I feel sorry for Virginia.

[kalm]

Right wing wacko Cuchinelli vs. Sleazy Corporatist McCauliffe in the governors race.

These are the kind of choices the two party system and our current campaign finance laws give us.

Discuss...

[GannonFan]

Right wing wacko Cuchinelli vs. Sleazy Corporatist McCauliffe in the governors race.

These are the kind of choices the two party system and our current campaign finance laws give us.

Discuss...

Why don't you discuss? How would a multiple party system give us better choices, and who's voices are not being heard here? And what's the right limit on how much money should be spent on an election and who gets to spend that money? Not to mention how that money should be spent or what should be allowed to be said. You speak as if the government we have is not the one that the majority of the population wants, and yet, here we are, 224 years into this experiment, and the party system and the government we have are pretty much similar to what we've always had.

Politics is never pretty, and no matter how nostalgic and conservative you are in your rosy remembrance of the years that came before today, our political system has not changed much.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Right wing wacko Cuchinelli vs. Sleazy Corporatist McCauliffe in the governors race.

These are the kind of choices the two party system and our current campaign finance laws give us.

Discuss...

Why don't you discuss? How would a multiple party system give us better choices, and who's voices are not being heard here? And what's the right limit on how much money should be spent on an election and who gets to spend that money? Not to mention how that money should be spent or what should be allowed to be said. You speak as if the government we have is not the one that the majority of the population wants, and yet, here we are, 224 years into this experiment, and the party system and the government we have are pretty much similar to what we've always had.

Politics is never pretty, and no matter how nostalgic and conservative you are in your rosy remembrance of the years that came before today, our political system has not changed much.

Except that technology has allowed us to perfect the worst aspects of the system.

[93henfan]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

Just vote early and often.

[houndawg]

Right wing wacko Cuchinelli vs. Sleazy Corporatist McCauliffe in the governors race.

These are the kind of choices the two party system and our current campaign finance laws give us.

Discuss...

Why don't you discuss? How would a multiple party system give us better choices, and who's voices are not being heard here? And what's the right limit on how much money should be spent on an election and who gets to spend that money? Not to mention how that money should be spent or what should be allowed to be said. You speak as if the government we have is not the one that the majority of the population wants, and yet, here we are, 224 years into this experiment, and the party system and the government we have are pretty much similar to what we've always had.
Politics is never pretty, and no matter how nostalgic and conservative you are in your rosy remembrance of the years that came before today, our political system has not changed much.

Doesn't make sense. It wouldn't matter if the majority of the population did want, say, a parliamentary system of government, it ain't happening.

A great example of what Chomsky said about the illusion of choice. Within a narrow spectrum you allow a lively debate and people think they have a choice. So we get lots of talk about the two parties, but talk about scrapping the system in favor of a different system is "out of the mainstream" and not considered seriously.

[kalm]

Right wing wacko Cuchinelli vs. Sleazy Corporatist McCauliffe in the governors race.

These are the kind of choices the two party system and our current campaign finance laws give us.

Discuss...

Why don't you discuss? How would a multiple party system give us better choices, and who's voices are not being heard here? And what's the right limit on how much money should be spent on an election and who gets to spend that money? Not to mention how that money should be spent or what should be allowed to be said. You speak as if the government we have is not the one that the majority of the population wants, and yet, here we are, 224 years into this experiment, and the party system and the government we have are pretty much similar to what we've always had.

Politics is never pretty, and no matter how nostalgic and conservative you are in your rosy remembrance of the years that came before today, our political system has not changed much.

Sigh.....

Obama's approval rating is at 45%, congress sits at 14%, Obamacare is at 43%. There are a number of key issues where the public at-large disagrees with their representatives and the legislation that gets passed. I think you're wrong about what the public wants, how they view their current government, and even the notion it hasn't changed much in 244 years.

An incoming freshman in congress is instructed by the DNC to devote 4 hours out of every day to "call time" and another hour to "strategic outreach".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 27291.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A U.S. Senator raises $14,000 on average very day for campaign financing.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/11/the-asto ... ess-today/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The candidate who raises the most money wins 90% of the time in national elections.

Very wealthy and shrewd businessmen from both sides of the aisle give heavily to campaigns. I assume you're wise enough to realize these donations go beyond their political views and are good for business regardless of what the public desires.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09 ... thers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christ half of Americans favor public funding of campaigns, and 79% favor limiting private funding.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half- ... aigns.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ganny fail.

[kalm]

Further evidence disputing the idea that the system hasn't really changed much in 224 years as Ganny suggests.

At the end of the day, our job is to set the table for reform. "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around," observed Milton Friedman. A corporate fundraising scandal in President Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 campaign prompted Congress to outlaw corporate contributions "in connection with any election." In 1943, with labor unions' power ascending, Congress extended the ban to them as well. In 1974, in response to the Watergate crisis, Congress implemented sweeping reforms, including contribution limits, disclosure rules and the public funding of presidential campaigns. Reformers have lost most of the battles ever since.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silv ... 92228.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also think Josh Silvers marketing suggestion of identifying the effort as anti-corruption versus campaign finance reform is a good one. Who isn't anti corruption or truly feels our current system of picking winners and losers based on campaign donations isn't corrupt? Other than Ganny and Ivytalk of course.

