I can't add much to the definitions of the political parties given here - they are basically accurate.  They have, however, changed with time.  Around the time of the Civil War (1860's), the Republican Party, then a new party which had just come to power, was the "liberal" party (the one that favored change), and the Democrats were the conservatives.  Now, they seem to have switched places.

At the state level, local issues sometimes dominate.  In Utah, the Republican Party is predominantly Mormon, while the Democratic Party is predominantly composed of non-Mormons and Mormons who don't mind rocking the boat.  It certainly makes the choices clear.  As a non-Mormon, I cannot vote for a Republican in Utah because that party is basically controlled by the LDS Church.

Heather H.

Heather:

While I agree that the present two-party system is a crock of cow dung, It has mostly worked in some form or another for 200 plus years, and I'd hate to toss out the good with the bad.  

The major problem is actually further down your post: Since they are so dominant, this means that legislation is effectively crafted and passed behind closed doors.

And therein lies the rub. If this is a Government Of the people, By the people, and For the people, then We the people should be let in, so our voices can be heard. (This is presuming, of course, that real people care about more than just their checking accounts.) In short, the problem isn't "Party Politics" (although that doesn't help), but rather, political machinery. Think Tammany Hall here, and I think you'll see where I'm aiming at, if I'm not hitting it.

In countries where there are more than two major parties (let's say for discussion that there are five), if there isn't one strong, dominant party, than a coalition government must be set up between these five parties. After a short honeymoon period, the bickering begins and then nothing gets accomplished. Almost inevitably, and for the same reasons you have stated so well, these fall apart precisely because they stick to party lines.

So, while I think we can and should work toward a viable third party, what I have also been advocating is a return to a more central, common sense position on the part of both parties. They have become caricatures of what these parties are in how far left or how far right they are. In point of fact, it has just gotten downright silly. (Ted Kennedy, please pay attention...!)

If I wanted silly, I'd find me some old Smothers Brothers reruns...or maybe even some Monty Python. ;D

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius and Ultra-Flirt"

Surely the fact that anyone would spend $3.5 million to get a job that probably pays less than $100,000 a year, is an indication that something is seriously wrong with our political system, it certainly makes you wonder where he got all that money from. :::)

I would love to see the day that an openly transgendered person is in some high political office.  But we can't even seem to elect a woman to the highest office in the U.S., so I bet I will never live to see it.  If we could get rid of the crusty old men who are presently in power and have our leaders reflect the entire population, the world would be a better place.

Heather H.

I hate political parties.  They compromise the independence of elected officials and they allow the voters to be lazy and vote based on a partisan affiliation rather than on the views of the candidate.

In the United States, the Republicans and Democrats dominate the political scene.  It is almost impossible for a candidate from outside of these organizations to get anywhere in an election.  Many good people and good ideas are rejected as a result.  Party members are almost always more loyal to the party than to the country or the constituents.  In Utah, the Republicans are dominant at present.  Republican legislators routinely hold closed caucus meetings to keep their members in line.  Since they are so dominant, this means that legislation is effectively crafted and passed behind closed doors.  There is little room for dissent.  Any time a political party becomes dominant, this happens.

It would be nice if there was some way to weaken the political parties so that independent voices could be heard.  Until a way is found, we will continue to live under their tyranny and our country will suffer.

Heather H.

Hi, dears--

Political parties are boring as h*ll.

No good dance music, and all they want to do is save us from democracy, by putting us all to sleep with much flapping of the gums. Saves on Hors d'ouvres, too. Cheap buggahs! ;D

Phil Frank, creator of the comic strip Farley, has the best way of determining one's political background: "If a Democrat writes a check, the check bounces. If a Republican writes a check, the bank bounces."

So, what we need, is a middle of the road third party, that emphaszies our unique contributions to society. One that has a more common sense approach to life, love, and getting things done right the first time, knowing that there may not be a second chance.

You got it: a Tranny party.

Don't laugh too hard, luvs. Who better to run a country than guys who don't want runs in their hose? We have a unique view of life, being both male and female, or male to female. (Or vice versa.)

