[Vision2020] polarizing and the two-party system

[Paul Rumelhart]

Ah, yes.  Money. 

What does that money buy you?  I'm guessing it's mainly for exposure.  
It gets your name out there where Joe Sixpack can see it.  It also buys 
legitimacy, but not as much as it buys exposure.

The nice thing is that the world is constantly changing.  With the 
Internet tearing down what would have seemed to be rock-solid 
institutions, the landscape will probably be a whole lot different in a 
few elections from now.  I'm waiting for the first real "internet 
phenomenon" political candidate to be born.  Someone who will become a 
household name just based on their internet identity.  Someone who will 
become as ubiquitous as YouTube or MySpace or those chain letters that 
make the rounds every once in a while.  And with the lousy voter 
turnouts in this country, one wildfire maverick candidate can turn this 
thing on it's ear.

There will have to be some changes before that happens, though.  The 
established media institutions will have to become aware of other party 
candidates so that legitimate contenders don't get locked out of 
debates.  States will have to open up a bit to get other parties on the 
ballots.  But I imagine that will change, with time.

It's my guess, and my hope, that the money will matter less and less in 
this process as time goes on.  It doesn't cost anything to vote, 
regardless of how much money your candidate has spent.

Paul

Tom Hansen wrote:

>The bottom line in introducing a third political party is $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>
>Our political history reflects many, many attempts at creating a viable
>third political party.
>
>>From the Know Nothing Party of 1849:
>http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=911
>
>To Ross Perot's Patriot Party of 1982:
>http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/perot_vote.html
>
>These parties faded into history, not because they lacked a base.  They
>lacked sufficient financial backing.
>
>During election years hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in support
>of our two primary political parties.  In many cases a company will
>contribute heavily to both candidates/parties to develop a sense of
>financial obligation (in some cases "dependence") within the elected
>candidate/party.
>
>As a result it will always require considerably more than a righteous
>ambition to overcome/overtake either/both political party(ies).
>
>That is why the US House of Representatives currently consists of 234
>Republicans, 202 Democrats, and 1 independent, the sole independent being
>Bernard Sanders from Vermont.  But, get real.  Vermont's population is under
>700,000.  Its largest city is Burlington (population: 40,000).  Vermont not
>only listens to a different drummer, it has its own unique orchestra.  God
>bless 'em.
>
>So, unless you know a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of money, you
>will not be able to develop a viable third political party.
>
>Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
>Tom Hansen
>Vandalville, Idaho
>
>"Politicians are like diapers.  They should be changed frequently and for
>the same reason."
>
>- Robin Williams
>
>
>
>
>  
>