The Billings Gazette has this comprehensive article about the surprising strength of Wyoming candidates who ran in 2010 outside the two major parties. The “other” vote for Wyoming Governor this year was 10.3%, the highest such percentage for that office, for candidates running outside the two major parties, since 1894. In 1894 the Peoples Party candidate for Governor had received 11.3%.
The article notes that the new Wyoming Senate consists of 26 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
This would be a good opportunity for the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists (and even the Tea Baggers) in Wyoming to prove they could work together on issues of like-mind. They should join together in a party which could be generically called the “Wyoming Independence Party”
But I’m not holding my breath. Working together just might result in an “accidential” win of some public offices, and then they’d have to prove they know how to “govern.” “Governing” is alot harder than “philosophizing.”
Both parties could work together but sometimes the definition of freedom and liberty get in the way. A lot of people believe in freedom and the idea of liberty, but only for some and not for others. In a free society, who makes our choices in life, us or the government. Some people would say we need the government to make those choices, like to use or not use drugs, etc. Certainly in the non-partisan races we should be working together.
I agree with #1 but the issues which divide libertarians and constitutionalists are apparently far more important than the issues on which they agree. One only hears about the divisive issues (drugs, abortion, immigration etc.) and never about the unifying ones (abolish the Fed, end the wars, return government to the size envisioned in the Constitution etc.) so I guess we will never know if they could work together. In many cases they cannot even play nice within their own parties!
Yes, we need a grand realignment and alliance between Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and like minded Greens. This is a winning strategy for the future. First though, we need to learn how to be more gracious and forgiving of one another. We are not the enemy. The enemy is that which continues to divide and immobilize us.
P.R. = coalitions — see Germany, Israel, etc. [but having super-dangerous *parliamentary* legislative/executive regimes].
Perhaps the various gerrymander victims in ALL of the larger States should move and take over a small State.
Some brains have STATIST control freak genes — think Hitler, Stalin, etc.
Other brains do NOT have such EVIL genes.
See 1775 and 1861 — things do happen in UN-stable regimes.
Demo Rep, your posts are always amusing. Mostly because they are basically hyperbolic posts with nothing to say. I would call Israel “super-dangerous” but not for having a legislative and executive mix of government.
# 6 Israel happens to be something of a REAL Democracy in the mostly rotted Middle East with its mostly nonstop Stone Age EVIL monarch/oligarch regimes for thousands of years.
*NEVER AGAIN* means something to ALL folks in the Israel regime with its P.R. system — about 95 percent accurate.
The rotted Brits and French failed to get Democracy into the area after WW I — due to their EVIL anti-Democracy colonial thinking.
Most of the know-it-all juvenile posts on this list have absolutely nothing to say — and who should be addressing the Chair with their comments — to keep things *civil* and NOT generate too many flame responses.
How stable will the U.S.A. regime be starting Jan 3, 2011 with the extreme Elephants in the gerrymander House of Reps versus the extreme Donkeys in the gerrymander Senate and White House ???
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — even for the scarce Donkeys among the rocks in WY.
Israel and Jews are not the problem. Wake up! or bow to Mecca soon enough! BTW – You might think twice about attending any Christmas gatherings in light of the recent events in Portland.
With first-past-the-post you are guaranteed that the machinery of Globalism/”cultural Marxism”-or to be more precise, totalitarian humanism-keeps rolling forward with only minor disturbances, barring some form of violent insurrection.
With plurality elections-especially in the age of ubiquitous propaganda via electronic mass media-the only *serious* debate is debate that falls within the boundaries determined by ruling elite opinion. Anyone who violates those rules is merely a protest candidate and is viewed essentially as a a sideshow freak. Concessions-usually merely rhetorical-are sometimes made by the *serious* parties to get the *protest vote*, but anyone not part of the power-sharing parties is almost always treated with disdain and derision by the regime mouthpieces.
The hegemonic ideology of the age-which, curiously enough, is not all that concerned with the depredations of bankers-is described at the link:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/11/pc-theology.html
(…)
In effect, PC is the secular religion of materialistic Utopianism. This religion’s most toxic component however is its understanding of evil; structuralism. It’s this understanding of “evil” that motivates the most destructive aspects of PC. Anything that claims that it is better than anything else is seen to be an instrument of oppression as it is attempting to introduce a “hierarchical structure”. Any claim that man is better than women, is oppression. Any claims that white is better than black is oppression. Any “exclusion” is oppression. Any claim to absolute truth is an oppressive mechanism. What PC is aiming at is the elimination of any hierarchical structures (except its own). It’s only when all hierarchy is destroyed will a new age of universal happiness bloom.
It is why PC is such a difficult to recognise (and kill) Hydra. People think it is about feminism, racism, economic socialism and so on. Where in reality its about destroying any system of values (apart from its own) that can show that A is better than B. It’s inimical to Christianity since Christianity aggressively asserts there is a good and a bad.
(…)
Anyway, to take perhaps one of the least obvious examples, the current regime continually produces scenarios like 2003, when a broad bipartisan coalition was on board for the Iraq War. The neocon architects of the war probably really believed that the Iraqis were longing for liberation and eager to create a Western-style democracy.
Oh Lord, is there anywhere in America one can comment without having anti-Muslim bigots trolling? I don’t think theatrical, hyperbolic posts about “evil” systems are particularly harmful, but keep in mind no one is really taking them seriously. I support proportional representation wholeheartedly but I seriously doubt your posts are useful.