> > Let's face it; Beat Bush is the number one agenda among Democrats.
>
> Unfortunately, that's the way American politics have gone. When I was first able to vote, I was looking forward to voting so I could put my favored candidate in the big chair. After voting a few times, I've come to realize in a society with two political parties that dominate the elections, people don't vote for a candidate. They vote against the other guy.

True enough. And I'm going to risk that there's a reason for that, and, furthermore, that it has a whole lot more to do with elementary psychology than it does with corruption. And, even more further, that it's basically the same reason that the two-party system is roughly inevitable. Allow me to philosophise for a moment.

People are fundamentally lazy. Everyone in the world gets up in arms about how education will solve so many problems, and then gets totally frustrated when, although totally correct, the idea simply doesn't work. The reason isn't because the education isn't being provided, it's simply because people are lazy, and by and large can't be arsed to be educated. And convincing people to vote in favour of your candidate because of all the things he'll do right requires educating them; first, they need to understand exactly what it is that your candidate proposes, and then they need to understand the issues in the background (which is to say, understanding a candidate's economic plans without understanding economics is pointless). Do you think people can honestly be bothered to learn all that when they can watch wrestling instead? Hells no. The information is readily available, mind, and the government isn't plotting to keep the people in the dark - the government doesn't *need* to. The people will keep themselves in the dark just fine, thank you. So, since the people don't understand the benefits of different candidates' platforms, a different way of telling them apart must be found. And what is easy to understand is smear campaigns. If I run for president, and I run ads that say "President Bush wants to eat your dog," everyone who sees that ad understands it. And nobody's going to be misled into thinking it's a good thing. So, to sum up, the reason elections are always "against the other guy" is simply because it's easier to get people to oppose something than it is to get people to support something.

Which brings us to the two-party system. Its inevitabiliy is rooted in the same principle: people are lazy and don't want to learn. But you know what's easy? Dichotomies. Dichotomies are easy for people to understand, and easy to get people to favour one side of. That's why so many things are dichotomised: yes and no, good and evil, black and white, right and left, right and wrong, us and them. It's a fundamentally ingrained part of the system we've been provided with by nature: in order to survive, we divide things into categories. Everything we see is food or not-food. Everyone we meet is one of us or one of them. Why? Because, as any computer engineer could tell you, dichotomies are easy, quick, and relatively error-free. What they *aren't* is sophisticated. But, for better or for worse, that's how people will see things. A system involving more than two parties leads to confusion, and that's why there have never been more than two major parties in American history. Out of the clutter of the early nineteenth century arose the Democrats and the Whigs. When the Free Soil / Republican party came to power, the Whigs died out. And it's not because there aren't enough people or enough different ideas to make more than two groups; it's because people can't comprehend multiple options. Want a simple example of this? How many people have you met who think it's terribly witty, or an amazingly powerful argument against the existence of God, to ask "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" That's looking at it from the basic human system that says the answer must be either "yes" or "no." And it's a perfect example of a situation that is limited by human logic and language.

In other words, the two-party system exists almost by default, to complement human laziness and lack of understanding. I suspect you'll find that most people favour one party over the other, and view it as an "us and them" situation rather than a discussion of issues. It amuses me greatly that that gets blamed on governmental corruption and problems with the system when it's fundamentally a construct from outside the system in the first place, sustained by laziness and unwillingness to understand.

If you want to fix the system, teach people. But good luck getting them to listen.

> -F "ooo. check out the old school USEnet way I changed the subject line" P

- Dar "FIRST POST FAGORTS" ien