>I'm not necessarily for making qualifying for ballots harder-- although the
>California governors race in the recall election was hardly an
>advertisement for easy qualification. But if any party can't make the
>pretty basic threshholds required under most state laws, they don't have
>any chance of victory, so they are just playing to be spoilers by
>definition.
The 19th century first-past-the-post system of counting votes is the cause of this, not third or fourth parties. It is a disturbing and anti-democratic mind-set that would claim that minorities should be totally excluded from all political influence in a democracy.
Americans talk about democracy, I've noticed, but generally speaking are hostile to it in practice. In fact I'm starting to wonder if they even understand what it means. For example in the "Democracy and Constitutional Rights" thread, Miles Jackson seemed very hostile to the idea that there should be any restraints on majority rule. Only Justin defended constitutional democracy against the grotesque idea of totalitarian democracy.
The rule of law and constitutional restraints on democratic rule is an essential element of democracy. Minorities must be protected against the excesses of the majority. But this isn't enough, minorities also need some input into political government as well. They don't in the US and as a result the US is the very weakest form of democracy. Hardly a democracy at all.
Not only because of the outdated and primitive electoral system, but primarily I suspect because most Americans don't really understand or even like the idea of democracy. Sure, they do a lot of chest-thumping about it, they give lip-service to it like no other people in the world.
But methinks they doth protest too much.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas