3 ms·
+1 from me. That's it for Obama. Great, inspiring speeches, but too many poor decisions, and quite the hand for choosing the wrong people for important positio
by nikster 16y ago
+1 from me.
That's it for Obama. Great, inspiring speeches, but too many poor decisions, and quite the hand for choosing the wrong people for important positions. Maybe he wants to appease everyone? Either way this is not what I expect from a leader. The RIAA is the exact opposite of "by the people, for the people".
I am officially out of the Obama camp. I suppose now it's off to see that the next Republican candidate is not an un-electable retard from the tea party camp. And BTW clearly anyone remotely associated with the tea party is an un-electable moron.
- noarchy 16y agoWhy must it be either a Democratic or Republican candidate? This seems to be a major weakness in American politics, that a failure with one party leads to people endorsing the other, regardless of their positions and merit. I know it is easier said than done, but it looks like there is room for more parties.
- rsuttongee 16y agoWhile I agree with you that it would be great to have a viable third party in the United States, the very structure of the voting system here (the single member district plurality system) has been shown to favor a two party system under various game theory analyses. Check out Duverger's law for more insight on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law
- noarchy 16y agoI live in a country (Canada) that falls under the article's counterexamples. We have four parties in Parliament. None of them can break out of the 30s, currently, in terms of their polling numbers. In addition, no party has actually won a majority in 6 or 7 years.