus hackers could tear the system apart in hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only way....
Let the voters create and join districts just as they can create newsgroups or blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only way....
Let the voters create and join districts just as they can create newsgroups or blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem isn't the two party system...
The biggest problem is that politicians, on both sides, are generally a) rich and come from a "big business" background OR b) career politicians who see reelection as employment and not as a mandate to change public policy for the public. Take either group a) or b) and you have a situation where the politicians either jump in bed with the corporations to protect and grow their own interests OR jump in bed with whoever can give them the most campaign money or guaranteed votes. The bottom line is, there is no impetus to make sweeping legislative reform for the good of the voting public, because for the most part the voting public is too fragmented to represent a large majority on any issue or too dissafected about the system to care enough to vote at all.
Anyway, sorry to sound so pessimistic but the solution doesn't lie in multiple political parties but in mobilizing voters. When politicians see (through the vote) that people are watching what they do, and do care, you will magically start to see better legislation from both sides of the isle. Hell, Iraq has better voter turnout than we do! Israelis complained when they only got 69% turnout for the last elections for prime minister and we were impressed with voter turnout in the 40-50% range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet elections, good or bad?
If the elections were completely open then I suspect that the lack of a hystersis effect would make this scenarion even easier to implement than it is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet elections, good or bad?
Your opinion is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet elections, good or bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do we need them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The two party system is intentional you know. The Framers wanted government to moderate toward a centrist position and not be a million 'flavor of the month' parties forming unstable coalition governments and collapsing regularly. Want to see how well that works? Look up Italian political history.
That said, people get the government they deserve. A guy even mentions the possibility of increased taxes, deregulating/regulating abortion, any one of a dozen hot buttons, and he doesn't make it out of the primaries. We reward people for having no discernable stand on anything, and punish them for ever having done or said something substantive that anyone can find fault with. And now we're in the information age, where records can be researched (or if need be fabricated) and distributed, sans context, instantly. Then we bitch about the bland milksops that we get as choices, because the one right that we'll always retain in America is the right to bitch, whether we're prepared to fix the problem or not. And now these idiots want to leverage the power of the internet to synergis grassroots paradigms, or some such nonsense. I liked it better the first time... when it was the Reform Party. At least Perot was entertaining, in a 'do we really want to give a crazy Texan the nuke codes?' sorta way (Hold on a second... Dammit!). This is just a bunch of wankers who, having mastered email, have just realized that this Interweb thingamajiggy could be huge. Their guy will be just like the other guys, only more like you, and with a mailing list. With an iPod, or a Blackberry, or whatever other device/prop/totem their consumer research tells them will convince the target demo(s) of his hippness/virality/electability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, particularly if the spoiler candidate is conservative or runs libertarian. That would help steal votes from the Republicans in 2008, instead of recent spoiler candidates who have taken votes away from the Democrats. That's probably the BEST that could come from this initiative.
The problem here is not the "traditional Washington DC process". The Electoral College is the reason that the best thing third-party candidates can aspire to is being spoilers. There's a lot of discussion on "red state/blue state" and about how the Presidential candidates wil target "swing states". Here's how the Electoral College works:
We won't see a viable third party candidate until the Electoral College is removed from the process. Considering that the candidates who win are part of that process, it's unlikely that they'd be in favor of removing that process. Just adding "the internet" isn't going to make the Electoral College go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the
One method would be to allocate the electoral votes instead at the congressional district level. Consider a mytical state with 30 electoral votes, meaning 28 congressmen and 2 senators). Each congressional district could have their elector based on the popular vote in just that district.. (and then the two senate votes to the overall popular vote winner in the state).
Or, you could do raw proportion of the popular vote.. same mythical state, three canidates of 33% each would get 10 electors each..
However, since those in power now are the ones who would have to change the rules, and they won't do that since it would cost them power, it will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the
Jeff R is much more on track with corrective actions to the electoral system. Specifically partial electors for each candidate winning enough of the state's popular vote to garner at least one elector. The oddball who gets .2 percent of the popular vote would not get an elector of course, and fractions round like they taught us in elementary school. We would still maintain the idea that each State gets electoral voters based on both existence as a state and population, but we would end up with an electoral vote that more closely represents the will of the people. One other required step is death by hanging for an elector who doesn't vote exactly the way his or her state told him or her to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two parties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughts
California probably best exemplifies the failings of the human race.
> Republican and Democratic parties are essentially the same and that whoever takes office from either one is usually as corrupt as the one before him.
I used to think that, too. But George Bush is evil in ways that no president before him was. Clinton lied about having an affair with a woman. Bush lies about torture, murder, genocide, and many other war crimes. That's not normal political evil, that's Nazi evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
>>I used to think that, too. But George Bush is evil in ways that no president before him was. Clinton lied about having an affair with a woman. Bush lies about torture, murder, genocide, and many other war crimes. That's not normal political evil, that's Nazi evil.
When are you going to realize that GWB DIDN'T LIE. Even Saddam thought he had WMDs. There is no form of genocide going on, we aren't rounding Iraquis up and killing them in internment camps. Flushing someone's Koran down a toilet - which was proven to be a false accusation - is not torture any more than the California education so vehemantly fighting against Christianity and heterosexuality. Nazi evil is Saddam - is GWB really that bad? I have yet to see any American summarily executed by the state because they had extramarital sexual relations or are homosexual or non christian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoughts
The key is to watch what they do and the results, not what they say. Using this approach, Bush, like many presidents before him, is guilty of the "Supreme international crime of agression" which "precipiates all evil that follows."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts
Anyone with even the slightest amount of common sense knows for certain Saddam had WMD. We found some as well just not th estockpiles. Ask th eKurds about Saddam's WMD. Oh you cant cause they are dead... Fool!
The UN and it's band of cronies in France Germany Russia China broadcast the date of invasion weeks in advance. Dont you think Sadddam knew his "ace in the hole" would be the NO WMD story blasted to the free world?
Of course he knew.
Mitch
Youre just a Kool-Aid drinker that spends way to much time at the DailyKOS and not enough time working for your family..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts
What statement portrayed Saddam in a good light? Saddam was and is a monster, like many, many world leaders. The only difference in how our media portrays them is based on who's "our guy" and who's not. Clinton once decribed the monster running Indonesia as "our kind of guy."
Anyone with even the slightest amount of common sense knows for certain Saddam had WMD. We found some as well just not th estockpiles. Ask th eKurds about Saddam's WMD. Oh you cant cause they are dead... Fool!
I won't try and guess how much "common sense" I have, but Saddam probably had at least some remnants of his WMD programs since we gave them to him (back when he was "our guy."), however that was not the assertion; the crime was potraying a beaten down, weak nation on the other side of the world as some threat to the United States. As I said, do some research about what the CIA and DOD thought about the "threat" from Iraq. Saddam and OSB were both monsters, but they were completely different kinds of monters and hated each other. Maybe I am a fool-- all should do their own research let the hard evidence speak for itself, but I will offer that namecalling shows a weakness in argument, character and critical thinking skills.
The UN and it's band of cronies in France Germany Russia China broadcast the date of invasion weeks in advance. Dont you think Sadddam knew his "ace in the hole" would be the NO WMD story blasted to the free world?
I suggest you do some of your own research into what was going on leading up to the invasion. The truth is out there.
Youre just a Kool-Aid drinker that spends way to much time at the DailyKOS and not enough time working for your family.
LOL! You forgot to get Michael Moore and PETA in there somehow. I don't know what the "DailyKOS" is but I work very hard for my pitance, as I would guess you do, too. I will offer you a suggestion-- flog the message mercilessly, but to flog the messenger only hurts your credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ONE GOOD SOLUTION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONE GOOD SOLUTION
I would think that would increase the problems as only the rich could afford power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that what it's going to take? That's when your warning bell is going to sound?
Indeed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You get what you deserve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is NOT a third Party!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jimmy carter "energy plan"
From a speech he made in 1977: "The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent."
from the US DOE: "In the International Energy Outlook 2005 (IEO2005) reference case, world demand for crude oil grows from 78 million barrels per day in 2002..."
according to carter the world should be consuming 203Mln barrels per day at that rate of growth.
But of course we're not. Because every such "plan" is predicated on alarmist nonsense.
