Published: Wednesday, Jan. 22 2014 5:53 p.m. MST
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.
Those whining about term limits re-elected Orrin Hatch 7 times for 42 years.
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.
The tea party is the problem. No party can answer unilateral demands without
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.
Nothing in either party is broken that term limits would not fix!
Well... at least ONE of them is...
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments