-7 votes

The Republican Party is Dead. The US Needs Democracy.

I'm an old guy. This isn't the first time I've mentioned that. Being an old guy means that I've seen, tried, and experienced a lot of things; more things that my younger colleagues. When I first heard of the plan to rebuild the Republican Party from the ground up, I sighed a bit. Then I promised myself to write about it after everyone else could review the experience in hindsight.

Congratulations, first of all, for the successes that took place during this election period. Local party officials were ousted and replaced with honest conservatives, worthy opponents of the two-party collusion. The success was powerful enough so that there was even a little bleed through at the Republican National Convention. After being manipulated, Maine's delegation walked out. And then there was this: Minnesota, where we are very proud of our state Republican Party, which runs a fair convention with integrity, casts 33 votes for Ron Paul, 1 vote for Senator Rick Santorum, and 6 votes for Governor Romney.

But those of you who have been paying attention (and I'm guessing that includes many who will read this article) know that most local and state conventions were not held with the same level of integrity as the Minnesota state convention. (related article: Romney Nomination May Be Contested)

......

Continue reading at original site: The Republican Party is Dead. The US Needs Democracy.

.....

This is the challenge I propose. Give the United States a multi-party system. Free it of the corruption of the two-party system. Consider the success you had during this election and start imagining movement toward constitutional amendments in the states and to the US Constitution.

To help get things rolling, I've created a Google discussion forum: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/multipartyamerica and am building a project website: https://sites.google.com/site/multipartyamerica/home. Please not that I created the forum and website just now and will continue to develop them. Feel free to join in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Definition of a Republic

The definition of a Republic does not include election fraud.

e·lec·tion /iˈlekSHən/ : has to do with democracy

Election fraud is treason. It's a coup.

Correlation does not prove causality!

We need a return to

We need a return to republicanism in the truest sense of the word: a republic where 99% can't rule over 1% in tyranny. Where everyone has basic individual rights, not where groups have rights and special privileges. Where we all have a right to our property, and sound money that cannot be debased on the whims of ivy league professors to bailout institutions which made risky bets and lost.

How about....

No parties at all. Just like the beginning....

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

I hate to hear about "democracy". A democracy is a tyranny

where 49/51 are not represented. Too bad that we have strayed so far from the constitution. Let's change the Republican Party to the Constitution Party. We are the future. Restore the republic!

No...

the US needs what it used to have: a constitutional republic, in which the people send out our best, brightest, and most informed patriots to decide the future of our nation. If it were up to me, I'd also amend the Constitution in order to abolish all political parties. The partisan construct has never accomplished anything and allows for criminal machines to buy influence, power, and elections.

Now, some might complain that, without political parties, voting would become too intimidating and overwhelming. I'd argue that this is a good thing: if you're too lazy or too overwhelmed to do your research and get informed, step aside and let people who know what they're doing cast the majority vote.

I don't play, I commission the league.

nah ..

Very little of US history was non-partisan. Basically, you got Washington and the first representatives and then parties were formed. The Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party were created in the 1790s. IN other words, the idea of a non-partisan political was never realized. There is no non-partisan past for anyone to admire. If you also look at the disagreements during the development of the Constitution, you'll see some clear partisanship even there; even though they didn't assign party names to it.

I've pointed out on several occasions that the two theoretical options are to outlaw political parties and assure that their machines are dismantled and going with the multi-party system. Outlawing political parties would violate freedom of association and speech and other rights. It's not practical, nor do I think it desirable.

Correlation does not prove causality!

Here's what Ron Paul said.

Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, link below besides being featured at TheDailyPaul.com just now. He said …. read carefully and listen to what he says in the video: “I'll tell you what. The system is very biased. We talk a lot about democracy. We send our troops overseas. We want to spread democracy. Democracy isn't all that healthy in this country because if you're in a third party you don't get in the debates. The truth is if I were to try the last several years to do exactly what I have done in a third party I probably wouldn't have made it to your show. And there is something about it; if you ever come to the conclusion, heaven forbid, that the two parties aren't all that different, then what is left?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSGNE07LHXI

Correlation does not prove causality!

