Yo, if you looking for some more Obama unique product/swag, go to http://www.equalitybrand.com and my company designed some Vote Obama ‘08 shirts - These aren’t your ordinary shirts, check them out, and order one.

More eyes on the Obama vote!

Peace.

Ryan

Just my two thoughts,
Ryan

LOL yeah what kind of ad campaign is this? It’s almost as bad as the Wamu which just went under.
It’s orignal but its bad its windows vista in disguise.

Great very true post!!!

Second, the existence of third parties does not preclude classification as a two-party system, which is defined as a party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. So yes, the reality is in fact that the United States, like Jamaica, has a two-party system. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, simply that it is a fact.

Third, the press does in fact “mention other parties and political members”. Again using the Libertarian Party as just one example, we find coverage by several major news outlets, including Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Seattle Times, the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, and just to dig it in a little more, here’s a video from CNN interviewing Bob Barr. So apparently, contrary to your claim, the 24/7 news channels *do* find the time to talk about other parties in addition to Spears, Jolie and Pitt.

(And of course I do not claim at all that the thin sliver of news outlets I used as examples do not make up the entirety of the fourth estate; rather I merely wanted to pick a few of those which are considered major news outlets in the United States to use as examples.)

Third, I never said that not not covering third parties is “fine”, despite you putting quotes around the word as if I had said that. In fact, my argument was not at all to put any kind of value judgement about news coverage of third parties, so I have no idea where that mischaracterization of my position came from. My argument was only that smaller parties here in the US and around the world have historically garnered far less support than the major parties have in any given country, and that I personally think it’s because the majority of people in those countries generally don’t care about the smaller parties. There could be any number of reasons for that; people find that the various third parties don’t represent their values, or they disagree with the positions of those parties, or they don’t like the candidates put forward by a party personally, or even that they feel their vote would be wasted on a candidate who is unlikely to gain a majority of the vote. (Not to mention that they could simply find they agree with one of the major parties.) While I do hypothesize that this reasons is more likely to be true, I don’t claim to know the reason as anything approaching an absolute certainty (and in fact I think it’s more likely that there is more than just one reason); but given that the most viable third-party candidates *do* get media coverage, as evidenced above, it seems unlikely that people don’t vote for them for the reason that they simply aren’t aware that other parties exist.

Fourth, if, as you posit, the reason that Nader and Buchanan are household names is “because they’ve received proper coverage”, then it strains credulity to insist that third-party candidates do not receive proper coverage. Either third party candidates do receive proper coverage and people are aware of them, or they do not receive proper coverage and people are unaware of them; you can’t have it both ways.

Fifth, I am in 100% agreement with you that if people vote for third parties, the current political duopoly might change, even if slightly. I don’t think that point was in dispute at all. As I pointed out, such a thing is already happening in regards to the Green Party of Canada. But as was inferred in my previous comment, such changes historically happen slowly, over the course of generations, because of the challenges involved with building a large enough coalition nationally.

Finally, at what point did I imply I was unconcerned with the existence of low-information voters? In what way did I demonstrate a disagreement with the idea that healthy democracies depend on educated populaces? Where in my previous comment did I disagree with you that some news topics are disproportionately covered compared to others? Last time I checked, my name is “Ian”, not “Straw Man”.

Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians? –Katie Couric

Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish prison? –Captain Oveur

What I am discussing here is important, regardless of how people vote. If the role of news communications is to provide information regarding topics people are aware of, and topics they may not know about, then it should at least mention other parties and political members. You would think that 24/7 news channels that find the time to talk about Spears, Jolie and Pitt could also find the time to talk about, for instance, the fourteen other parties that existed in the 2004 election. (I’d like to see how many Americans could name three to five of those parties.)