(took me about 30 seconds to research)
Naturally, this doesnt debunk his plan. It merely puts another hole in the already intrinsically tattered credibility of a political "energy plan"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No that is wrong. The American people are exercising their democratic right to elect bad, untrustworthy government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. We endow power (with limits) into various elected representives who then are charged with running the country within the duties and limits of their offices.
If we were living in a democracy, we would all be voting on individual issues and bills, not on which representative to elect..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
parlimentary system is not required for the US to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
I hate to say it, but no other president ever acknowledged that any of that even existed. This is probably the first war that the public has had this much access to information as quickly as we get it now from Iraq, Cuba, and other locations. The fact that you hear about it now only means that the media has their cameras and microphones in the way of national security.
There was one other war where reporters got in the way... that was the last time we went to Iraq and Dan Rather met a SEAL team on the beach they were about to insert on. So much for that mission. No offense, but if I were on teams, I would have taken out all of the reporters, and destroyed all of the equipment under the flag of national security.
If you want to get into NAZI evil... Lets get evil. I don't think you understand what it takes to get some of these people to talk. If you sit there and have a nice grown-up conversation over a cup of tea or coffee, with a nice trimmed flower arrangement on the table, you will never get any info... as a matter of fact, you will probably be killed when the person reaches over the table (because you were nice enough to take off the cuffs) and rips your throat out.
Enjoy that thought... because after he killed you and all of your team mates, he takes the pictures of your families and your ID cards with home addresses and SSNs on them and goes to the US to find and kill all of the families he can find from the info he collected. I'm sorry, but I would rather torture them to death and get info that leads to the capture of another person looking to kill all of us. But what do I know... I'm still alive after 3 wars and countless warless actions.
De Opresso Liber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third Party? We need at least a Four Party System.
The Democrats would be the Democrats of Clinton, conservative by former Democratic standards of FDR, JFK, and RFK. (I know he had a conservative congress but still more current conservative Democrat than Liberal.)
The Left should have a combined Green-Social Democrat, GSD, EU style party. It would pull the true liberals and Greens into a 'Socially Acceptable' Left. Not to far left to alienate current Liberals but not so far right as to spoof the Greens as inconsequential. A serious attempt to prevent E3, Eco Extinction Event, with money making businesses fueling the Green Revolution. Capitalism at it's best; not worst. With concern for the suffering poor of America at the heart of it's social conscience. With FDR and LBJ solutions for the needy. It's the needed party of the future, if there is to be a future for Mankind.
Last: Maybe even a Populist Party like Perot's former attempt to get a third party. It might even produce a new Teddy Roosevelt.
It would require a new election process of either 2 elections or a process between parties of alliances to get a marjority. The primary could determine who runs in the run-off, final election, or as stated, alliances forming a majority. If that doesn't work then the run-off is essential.
Until there are real choices to be decided upon, our democracy will remain a straw democracy. EU has adapted to democracy much better than the US where we have become the 'Best Democracy Money Can Buy'.
How to get the entrenched powers to allow other choices to be made?
Reform is certainly preferable.
Sincerely,
Mr. Ozark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why third parties fail
The Green party et al could affect change if they endorsed and supported some candidates for congress. If a third party held five or six seats in the house they might could prevent a majority by either party and could carry some clout. But as long as they shoot for the top spot, they'll just screw up the electoral vote by taking votes away from legitimate presidential contenders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Third Party
Are there any ideas on how we can pick our party and work with it to keep it honest and heading in the right direction? How can we collectively get the party to work on issues that matter to us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can The Internet Destroy The Two Party Political S
money is not necessary. grass root volenteers ARE the only way to get the most people involvd.
there is a need to generate a list of people that are like minded on this most important issue facing what is left of the USA.
People might email or IM others on the list to exchange ideas. and there should be a group of volenteers that would accept emails discuss them and send out a flyer to all on the list with a question agree ( ) or disagree ( )
or neither ( ) a long with comment and other imput on each question.
publish the list and keep it updated every week.
if it will be run anything like that ...COUNT ME IN
watch out for the party moles that try to infiltrate and mess it up... real name city and state with email address should be required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]