Conference turris::womannotes-v3

>      FLORIDA: Women who are fed up with the two party political system in
>    the United States have formed a third party in Florida. 


	Uhh, there is NOT a two-party system in the US.  The only
	barriers to more than the two major parties are found in	
	the restrictive ballot requirements in some states.

	The Libertarian Party has been cooking along for 15 years or
	so, though the media gives them short shrift.

	I think many folks here would find much to agree with in
	the Libertarian Party platform.

	Regards,

	Steve H

    
It seems to me that we no longer live in a democracy, but an 
oligarchy.  Small groups of, primarily, wealthy
white men gain power by their ability to market themselves well.
Real issues are avoided as much as possible. It is almost
totally a triumph of image over reality.  I don't know that a new
party could change this situation.  What I think might change it
is mandatory debates (real debates, not PR opportunities), closely
watched limits on the amount candidates could spend, and free tv
time to candidates.

The Republican party has done a good job of selling themselves.  Their
image is that of tough-minded men who want a strong defense to keep the
country safe, who know the value of a dollar, who uphold the old 
American virtues of patriotism, love of family, and respect for individual
rights.  This image appeals to Americans, to men especially.  I mean,
it's a great image, it even appeals to me, a liberal, but it 
doesn't reflect reality.  The reality is that under the present Republican
administration, and the one before it, vastly more money has been wasted than
ever before.  A strong defense sounds good but the US was spending
$500 for military parts that cost $3.98 at the same time they should have been
noticing that the Soviet Union was collapsing (and mainly because the Soviets
chose putting all their money into weapons rather than improving their economy
and the lives of average citizens).

The middle-class was not helped by the changes in tax laws under Reagan, but 
the wealthiest were.  College tuition (that dreaded burden of middle-class 
parents) is not tax deductible yet Bush pushes for more tax cuts for the 
wealthiest.  Clap your hands, children, if you believe in the trickle down 
economy!

Our forests and lakes and coastlines have not been protected under the
Republicans.  The rights of the individual have come under regular attack.
The Republicans don't come anywhere near fitting their actions to their
image but it's marketed so well and so frequently that few appear to notice.

The Democrats have done a lousy job of selling themselves.  They've pretty
much allowed their opponents to define who they are.  If the image the
Republicans are selling is some combo of Daniel Boone and Henry Ford, then 
the image of the Democrat is some effete pinko whose main goal is to take 
money from struggling working people so that welfare mothers can all have 
Cadillacs.  I am torn between hoping the Democrats can come up with a
more marketable image - perhaps some combo of Joe Hill and Mark Twain -
and thinking that, even if they won, that would just make our electoral 
process even more of a farce.  Why don't we insist that people running for 
public office have to debate real issues, that if they make campaign
promises that they have to show real effort in trying to live up to
them (in case no one noticed, Bush did raise taxes and Boston Harbor
still hasn't been cleaned up).  

Adding new parties to the two existing ones won't make any changes
that I can see unless we force candidates to quit hiding behind
their image-makers.

Sue

    Sue,
    
    do you think it ever really *was* a democracy? From what (little) I
    understand, much of the constitution was designed to keep the masses
    away from power.
    
    Alice T.

    Alice T.,
    You're right, of course, it never was a pure democracy.  Not only
    did you have to be a white male to vote originally but you had
    to be a landowner as well, which helped keep the hoi polloi from
    getting their fingers in the pie.  But I do think that there was
    more focus on legitimate issues in the past, and don't think that
    the framers of the constitution invisioned to what extent elections
    would become marketing battles.
    
    Sue

    I'm basically a pragmatist and would be willing to accept that
    a degree of image-making is inevitable.  What I object to is that
    right now most of those elected are not only primarily image, but
    they don't even try to live up to their image.
    
    Sue

Sue,

From my view, it is the process of institutionalization - as we see
it at this point in time - rather than image making that confounds
us all.

There was a point in time - I am not sure how long that was or how
long ago - when <x> was institutionalized because it was cardinal 
and enduring.  Say, education or marriage or our political system. 
I think what happened was that The Institution itself became more 
important than that which was to be institutionalized.

So, the Board of Regents decides to disband a program because the
alums don't like it even though the program is of great educational
value to the students.  Or, DOD contracts take precedence over
classroom teaching, etc.

For politics, the House/Senate/whatever become more important than
the will of the people or the law of the land (after all, THAT can
be changed, can't it?).  You even start to see things like career
politicians when originally it was thought that some representative
townsperson would serve a term and then come home to the town to be
replaced by someone else "doing their civic duty."