We have the intelligence and logical side, the emotive side, and we look a d@mn sight better than Jesse, Strom, Teddy, Dubya, or H. Ross Pharoah Perot...much less Bill, Hillary, Diane or Babs Boxer.

Our platforms? About 4-6", based on past posts. And probably stillettos, too. Want to boost the economy? Let us go shopping, honey. Government scandals? HAH! Who knows better how to hide a secret than someone who's had to hide a whole wardrobe--and second self--for years on end?

Why, we even have an answer to the war thing: Don't. It's bad for the environment, bad for kids and other living beings, and if you really get nasty, we'll just act like you scorned us. H*ll has no fury, etc. (Can't you just see it now: "Saddam, don't you make me come back there..." ;D)

Besides...war makes it tough to look cute. Camo nighties don't work, even if they ARE made of silk. The makeup job is ugly, and you can't fight well in heels, anyway.

Finally: we also know how to throw a party! ;D Good food, good music, and everyone goes home happy.

So..who's in?

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Speaking of the early 1980s... God, I miss Ronald Reagan!  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Stevie03.gif

Yes, I'd say that's a fair comparison to the parties in the UK.

Obviously, we disagree about the Libertarians. I'm not too crazy about the Greens, myself. I don't agree with everything in the Libertarian platform. I disagree with the party on abortion and the role of the military (including military spending). However, the party does agree with my views more often than any other party, so that's the party that gets my support. As for the candidates themselves, I simply don't see the crackpots you see, at least not in my area.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Oh, and thanks for the spanks. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

Yes, I really do miss Reagan. He is my favorite President of my lifetime (Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite before my time). For the UK girls, my favorite British PMs are Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. Actually, I miss the 1980s in general. As Sam Kinison noted at the time, "Reagan is President and Clint Eastwood has his own police force."  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Anyway, Ricka, I feel just as strongly about Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and the damage they've done to our country as you do about Reagan. You haven't said whether you cared for either of them, but I'm just illustrating that we each have negative opinions of certain Presidents/administrations. Naturally, anyone who wants to take the country in the opposite direction from what we want will be perceived as being wrong, and you and I simply want different things (in some cases), so we have different opinions about Reagan.

However, as much as I despise Clinton, for example (both as an ineffective President and a lousy human being), I don't despise everyone who supported him, I just think they're wrong. I can consider someone to be wrong about Reagan, Clinton, or any given political issue and still have respect for that person, and even consider that person a friend of mine. My last girlfriend and I disagreed on a few political issues, including abortion, but we still loved each other. Abortion is one of the hottest issues around, and there are some people who actually hate those on the other side, and they've even killed each other in some cases (by bombing abortion clinics, etc.). We debated the issue sometimes, and we each had a thorough understanding of the reasons for the other's position, but we never insulted each other over it. We just had to accept that fact that we came to different conclusions on the issue.

While I've done my best to explain my opinions/positions and pick apart opposing views, I don't think I've attacked anyone here personally, but if any of my comments have been badly worded so that they did come across as being personal in nature, I apologize. Any such incidents were unintentional.

Light-hearted jabs are perfectly fine between friends (on-line and off-line), and we shouldn't be afraid to playfully tease each other about our disagreements (as Jayne often does http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif ), but at the same time, I don't want to have to defend myself against negative personal comments every time I visit the board. Public figures (especially politicians) are acceptable targets, and I'm not bothered by anyone's criticism of them and/or their administrations/policies, but I just don't want this forum to reach the point where we're insulting each other directly. I think we can tear each other's arguments apart (which is fun) without tearing each other apart. After all, if we trannies can't be tolerant of each other, how can we expect non-trannies to ever tolerate us?

*return hugs for Ricka*

Another note for the non-Americans here...

Often, the terms conservative and liberal are misused to include more than just social issues. Unfortunately, those terms are usually applied to the Republican and Democrat positions, regardless of which views are truly conservative or liberal. I tend to prefer the terms right-wing and left-wing when referring to the two sides of the political spectrum.