[expandspanos]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

Anyone but a Democrat or Republican.. Seeing as how they're the same party.

[CAA Flagship]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

I will answer your question with a question:
Which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into what Maryland is politically? You know, the state you recently left.


I rest my case.

[kalm]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

I will answer your question with a question:
Which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into what Maryland is politically? You know, the state you recently left.


I rest my case.

Probably true. But which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into Mississippi?

[Col Hogan]

I will answer your question with a question:
Which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into what Maryland is politically? You know, the state you recently left.


I rest my case.

Probably true. But which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into Mississippi?

Please tell me...which one???

[kalm]

Probably true. But which candidate is less likely to turn Virginia into Mississippi?

Please tell me...which one???

Well you might have a point there...

[houndawg]

Who should I vote for, now that I am a Virginia resident?

Bids start.... Now!

Anyone but a Democrat or Republican.. Seeing as how they're the same party.

v
Exhibit "A" of even a broken clock being right twice a day.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not a fan of the two party system as I think that each party thinks more about it's relative position of power than it does about the country. But the problem isn't the parties. It's not money either. It's the People. If the People were paying attention and weren't, on average, disengaged money would not be as big an influence in politics as it is and people outside of the two major parties would have a shot.

If the People were generally engaged and paying attention campaign advertising, robocalls, etc., would make no difference. People would have been paying attention and would have made up their minds based on an effort to understand the situation. But that's not the way it is

[DSUrocks07]

I'm not a fan of the two party system as I think that each party thinks more about it's relative position of power than it does about the country. But the problem isn't the parties. It's not money either. It's the People. If the People were paying attention and weren't, on average, disengaged money would not be as big an influence in politics as it is and people outside of the two major parties would have a shot.

If the People were generally engaged and paying attention campaign advertising, robocalls, etc., would make no difference. People would have been paying attention and would have made up their minds based on an effort to understand the situation. But that's not the way it is

A condemnation on modern society. We're a nation of people that are more emotionally invested in life stories of the contestants on American Idol than they do about their local politicians.

You know, the people who TRULY have an impact on their everyday lives.

[kalm]

I'm not a fan of the two party system as I think that each party thinks more about it's relative position of power than it does about the country. But the problem isn't the parties. It's not money either. It's the People. If the People were paying attention and weren't, on average, disengaged money would not be as big an influence in politics as it is and people outside of the two major parties would have a shot.

If the People were generally engaged and paying attention campaign advertising, robocalls, etc., would make no difference. People would have been paying attention and would have made up their minds based on an effort to understand the situation. But that's not the way it is

If the people were generally engaged and paying attention, I'm not sure you'd like American too much.

[JohnStOnge]

If the people were generally engaged and paying attention, I'm not sure you'd like American too much.

Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think that there is an association such that the more engaged people are and the more informed they are about government the more likely they are to vote Republican. I realize that's a two party system thing but I do think it's the case. I'm not talking about formal education either. As I've said many times, I think if you had a poll test so that a rudimentary knowledge of what's going on was necessary to vote the Democratic Party would be devastated. That's not to say that everybody who is engaged and informed votes Republican or even that an overwhelming majority do. But I do think it's a majority and a fairly solid one.

I can't prove it to you but one thing I'll always remember is watching a bunch of political consultants on a talking head show back...I think...in the 90s. They all...both sides...matter of factly agreed that Republican voters are more informed and engaged then the conversation revolved around the strategies the parties have to employ as a result.

But even if I'm wrong I'd be willing to live with the consequqences. I have a lot more respect for Liberals who have some consistent idea as to what direction they want to see and consistently vote accordingly then the much praised people in the middle who in reality have no clue as to what they really want to see and swish back and forth between elections. Those are the people who are influenced by the money, the campaign ads, the robocalls, etc.

[kalm]

If the people were generally engaged and paying attention, I'm not sure you'd like American too much.

Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think that there is an association such that the more engaged people are and the more informed they are about government the more likely they are to vote Republican. I realize that's a two party system thing but I do think it's the case. I'm not talking about formal education either. As I've said many times, I think if you had a poll test so that a rudimentary knowledge of what's going on was necessary to vote the Democratic Party would be devastated. That's not to say that everybody who is engaged and informed votes Republican or even that an overwhelming majority do. But I do think it's a majority and a fairly solid one.

I can't prove it to you but one thing I'll always remember is watching a bunch of political consultants on a talking head show back...I think...in the 90s. They all...both sides...matter of factly agreed that Republican voters are more informed and engaged then the conversation revolved around the strategies the parties have to employ as a result.

But even if I'm wrong I'd be willing to live with the consequqences. I have a lot more respect for Liberals who have some consistent idea as to what direction they want to see and consistently vote accordingly then the much praised people in the middle who in reality have no clue as to what they really want to see and swish back and forth between elections. Those are the people who are influenced by the money, the campaign ads, the robocalls, etc.

1). Republicans are better organized, more unified, and their ideology is simplistic and status quo so it's easier to grasp. This doesn't mean they are better "informed" just more engaged and coherent. Nuance is a tough sell.

2). There might be an increasing number in the middle who know what they want but reject both party's solutions or lack thereof.