*I* clearly see no alternative to bringing the political system more
under the control of the people than:

	Clean sweep the House, Senate, and Presidency at the next
	set of elections.  Replace with those who are bound to
	reset a limit in the number of terms that may be served -
	EVER.

*To me,* this is the only way of ensuring that folks do not get in
just to BE THERE.

Barb

    Barb, 
    
    I don't agree that throwing all the current incumbents out and
    setting a limit on terms would improve things.  Most of the current
    talk about limiting terms, getting rid of incumbents, is coming
    from the right wing.  They would like to see the Democratic majority
    in the senate thrown out for their own purposes.  If we "throw all
    the bums out," the power behind them will just find new bums to
    run in their place.
    
    A small group of wealthy conservatives decided, sometime
    in the '60's, they wanted a candidate who would speak for
    their interests.  Fair enough, so far.  They hired an aging
    B-movie star who was presentable.  They hired
    good image-makers, a whole machine of them, and eventually
    their candidate became president.  When his time was up, this
    same machine helped another one just like him become president.
    And they will surely continue to do this if they can get away
    with it.
    
    Now, someone will say "it's their right to try and get their
    candidate elected"  and I agree with that.  But they have
    been controlling the government for twelve years now, they can
    use the whole weight of our own system to make sure they stay
    in control.  And, what is more offensive to me, they have more
    and more trivialized and corrupted the process of electing 
    a president.  They avoid discussing real issues and have photo
    op's at flag factories instead.  They make cynical and divisive
    use of race issues. They refuse to allow their candidate to debate
    unless they set the rules so that, once again, their candidate is
    shielded from honest debate.  (The past presidential "debates"
    would not be considered debates by any debating society.)
    
    I don't think the choice to debate should be up to the candidates. 
    Real debates, several of them, televised prime time, are the best
    way for Americans to see who the candidates are.  Plus, in order
    to make sure that the wealthiest don't control the process, there
    should be strictly watched limits on how much candidates can spend
    and free televsion time should be given to each candidate.
    
    Sue
    
    
    
     

    > Plus, in order
    > to make sure that the wealthiest don't control the process, there
    > should be strictly watched limits on how much candidates can spend
    > and free televsion time should be given to each candidate.
    
    I'm not sure this is enough... ya see, seems to me as though many media
    outlets are as responsible for the current situation as anyone else. 
    Candidates can get lots of "free media exposure" by having editorial
    articles written about them (with the proper slant, of course!).  At
    the same time, as a card-carrying Libertarian it always irks me that
    the only media exposure given to "third parties" is usually a couple of
    small, condescending puff-pieces: "Look at these kiddies with their toy
    political party and their toy convention.  They're even playing at
    running for President!  How cuuute!" Grr..
    
    By the way - did you know that the biggest clearinghouse for election
    results in the country REFUSES to acknowledge votes for third-party
    candidates?  They simply take the percentages of people who vote for
    Democrats and Republicans and normalize them up to 100%
    
    THESE are the sorts of shenanigans that we've been complaining about
    the Soviets doing for years ("100% of the people voted for the
    Communist candidate.  Pay no attention to that pile of burning ballots 
    over there...")
    
    [btw - although I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, I don't buy their
    ENTIRE platform; nevertheless, I'm much more comfortable with what they
    have to offer than what the Demopublican party has to offer...]
    
    --jim
    

In Georgia, if a person decides to run for political office, they must pay
a processing fee (how much it is depends on the office you are running for).
For Democrats and Republicans, a percentage of the fee is given to the 
appropriate party.  For other candidates, no money is given to their party.

Also, the Libertarian candidate for governor was not allowed to debate with 
the D and R candidates on PUBLIC television!  The libertarians sued and won, 
but Georgia Public TV won on the appeal... so they are going to the supreme
court on that one.

This gives you an idea of the blatant roadblocks keeping out any party other
than the D's and R's.

Roseanne

    
    a party based on sex race or religion is a totally impractical idea
    unless you value activism for the sheer love of it,.because it
    won't win any elections here. it will become a curiosity with no
    real power (it will keep lots of activist busybodies busy though..).
    
    mebbe in a parliamentary system where a ruling bloc can be kludged
    together but not in a country with a strong executive like the US.
    
    a wimmins or ethnic minority party would be the political equivalent 
    of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
    
    anyway a wimmins pahty will immediately be canceled out by a myn's
    party, or a {favorite minority ethnic} by a majority ethnic party..
    
    effective political parties are made of ideas, not race or genders..