Quantcast

Comments about ‘Reader's response: Are the 2 major parties beyond fixing?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 22 2014 5:53 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Brer Rabbit
Spanish Fork, UT

The problem is that not enough people get involved with the nomination process, and so are left to choose what those who are involved give them. The rest is left up to the media to provide voters with enough 30 second bites and clips to convince them to vote for whoever paid for the ad. The founding fathers tried to avoid political parties with the Electoral College, but that hasn't worked. The best option would be for the people to take control of one party or the other.

As for Term Limits, forget it. It would take a Constitutional Amendment and two thirds of both houses would never agree to such a thing. Yes they did it to the president, but not to themselves. The Constitution provides for term limits of 2 years for the House, and 6 for the Senate. When the people decide to get rid of someone they have the ability to do it. In 2008 Utah got rid of Rep Chris Cannon and in 2010 Utah "term limited" Senator Bennett. There is an alternate method of amending the Constitution, but so far the states haven't been willing to use it.

The main problem is citizen apathy.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Those whining about term limits re-elected Orrin Hatch 7 times for 42 years.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

I don't care for or against the concept of parties, or how many parties, but I note the observation that our current two party system is a natural evolution of the process. As the last "tweet" quoted stated, the two current parties we have now encompass the nation's interests; a third party could really do nothing but emphasize a particular aspect already covered, in some broad way, by either the Republicans or the Democrats.

Green party? Environmentalism, Democrats.
Tea party? Fiscal responsibility, Republicans.
Libertarians? Lack of social restrictions, Democrats.
Constitutionalists? Founding values, Republicans.

That said, I am concerned with power balances that parties bring; in the last few years especially we've seen one absolutely dominate the other in tyrannical fashion.

Mitt Romney was a perfect example of the kind of politician people claim to want, but also an example of why it's not that simple. Despite his moderation, Democrats don't like him because he's Republican, and commence with typical out-of-context propaganda. Meanwhile, Republicans don't like him because he's not "Republican" enough. Atheists don't like him because he's Christian, Christians don't like him because he's Mormon.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The tea party is the problem. No party can answer unilateral demands without totalitarianism.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

one vote: "The tea party is the problem. No party can answer unilateral demands without totalitarianism."

Then how does the Democrat party answer the unilateral demands of the environmentalist, the unions, and the communists with being totalitarian....um...OK...never mind. I see your point.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Nothing in either party is broken that term limits would not fix!

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Yes.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Well... at least ONE of them is...

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments