Why do you keep taking the same medicine?

[draggar]

Say you have some ailment (doesn't matter what, make something up).

There are tons of medicines on the market for this ailment but everyone says you should take one of the two popular ones - we'll call them A and B.

So, you take A for a while but after the bottle you don't feel better and in some instances you feel worse.

So you try B for a while. B seems to do an OK job so you but a second bottle but after that bottle you still don't feel any real improvement.

But look, A changed their labels so they must have changed their medicine! You but a bottle of A and you think it's OK so you but a second bottle but guess what? It didn't help.

Oh but medicine B now comes in yellow pills, they must have changed something. You buy a bottle of B but it still isn't helping.

Now A comes in a smaller pill so you buy a bottle of that but it still doesn't help.

Now B has been bought by a different company so you give them another try. Nope, different name, same medicine.

Back to A who now has a new bottle style - they must have changed the medicine? Right? Nope, same stuff.

What about medicines C, D, E, F, G, H, I and so on? Nah, they're like generics and don't advertise much so they can't be good despite the few people who take them really liking them.

I'll go back to medicine B. They have a new bottle and the pills are now orange! Like vitamin C tablets so they must work better!

Nope, same situation, no help with your ailment so let's go back to medicine A. Besides medicine A is more expensive now so it's got to workbetter, right?

Nope. Same pills, same medicine, same results.

I don't want to try the others - they're new and everyone uses A and B so you don't want to waste your money. Besides, either A or B will get it right someday.

So back to B. But B still doesn't help.

And so on and so on.

You'd think someone like this is either really stubborn, isn't educated well enough, or is just a lemming in society.

The sad thing is that the American (meaning USA) voters have been doing this for decades with our politicians. Republicans don't do the job so they get tired of it and vote Democrats. Then, the Democrats don't do the job well enough so it's back to Republicans.

When the HELL will the American voters WAKE THE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Republicans haven't done the job we wanted them to and neither have Democrats (if they had been then the Mass seat would have gone to a Dem - but it didn't. Yet people are still too afraid or ignorant to actually look at other candidates.

Even George Washington - our first (official) president said that political poarties were a bad idea yet in the very next election it started. IMO this is causing the mess - candidates should run on their stances on issues, not on their political party affiliation.

[fab]

Maybe you should start volunteering for the Libertarians!

[draggar]

No.

The sad thing is that I've started to get into politics. I'm now the secretary-treasurer or our HOA and if the elections go the way we hope they do (ex-president who is under investigation) I'll end up as the VP. :(

[barefoot]

When the HELL will the American voters WAKE THE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Republicans haven't done the job we wanted them to and neither have Democrats (if they had been then the Mass seat would have gone to a Dem - but it didn't. Yet people are still too afraid or ignorant to actually look at other candidates.

The news media have a HUGE impact on who we understand to be "electable candidates". They tell us that "polls" reveal that someone is a "front-runner" and we fall for it. At the same time, the media ignore those candidates with a more "controversial" or "radical" message, whether or not that message may in fact be a better, more realistic message. The media don't allow those candidates to participate with equal time in debates -- or even at all. As a result, very few voters realize those candidates are running for office, and if even if they do realize it, they're told those candidates are "fringe" and "unelectable".

To continue your "pill" analogy, the media are the drug companies and they want us to continue popping the same pills -- red or blue. If we want an alternative to red or blue, the drug companies tell us that no other pills will work or are even available. And people believe them.

It's not fear or ignorance, it's gullibility.

[katherine]

The bipartisan politics of the US essentially is a duopoly.
When they are tired with one party, voters swing to the other one, no matter how incompetent or corrupt their representatives are.

Sure, other parties/candidates do exist but they lack the exposure and critical mass, unlike other democracies where power is less concentrated. Not to mention the power of corporations with vested interests and lobbies of all kinds.
To sum up, in the US you have no real change-over of political power, therefore no choice. Worse, the differences between the two main parties are often blurred.

[Donald Aquilano]

If you're not happy then run for office. You don't strike me as an independent though you seem to lean to the left on most issues. The United States is based on a two party system and that will not change. Voting for third party candidates only does one thing.....it puts whoever you didn't want into power and its been proven again and again.

[draggar]

Voting for third party candidates only does one thing.....it puts whoever you didn't want into power and its been proven again and again.

And I thought we should vote for the candidate who we think would do the best job? So what's your solution?

Voting the same people back into office every 4/6/8 years hasn't done anything so why shouldn't people look into other candidates?

Unfortunately people like me will NEVER make it into the office. First, I'm not part of the rich elite. I don't have millions to spend on my own campaign and most companies would hate me in office so they would do whatever they could to keep me out. Not being a politician most states would laugh at me and not even consider putting me on their ballot. I also don't have the spare funds to not work for the year or so it takes to campaign.

But - I am starting out, even if it is small. I'm now the secretary-treasurer for our HOA and I am one of the two primary people helping with the research to get evidence of a case against our ex-president (right now we can only say misappropriation of funds) and with the support the two of us have I am pretty sure in a month I'll be the VP. Who knows what will happen in 2010 and 2011.

[Donald Aquilano]

And I thought we should vote for the candidate who we think would do the best job? So what's your solution?

Voting the same people back into office every 4/6/8 years hasn't done anything so why shouldn't people look into other candidates?

Unfortunately people like me will NEVER make it into the office. First, I'm not part of the rich elite. I don't have millions to spend on my own campaign and most companies would hate me in office so they would do whatever they could to keep me out. Not being a politician most states would laugh at me and not even consider putting me on their ballot. I also don't have the spare funds to not work for the year or so it takes to campaign.

But - I am starting out, even if it is small. I'm now the secretary-treasurer for our HOA and I am one of the two primary people helping with the research to get evidence of a case against our ex-president (right now we can only say misappropriation of funds) and with the support the two of us have I am pretty sure in a month I'll be the VP. Who knows what will happen in 2010 and 2011.

Of course we all should vote for the candidate that would do the best job but we also must be with reality and realize that its either going to be a Republican or Democrat. Better to change the parties from within them to go the third party route. If you remember that when Ross Perot ran for the presidency that even with all his money the only thing that happened was that he took votes away from poppa Bush and Bill Clinton got elected. Same happened with liberal Ralph Nader in Bush/Gore 2000 race.

[draggar]

So I should vote for the best candidate only if they're a republican or a democrat - and if not, try for #2, or #3, or #4 (and so on)?

That doesn't sound like a fair election, IMO.

[katherine]

The United States is based on a two party system and that will not change.

Not saying that it will never change, but democracy usually goes hand in hand with multi-party politics.
The US can hardly be described as multi-party with a duopoly lock on power.

In other countries party politics taking over the elected individuals is a problem too, but in the US you feel like you have no alternative...

[Gerry]

Party politics, as we have seen for decades, is stopping the growth of this country and grinding to a halt any hopes of recovery.

I do not know how to make it any differently, unfortunately, but I see party politics itself under attack by the citizenry.

This is a positive first step in change.

People point out the upset win in Mass. It was "upsetting" to the Dems. Fact is, even though Mass. has been a blue state for decades, there are more registered independent voters in Mass than any other party. So, it was the independents that made the difference. At one time, people looked upon independents as a scourge or even a subversive form of Communism. Seriously, they are treated even today as a third party citizen. Here in NC, they are not allowed to vote in local primaries.

It is looking more and more that people in general do not want the labels the Republican or Democrat possess and place on people. Party think/speak is dead or dying.

Vote for the best person, candidate, and message. Don't vote for the party.