The argument that not covering information regarding these parties is “fine,” because people “don’t care” about them, is poor, I think. Many people are caught up in their day-to-day lives, but news, which can make individuals aware of what’s going on around them (whether it does, is another discussion), can change things. As the saying goes, “knowledge is power,” and while some may do nothing with the knowledge they come by, others might. If even just a million more people vote differently, because coverage for other parties is given as much airtime as what celebrities are given, then I consider that important–again, whether historically people have considerably voted for third parties or not. People should at least know what’s out there, so they can make informed choices. Arguably, however, one doesn’t go to passive, traditional media for that.

By saying major media channels should provide coverage for other parties, I hardly think I am creating some conspiratorial claim. Ironically, the reason Nader and Buchanan are [some] household names is because they’ve received proper coverage, but Nader and Buchanan are hardly the beginning when it comes to other political members and parties.

Finally, while I agree that parties come and go, the Republican party has been around since 1854, the Democratic since 1828. While they may change and, indeed, come and go, they will almost certainly not “go” in our lifetimes, as they didn’t in our parents’ or grandparents’ and, for some, our great grandparents’. Yet if more people are aware of their options, this might change, even if slightly. I find it disconcerting that you seem not bothered by the fact that those who look to more traditional media are not getting coverage regarding all their political options but are, instead, getting infotainment fluff.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution were not as cut-and-dry in their ideals as many modern ideologues make them out to be. Many hoped that the federal government could avoid political parties altogether, wanting instead a government run by independent-minded people who served out of a sense of civic virtue. They thought that political parties were the tools of the overly-ambitious. However, not long after the new government began, many of those who opposed the very concept of political parties became the founders and leaders of political parties themselves.

The Republican Party itself used to be one of those smaller, outlier parties in the United States. One of the first two parties in this country was the Democratic-Republican Party, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (originally an ardent “anti-political-party-ist”) to counter the Federalists of the Washington administration. After the War of 1812, the Federalists pretty much disappeared, leaving only one party in the country for roughly the next ten years, when the Whig party arose in opposition. Then, in the 1850s, agitation over the slavery issue disrupted these national coalitions. New parties such as the Free Soil and American (Know-Nothing) parties emerged but never attracted a majority of the voters. By 1856 the new Republican party had absorbed these smaller parties and supplanted the Whigs as the chief opposition to the Democrats.

While we have been a two-party system for the vast majority of our nation’s history, the parties that make up that duality have not always been the same. Not only that, but many of the third parties that have appeared through the years have even elected members to Congress. (Usually in smaller House districts; the statewide Senate races have been historically more difficult.) In the 19th century, the Anti-Masonic, Nullifiers, American (Know-Nothing), Free Soil, States’ Rightists, Unionists, Constitutional Union, Liberal Republican, National (Greenback), People’s (Populist), and Silver Republican parties all sent members to Congress. Third parties in the 20th century have included the Socialist, Progressive (Bull Moose), Prohibition, and Conservative parties. However none of those parties have ever made it to the White House; only the major parties of the day were able to do that. (Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Democrats and Republicans, to wit.)

Even countries with multiple political parties in government at any given time don’t necessarily vote in large numbers for members of a given smaller party. The Green Party of Canada, for example, has been around since 1983, but only this year finally got their first and only parliamentary riding, and that was only after an existing independent MP had switched party affiliation. After gaining that riding, the GPC was finally given recognition to join in the country’s election debates.

The major parties come and go; it takes a lot to build a major, nationwide coalition like the various major political parties throughout our nation’s history have managed to do. And duopoly by two particular parties is never guaranteed. Given that Ralph Nader is a household name (and Pat Buchanan, for that matter) I don’t think it’s fair to claim any kind of conspiracy on the press’ behalf to exclude third-party candidates from the public discourse. But there certainly is a threshold that must be broken through before the candidate of a minor third party can be taken seriously on a national level, evidenced not just in our country but many other countries as well. So I don’t think that people aren’t *aware* of other parties, I think those parties simply aren’t able to form large enough coalitions needed for most people to care about them.