election non-surprise

[cellio]

I'm kind of sad that John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race. He wasn't going to win (on first ballot at the convention), I don't think, but he has enough of a following that it seems like he could have influenced the front-runners had he stayed in. On the other hand, he was probably drawing more votes from Obama than from Hillary ("sleaze as usual"), so if it helps Obama win the nomination it won't be all bad. He hasn't made a formal endorsement, but this might count. Still, if the Dems don't slap Hillary down hard and soon, they risk blowing the election, either by nominating a slick divisive candidate or by doing too much dirty campaigning before rejecting her.

(I'm not for Obama, but I'm against Hillary. I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.)

Did anyone else catch the complaint from the NH chapter of NOW? (It was in the news yesterday or the day before.) They complained that Kennedy "betrayed women" by not endorsing Hillary. Earth to NOW: you are doing harm to your candidate if your entire platform is "she's a she". Not that I mind, but I'm just sayin'.

Comments

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.

Absolutely, positively correct. And I think many people would be surprised to learn that there's no requirement for a two-party system. I have a sad hunch a lot of people think it's in the Constitution.

My feeling is that the reasons why we're stuck in a two-party system is that the two parties do everything they can to maintain this status quo. Both have figured out a fundamental truth:

It's better to be in last place in a two-party system than it is to be in third place in a five-party system.

Guaranteed a "no worse than second place finish under any circumstances," both parties do all they can to perpetuate the system and cut off alternative parties before they can become a threat.

[cellio]

It is in the interest of the Dems and the Reps to keep everyone else out. That's easier ballot access for them (everyone else has to jump through outrageous hoops), more federally-managed campaign money for them (why share, or have the guts to abolish that, if you don't have to?), and an easier time saying "well, those guys must not be serious if they can't even mount a national campaign". Not that I feel strongly about it or anything. :-)