This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.
What exactly gives your idea weight? What is your idea to change from the current system to a better one again? I’m sure you have a proven model for this right? Or do you know just as little as I do about how to reform the two party system into something better?
I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.
People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.
So you see the problem here right? You think its impossible to change the system, and I think its very possible. Maybe with more years I’ll slide closer to your position though.
This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.
What exactly gives your idea weight? What is your idea to change from the current system to a better one again? I’m sure you have a proven model for this right? Or do you know just as little as I do about how to reform the two party system into something better?
I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.
People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.
So you see the problem here right? You think its impossible to change the system, and I think its very possible. Maybe with more years I’ll slide closer to your position though.