To say one is conservative in the USA implies that one is usually going to take a right-wing position on most issues, but very few individuals are always conservative or liberal. Still, the term conservative is misused to describe the Republican side on just about every issue. For example, I think of myself as a right-winger because I'm a capitalist and a hawk, but on social issues, I'm neither conservative nor liberal all the time. I'm for the right to keep and bear arms, which is actually a liberal position, because I favor the freedom of individuals to defend themselves. The conservative side of that issue is to be against that right, in the interest of public order. Most Republicans take a liberal (pro-gun) stance on that issue, whereas most Democrats take a conservative (anti-gun) stance, but because the Republicans are usually considered conservatives, their pro-gun position is usually referred to as the conservative side.

That's probably the most confusing thing for outsiders (and even insiders) to get around, but if you understand what the terms conservative and liberal really mean and how the terms are misused as political labels in the USA, you're ahead of most observers.


Here's how I defined the terms in one of my polls:

Hybrid (takes positions, but mixes liberalism and conservatism, depending on the issues)
Moderate (rarely takes a position on any issue)

Dictatorial (extremely reactionary)
Reactionary (extremely conservative)
Conservative (emphasizes social order over individual freedom)
Liberal (emphasizes individual freedom over social order)
Radical (extremely liberal)
Anarchist (extremely radical)

Using my definitions, you can see why I think blanket conservatism and liberalism are impractical, and why I take positions on an issue-by-issue basis (the hybrid approach). If we are always conservative or liberal on every issue, I don't think our democracy will last. Sometimes, we need to put social order first (which is why murder is illegal), and sometimes we need to put the freedom of the individual citizens first (which is why we have the right to free speech in our Constitution). Fortunately, we've maintained a healthy balance, for the most part.

You girls just had to go and get me on the soap box, didn't you! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Ricka, my party, the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), is actually the USA's most viable third party. If fact, it's the third largest party in the country. I just had to squeeze in that statement. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Razz2.gif

First: We don't have a two-party system in the USA. We have a two-party culture or society, but the system itself neither encourages nor discourages parties.

Second: If you don't like the influence of the two major parties, don't vote for them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party are 100% powerless without voter support. If you ignore them in significant numbers every two years, those parties will cease to be political forces. The power is already in your hands. We the people are in complete control of the number of parties that exist and which parties control government. What more could you ask? We can't (and shouldn't) outlaw parties, because that would be placing major limitations on free speech.

In the last Presidential election, I voted for Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (which I've mentioned before). No, I did not believe that he had a realistic chance of winning, but he's the one I wanted to win, so I supported him. Some will say I wasted my vote on a sure loser. I always counter that position by suggesting that those of you who settled for less by voting for one of the two major parties, even though you preferred candidates of other parties, are the one who truly wasted your votes. You allowed other voters to make up your minds for you. They exercised electoral peer pressure on you, and it worked. The masses have spoken, and they have spoken for you, but not for me.

So, would you vote for your alternative candidates if you thought they had realistic chances of winning? Well, how will that ever happen if you don't start supporting them? When was the last time you ever saw a swarm of pioneers? Pioneers have to be willing to go against the odds to establish what they want and encourage others to follow. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party will never compete with the two major parties if we don't say "No!" to the same old nonsense. Do you think George Bush and Al Gore were the two best choice of all the candidates who ran last time? PA-LEEZE! Every time you settle for the two major parties you validate them, and you continue to encourage the status quo. Sometimes, the only two choices on the ballots for certain offices are the Republicans and Democrats, and in those situations, you often have to choose the lesser of two evils, but if there's an alternative candidate running who you really do like more than the others, you owe it to yourself (and others who share your political leanings) to vote for what you really want.

Then again, if you really like one or both of the two major parties, then by all means, stay the course.

Third: Ricka, George Bush (the Dad) probably would've beaten Bill Clinton if the run-off system you suggest had been in place. Perot would've been eliminated, and Bush and Clinton would've run head-to-head, with the Perot votes probably going to Bush. Anyway, I favor the electoral vote in the USA's Presidential elections, because I like to see the states represented in the vote for the highest office. However, I don't like having electors decide for us. I think the state electoral votes should be automatically decided by the popular votes within each state (which is how things usually turn out anyway). Also, in addition to the requirement that a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral vote, I think a candidate should additionally be required to receive a plurality of the popular national vote. If no candidate accomplishes that, then perhaps we could use Ricka's suggestion. I hope I explained that correctly...

Fourth: No one mentioned this yet, but I'll throw it in. I do not like the parliamentary system, and I don't think it fits the USA. I don't want parties running in elections, I want candidates to run. Yes, candidates (and voters) who think alike do gravitate toward parties, but at least the voters should be able to judge each candidate individually.  To me, rewarding parties certain percentages of the legislature seems like putting the election on automatic pilot. I want to keep manual control over my ballot by voting for each individual office. Sometimes, I vote for candidates from different parties. It might work fine in other countries, especially those with unitary governments and/or where the head-of-state is not the Prime Minister, but in the USA, where we have a federal republic as our form of democracy, we need our current system for running elections.

I miss dear old Ronnie.He was right up there with the Marx Brothers,Laurel and Hardy,Monty Python et al.Mind you,George W. is doing his best to catch up.Shows what can happen when you can buy the presidency.Money talks-both of them should let it do so,and keep their mouths shut.At least that way,they could not put their feet in it.
Sue.X

Denise, here are the basic differences between the two major parties in the USA (Ricka's explanation not withstanding http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif ).


Most Republicans usually lean toward being conservatives, capitalists, and hawks.

Most Democrats usually lean toward being liberals, socialists, and doves.


That's the simple explanation. However, neither party really sticks to those definitions all the time or as much as they like to think. In our political scene, the two parties often pander to special interest groups in order to get support so they can stay in power (office). With many politicians, being in power is more important to them than what they actually do with that power. Often, you'll find Republicans and Democrats opposing each other just to be contrary, and at other times they will come together, especially when they are working against the American people. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif  It's easy to understand how observers in other countries see little difference between the two. They are both self-serving political machines, for the most part.

However, scattered among the corrupt politicians elected by corrupt voters (how else could they get elected?), there are some politicians who really do embrace their ideologies and try to steer our country in the right direction, according to their beliefs. Those beliefs differ from party to party, politician to politician, so the directions they want to take the country differ, but they often have to compromise with others with whom they disagree in order to get anything done. Depending on your opinion, that's one of the main beauties or tragedies of the American political scene.

No hugs?

As a human being, I think Carter is a good guy, and as President, his heart was in the right place. Unfortunately, he just didn't have the tools to be an effective leader. I agree with you that he didn't know how to play the Washington D.C. games, but I also think he didn't understand world politics or economics. I consider him a weak President, but not a bad person. On the other hand, Clinton is just plain evil (so is her husband). http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Our leaders do reflect the entire voting population.

Regarding a female President, that will eventually happen. I've voted for plenty of females for other offices, but not because they were females. If a capitalist female runs against a socialist male (all other things being equal), I vote for the capitalist, not the female. The sex doesn't matter. Likewise, I'd vote for a capitalist over a socialist tranny.

As far as the political scene in the USA is concerned, I think there's a greater chance that the first female President or the first black President will come from the Republican Party. Why do I say that? Most female and minority candidates in the Democrat Party tend to emphasis what they are more than their ideology, whereas Republican candidates tend not to run as men or women, blacks or whites; they just run as Republicans. That's why I think they'll have more appeal to swing voters.

I think Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female President in 2008, but I seriously doubt that her politics will appeal to a broad enough cross section of the voters. The same applies to Al Sharpton in 2004. Potential Republican candidates, such as J. C. Watts and Christine Whitman might actually have good shots at being elected as Presidents or Vice Presidents. Alan Keyes is one of my favorites in the Republican Party, but I think his views are too far to the right to get him elected to the White House.