There’s quite a bit or worrying lately in Europe about the creeping Islamization that is occurring. We are seeing the slow buildup of tensions between the values that most European hold and the barbaric ones proposed in the Qu’ran and the Hadith.
Many people, including me, are quite annoyed in the way that our governments and international bodies are not only caving in to Islamic demands, but are actually protecting their hateful doctrine. Instead of seeing a strong secular opposition to the demands of religious extremists, they are given even more rights and more entitlements than any other European.
What most appals me is how the politicians who are supposedly representing us, instead cater to the religious extremist vocal minority, simply because it’s a very nice chunk of a voting block. Now that wouldn’t be much a problem if our republics were working as they should, as these pandering leaders could simply be voted out, but this is not really happening.
The same parties who at one point decide to pander to religion, end up simply getting re-elected, if not in the next election, at the one after that. Why? Because people will still vote them up, no matter what they do. It’s because people do not vote with their mind and based on previous events. They vote with tradition.
This is one the biggest failing of the bipartisan system most countries have ended up with.
- You have two political parties that are neck-to-neck in each election. This is because the largest part of the electoral body traditionally votes for the same party and most are under the impression that not voting either, is the same as voting for the opposition.
- Because these parties are so close in vote-count and because the traditional members of each cannot be swayed, the only ones who can tip the scales are the undecided voters.
- Politicians thus tend to focus on appeasing what looks like the largest party of undecided which might make the difference in the next election.
- The vocal minorities, always look as if they have a much bigger sway and presense than reality.
- Religious extremists tend to be very vocal.
And there you have it. When politicians and political parties know that your vote is certain, no matter what they do, they will not look into your interests. They will try to appeal to the people who’s votes are not certain to go in either way and since they know you won’t dare to do anything else than keep voting for them, they will erode your freedoms, your rights and your society to appease the undecided voters.
The bipartisan system does not work. It has shown it does not work in every country that has achieved it as the only thing that ends up happening is that power passes from one party to the other and society gets a little bit worse with each election.
In Europe, this situation becomes even worse now. With the insertion of Muslims as a voting block, the only way to appease them is to push your society closer and closer to Sharia law as they will inadvertently vote for the party that does.
It is this why I am absolutely opposed to voting for any party that acts or has acted like that in the past. I do not care if not voting for the lesser evil will lead the “larger evil” to take place. I’d rather vote with my conscience than be a party to the dissolution of my freedom.
If we, as Secularists do not withhold our votes from the politicians who will move us towards theocracy in their attempt to appease the very same people we oppose, then we are consigning simply to the slow death of our societies and our eventual marginalization.
And not only is it our duty not to vote for them, but we should be telling them loud and clear, before and after each election why they did not get our vote. Perhaps then they might start listening.
18 thoughts on “How bipartisanism erodes society”
I am not going to vote for a lesser evil. ( http://www.summeroflovecraft.com/images/Cthulhu-e…) you surely know what I mean.. 😉
While obama is much much better than the opposition, he's still part of the problem. It's not just Obama that rules you, but the whole corrupted Democratic party
No worries, you can always delete. Mine too however…weird.
But the question is… how the heck do we change this? I mean, the US *used* to have multiple parties but they eventually consolidated into just the two. I assume the same thing happened to the bipartisan European countries. The only way I see it happening in the US is if we completely restructure the voting system into instant run-off voting or some other system that lets people choose first, second, third, etc choices instead of WANTING to vote Green or Libertarian but holding their nose and voting Democrat instead because they don't want the Republicans to win, all the while getting screwed over by the Dems only marginally less often than they get screwed over by the Repubs.
In the US we don't even have a provision like that. It's simple "majority rules" as far as elections are concerned and Congresscritters don't even have term limits, so once they're in office the ONLY accountability they have is when it comes time to be re-elected, in which case most people vote based on simple party loyalty, and the ones that are actually paying attention vote for the Democrat even if they don't think he's doing a good job, just because they think the Republican will do a worse job.
And to make it even worse, we don't have any kind of viable third party here. Hell, I don't even know who the Green or Libertarian candidates are right now.
You can only change it if your realize that your single vote does not make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I don't know the specifics in your case but for example, in my homecountry, if a political party cannot achieve to get at least 40% of the votes of all the people who voted then all decisions of the government have to come to a vote between all the parties who's representatives were elected. Were you to vote your party of choice, and that party got representatives in the senate or whatever your have, then that would mean less democrat and republican senators, less power to filibuster, more arguments etc.
In any case, in my eyes, to correct thing to do is always vote with your consience, as insignificant as that vote may be. Not to hold "hold your nose" so that the lesser evil may come to be. In all this years, isn't it obvious that this tactic just does not work?
I absolutely think we need more than two parties in Congress, I just don't know how it can practically come about given the system we currently have.
I don't mean that I expect them to have the press coverage that the Big Two do, just that they're so "third party" that the only way to even know that they exist is to go look them up.
Pirate Party?? *wikis* Arrr, matey!
Yes, majority rules is always but there are limits, I mean, when you have 51/49 votes, doesn't it mean that the democrats have a bit of control as well? If congress is the one that control the presidents power, doesn't it make sense to put good people from other parties to the congress for more varied voices?
Have you looked? If you're expecting the third parties to have a lot of dough to put their face on camera as much as the major ones, you'll be waiting for a while. Not only do you have the Greens and Libertarians, but also others like the Pirate Party.
So it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
Looks like they want to loosen intellectual property and copyright laws. I think that they should choose a better name! Might as well call yourself the "Thievery Party".
Even if you agree that it is not theft the name "pirate" has that connotation, among others.
Depends on whom you ask. For the younger generation, not necessarily.
Comments are closed.