More parties would be better; NO parties would be best

That's just my opinion.

Food for thought

Democracy is NEVER stable and is never the answer, it always leads to Oligarchy. Republic only leads there by first switching closer to a democracy then either directly from Democracy to an Oligarchy or from democracy to anarchy to oligarchy.

This video explains the 5 forms of government Anarchy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDS1OHk7Lf8

Once again ...

... as with the many times said in posts below; there is no suggestion in the article of changing the system from a republic to a pure democracy. You're on the wrong track.

Correlation does not prove causality!

Democracy is the problem!

Thats a great JB video, it should be shown in every civics class in the country, if they still have civics in the public schools.
Gotta love the John Birchers! (some times)
http://www.jbs.org/

The 2 party system is 100% of the problem

The whole point of the Judicial/legislative/executive branch is to seperate the powers to protect the minority.

Parties unite the branches removing the checks against eachother.

What we need is to outlaw anyone in or affiliated with a political party from serving in congress.

Each member needs to be specifically a state representative with no affiliation other than state affiliation.

Dont Abandon your Constitutional Rebuplic.Decent Candidates.!.

.

BAZZA MAC

LOL!

Once again, there is no suggestion in the article that a Constitutional republic should be abandoned. BTW: The two-party system isn't in the Constitution.

Correlation does not prove causality!

coming to the conclusion ...

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it was bad timing to post this article here. You guys are understandably depressed right now and nothing is worth considering. It's all bad. There's no use.

Maybe later.

Correlation does not prove causality!

I tried commenting on your

I tried commenting on your blog, but it did not work, so I will post here:

The legitimate purpose of a government is to augment the individual’s right to protect his life, liberty and property with a collective power to protect the individual’s life, liberty and property. It is not possible for an individual to legitimately empower a government based upon a right he/she did not first possess himself/herself. While I agree that a multiparty system would more accurately reflect the desires of the people, those desires may well (and do already) violate the individual’s rights. In contrast, in an environment with the legitimate rule of law is intact (that is where the government’s powers do not constitute usurpations), it is more or less irrelevant how many political parties there are, because the rights of the individual are protected (if the rights of the individual are already protected, what is left to legitimately have a vote about?). I would therefore advocate more strongly for the return to the legitimate rule of law than I would for multiple political parties.

but here's the thing ....

Here's the thing. You can argue all you want, but what will get the job done? Arguing won't. You need to be able to put people in power who will uphold the rule of law. We know have two parties, monopolizing power, who will not do that. Any attempt to vote for someone who will do that doesn't count because the bosses in each party won't allow a candidate with those views to succeed.

The two choices are bloody revolution or democracy. If you choose bloody revolution, then you might as well accept that it will be needed again and again instead of elections.

Correlation does not prove causality!

It seems that any viewpoint

It seems that any viewpoint counter to yours is "arguing", but you expressing yours is not. There may be times where that could be a valid position, but I would personally not consider this to be one of those.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the ends justify the means, no matter how illegitimate the means are. This sounds like moral relativism to me, the prevalence of which got us into this mess, and which is preventing us from getting out of it.

I thought you were arguing that there should be more choices. I find it ironic that you at the same time argue that there are only two possible paths, decided upon by you. I'm very sorry that you see no other alternatives, but they do exist, whether you can see them or not.

If you choose democracy, you might as well accept that you will be stuck with it (At best, since it is likely to devolve into communism or fascism. It always does, and history backs me up on this). It is in fact democracy that has destroyed our republic. More of the same will not solve it (just as borrowing money does not reduce debt).

Democracy

Is a tactic. What we need is the respect of individual rights and an understanding of the proper role of government.

democracy ...

Democracy is the thing we're supposed to be practicing when we have elections, like the one that's underway right now. We're not going to stop having elections, and there's no reason to think there's a choice between democracy and respect for individual rights etc. In fact, you have a right to participate in elections, including the right to vote. It's an individual right. It should be respected enough to matter.

Correlation does not prove causality!

democracy is mob rule, or as

democracy is mob rule, or as the founding fathers put it, 2 wolves and 1 sheep to vote on whats for dinner?

Bon appetit!

we need a constitutional

we need a constitutional Republic as a foundation, than a well informed, educated,polite, humane, armed society can thrive and show the next step in human evolution

How are you going to have that ...

You can dream of course. But when the people controlling the two-parties won't allow it, it's a predicament. There's got to be some way out of that. I wonder if anyone will make a suggestion.

Correlation does not prove causality!

Wow dreams huh?, your

Wow dreams huh?, your imagination is pretty stagnant.

Wont allow it??, they have a system of control of resources,information, and finance for over 100 years we are fighting it right now, the masses are not awake so we will lose the battles building a foundation of empirical data of Austrian free market politics and economics, it will take years of active engagement to expose the system then it crumbles, because at the end of the day is a chain of obedience not a chain of command.

Libertarian Party should be filled and combined with others sick of the status quo. Capital resources accumulate building a viable party and movement with brand recognition, To act as a light in black for all generations and individuals to flock, creating a true forum for the Liberty factions, and over the next 10 years a Libertarian will be know just as well as a neo con and a progressive. It will be easier as time goes especially as the economy deteriates we have spoken time will prove us right or wrong, the worse it gets it transfers merit to the cause

Here's a tribute ...

... to your two-party system:

Ron Paul washes his hands of Keynesian, fiscally irresponsible Republican party

Correlation does not prove causality!

2 party system

is not a republic its many parties based on representative system, the electoral college (the convention primaries) was a relic forgotten because it was on cruise control of the system then they changed the rules mid convention to become even more fascist, and made it apparent what the system is just like Ron Paul and the Mises crew espoused from the beginning

The system we are in is a corporatism and fascism, the whims of men and the majority are the opposite of a republic, of informed political reps. enforced by a WELL INFORMED

I read the article.

Your goal is not less government--it is different government. My oppressor will no longer be a donkey or an elephant, it will be one of a whole zoo full of animals.

It does not matter how many parties we have when the vaaaaaast majority of the voting population is dependent on the government physically, financially, or idealogically.

You are planting a seed on concrete.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

You weren't paying attention ...

I guess you didn't notice that Ron Paul led in national polls even while being ignored and maligned by Big Media, or that the only gains Romney / Ryan are making is by promising to be small government conservatives (until the new group of fools realizes they're lying).

What good is the de facto two-party system doing for you? It just closed out your favorite candidate, who happens to be the most popular candidate in the country.

Correlation does not prove causality!

Oh but I did pay attention.

Ron Paul never led in any national poll. The highest he got was second place, somewhere in the mid 20s I believe. He beat or tied Obama in a couple head to heads. That being said, that's still an incredible achievement and sign of hope.

This group of people who Romney/Ryan is promising small government to is the same group of people who still waves incense in front of the images of Reagan and Bush. Perhaps they were all 'tricked' by Reagan, Bush, and Romney, and decades and decades from now they will fall to their knees and repent and say 'how could i be so foolish!'. Or, perhaps they knew the promises were empty all along. Maybe these people don't want less government--they just want more of their kind of government.

I do not support or defend the two party system. You keep wrestling with that straw man and I keep telling you I don't support the two party system.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Not really ...

It's certainly not a "straw man." It's the subject of the posted article and the topic of discussion. And actually, I pointed out that you defended the two-party system with an argument straight out of the two-party system propaganda handbook. Your example pretending to demonstrate that multi-party systems don't work was Greece. Their multi-party system isn't the problem in Greece, nor is it in Italy, I pointed out. You're using a default strategy to defend ... i.e. arguing that there's no good reason to change it.

And yes, Ron Paul was regularly either tied with or ahead of Obama in national match-up polls even while being ignored and maligned by Big Media, while Romney remained mostly behind both of them. I'm surprised that you won't defend Ron Paul with the facts. I usually assume that people who participate in discussions here have been Ron Paul supporters and know about his campaign.

Correlation does not prove causality!