We all know that two-party politics suck. Practically nobody agrees 100% with either of our two major parties, and yet they are our only choices. We are forced to choose the lesser of two evils in our judgment instead of being given more choices (click here for an article about a 12-party system.) According to an interesting Reuters article that I read earlier, that might change!
Scuttlebutt is that Michael Bloomberg, the independently wealthy mayor of New York City, is possibly considering a run for the white house. To make the speculation all the more delicious, senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) is also said to be considering an independant run, and the two men recently dined together to stir the pot of speculation.
As if it weren't exciting enough that the two men might run independently together, The Unity '08 effort is making a great deal of fuss and is trying to convince people to vote for third parties in the upcoming elections. If enough effort is made and if Hagel and Bloomberg are willing to run together on a third-party ticket, they might just be able to make a significant enough impact to change American politics altogether. Furthermore, since the two mens combined wealth would be enough for them to fund an election on their own, they might be a little bit less in the pocket of special interest lobbies.
It seems obvious to me that third-party politics are the way to go. The Republicans and the Democrats have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the combined IQ of both parties might approach that of cabbage; why not give someone else a chance to run the country for a change?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Haha I just did a blog about that :) Seems like great minds DO think alike,lol
-------------------------------------------------------
See my blog and I'll love you forever! Or at least temporarily: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
I noticed that right after I published this one. Sorry about that! =)
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
Well I don't want to start an argument, but from what I have learned of politics, sometimes, when one votes for the third party candidate, it ends up working against the "right" candidate. (Such as those who might have voted for Nader when they could have voted for Kerry, which would have put Kerry possibly in office and not Bush) but anyway...
My point is, that third party candidates often do not get enough votes, so one should choose the best of a bad lot of Republicans and Dems, choose the lesser evil, I guess.
That's true, but it sounds as if the new guys might be able to make it work. And it's better to try and change a broken system than to perpetuate it out of convenience.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)