In defense of Glenn...
With the unprecedented amount of momentum conservatives have been enjoying lately, it seems that nothing will be able to stop them from making huge gains in both houses of congress come November. Nothing, that is, except for a third party. As most conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are eager to point out, a third party would split the vote and might not accurately represent the mood or wishes of the electorate. Conservative Republicans would be running against Conservative third-party candidates and a loss would inevitably result. Glenn Beck, however, has taken heat from his aforementioned colleagues for his assertion that both parties are progressive and, perhaps, should be thrown out. But while he is accused of "lumping both parties together" and saying that "both parties are the same", I've never heard him actually say those words. He does commonly say that the Republicans are addicted to big government and that many of them in recent years have completely lost their way but calling them both progressives is not saying that they're the same. His theory is that the Republicans are simply less progressive than Democrats and shouldn't necessarily be trusted. Even in his CPAC speech, he said that it's not good enough for Republicans to simply "suck less" than Democrats.
The pink elephant...
Rush and Sean are right, though. The spoiler problem is certainly not a new phenomenon. A third party push would potentially undo all the momentum of unified opposition of freedom-loving Americans to the radical policies of this administration. But an objective look at this problem begs the question that, for some reason, has yet to be asked: why? Why should two, qualified conservative candidates lessen our chances of winning elections? Shouldn't this only help our chances? Why should a liberal candidate win in a state that is overwhelmingly conservative? In short, they shouldn't. But to find specific answers, one must look no further than our antiquated voting system. Vote splitting is an inherent problem with our current form of voting, plurality voting. And if state legislatures were honest, they would change their respective state's voting systems to a system of voting more capable of accurately determining the will of the people (such as approval voting or instant runoff). Unfortunately, however, virtually every member of every elected state governing body belongs to one of the two parties and, consequently, they are not inclined pass legislation that might open up a scenario where competition is readily allowed in. This is a travesty that should get some attention by those higher-ups that sit behind golden microphones.
PS "Mega Dittos"
With the unprecedented amount of momentum conservatives have been enjoying lately, it seems that nothing will be able to stop them from making huge gains in both houses of congress come November. Nothing, that is, except for a third party. As most conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are eager to point out, a third party would split the vote and might not accurately represent the mood or wishes of the electorate. Conservative Republicans would be running against Conservative third-party candidates and a loss would inevitably result. Glenn Beck, however, has taken heat from his aforementioned colleagues for his assertion that both parties are progressive and, perhaps, should be thrown out. But while he is accused of "lumping both parties together" and saying that "both parties are the same", I've never heard him actually say those words. He does commonly say that the Republicans are addicted to big government and that many of them in recent years have completely lost their way but calling them both progressives is not saying that they're the same. His theory is that the Republicans are simply less progressive than Democrats and shouldn't necessarily be trusted. Even in his CPAC speech, he said that it's not good enough for Republicans to simply "suck less" than Democrats.
The pink elephant...
Rush and Sean are right, though. The spoiler problem is certainly not a new phenomenon. A third party push would potentially undo all the momentum of unified opposition of freedom-loving Americans to the radical policies of this administration. But an objective look at this problem begs the question that, for some reason, has yet to be asked: why? Why should two, qualified conservative candidates lessen our chances of winning elections? Shouldn't this only help our chances? Why should a liberal candidate win in a state that is overwhelmingly conservative? In short, they shouldn't. But to find specific answers, one must look no further than our antiquated voting system. Vote splitting is an inherent problem with our current form of voting, plurality voting. And if state legislatures were honest, they would change their respective state's voting systems to a system of voting more capable of accurately determining the will of the people (such as approval voting or instant runoff). Unfortunately, however, virtually every member of every elected state governing body belongs to one of the two parties and, consequently, they are not inclined pass legislation that might open up a scenario where competition is readily allowed in. This is a travesty that should get some attention by those higher-ups that sit behind golden microphones.
PS "Mega Dittos"
Links to this post
Create a Link