Reader's response: Are the 2 major parties beyond fixing?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:13 p.m.

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

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:06 p.m.


  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:25 a.m.

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

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    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 mind. I see your point.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:24 a.m.

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

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:42 p.m.

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

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    IMO the only way Conservatives can win elections... is to focus on spending.

    Until the people are fed up with debt and government spending (even if it benefits them), and the majority are ready to talk turkey on spending (like we were when Regan was elected, and when the GOP's Contract with America lead to the GOP being elected in a landslide (even though Clinton was President)... that's the only card they hold (spending and debt).


    As long as Democrats and the media can keep people convinced that spending isn't a problem, and debt isn't a problem... Conservatives will continue coming up just a little short.

    Once that crisis is on the doorstep, undeniable, and possibly even too late.... Americans will RUN to Conservatives in droves (like they have in the past). I don't know if we are there yet. And I don't know IF we will get there before it's too late.


    There is a financial crisis coming that will make 2009 look like a bump. If Democrats and the liberal media fail to convince the people that the 300lb gorilla is not in the room... Conservatives will win again.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    A recent Gallop poll showed that 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative,
    35% moderate and only 21% liberal. Based upon those numbers Republicans should be sweeping elections right and left. Why arn't they? Probably because the Democrats have done a good job in convincing the moderates that the Democrat Party is more moderate than it really is. The Republicans need to find a way to get beyond the mainstream media narrative, like Reagan did, and pull in many many more moderates. That along with most conservatives voting Republican should carry the day in many elections where Democrats are now winning. More than even good candidates, the Republicans need some good PR.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    louie and one old man

    I totally agree with the term limits for Congress and one 6 year term for President. Unfortunately, those would require Constitutional amendments. Not an easy thing to do. The Surpreme Court ruled that under existing Constitutional law term limits for Congress was not constitutional.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    I have never been a Democrat (currently 31%),
    I used to be a Republican back in the 70's - early 80's (currently ever worse at 25%) -
    until they left me and many others behind.

    I am now with the majority of Americans being un-affilated (at 42%).

    We didn't move of change -- the parties did.

    BTW --
    for all the fawning, remenising, and worshipping by the Tea-Party --
    Ronlad Reagan would be crucified by the GOP today.

    He passed gun and assault weapon bans,
    signed abortion legislation,
    raised the debt ceiling 17 times,
    increased the size and scope of the Federal Government,
    granted amesty to illegal immigrants,
    granted universal emergency care to ALL people, regardless of insurance or ability to pay,
    and we had higher taxes than we have today.

    You can't say you love Ronald Reagan,
    and then hate everything he did.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    "When was the last time a reporter referred to Obama, Hillary, Reid, or Polosi with either the label "left-wing" or "extremist"."

    Obama is far from "left-wing" or "extremist". Certainly left of center, but thats about it. Same as Clinton and even Reid.

    And Pelosi? I dont care what you call her. I am no fan.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    There used to be both moderate and extreme elements of both parties holding office. There were moderate Democrats and left-wing extremists, moderate Republicans and right-wing extremists.

    I don't know if it is simply because the liberal press is so biased in its reporting or because there is no longer a significant difference between elements in the Democratic Party; but the term "left-wing extremist" has all but disappeared from the discussion.

    We hear all day about the "right-wing extremists" and the "tea-party extremists" causing this huge divide in the Republican Party, but narry a word about all those ultra-liberals on the other side. When was the last time a reporter referred to Obama, Hillary, Reid, or Polosi with either the label "left-wing" or "extremist". Even Fox News seems to go soft on those labels for Democrats.

    I'm sure all the liberal commentors here will jump on that statement by assuring everyone that "those people are mainstream", but they are as far from center as Mike Lee and Ted Cruze.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    mark from Montana writes

    "I belong to the Disgusted Party. I am disgusted by pretty much all of our politicians. I would not be part of a party that has Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the head. Same with a party that has Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz and others helping to write its platform."

    While I completely agree with what you wrote, it will get you labeled as a liberal.

    If we got the corporate and union influence (meaning $$) out of politics, our politicians would not want to serve for a lifetime. As it stands, they wield far too much power because of the $$.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Beyond fixing? In a word - YES!! At least if the status quo continues then the US is doomed. We are all doomed. There are however some solutions...

    TERM LIMITS!! For the senate two 6 year terms. For the house four 2 year terms. Congress is not going to vote for this on their own - people are going to have to hold their feet to the fire and demand it. Don't do it and you are voted OUT. These career politicians have ruined this country.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @The Final Word
    "Right now we have 2 parties and they are both liberal."

    Based on DW-NOMINATE scores the current Republican house caucus is the most conservative there has ever been in the entire database of those scores.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Mark from Montana,
    There are a lot of people in your party (the "I am disgusted by pretty much all of our politicians" party).

    But that just puts you (and me) in a frustrating position. Now you have 2 options:
    1. You can waste your vote (and vote for somebody who has absolutely no chance of winning) 2. You can use your vote grudgingly for one of the candidates who actually has a chance of winning AND you agree with on some things. He's not your first choice, but he's better than the other one you totally don't want.

    I tried both options. I didn't vote for George Bush Sr. The first time he won anyway, and it was nice because I didn't vote for him so I could complain about the few things I didn't like about his policies. The second time he lost... and I got Bill Clinton. I realized I was wasting my vote and changed to option #2 from then on. Neither option is very satisfying.

    Political party's aren't going away. Even if the Republican party is destroyed... something similar will take it's place. Nature abhors a vacuum.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    How about term limits for our state officers? Say, 8 years for the state house and 10 years for the state senate?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    And a single six year term for president.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    term limits: 12 years for a senator and 10 years for a congressman

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    I belong to the Disgusted Party. I am disgusted by pretty much all of our politicians. I would not be part of a party that has Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the head. Same with a party that has Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz and others helping to write its platform.

    There are a great many common sense solutions out there waiting to find a politician willing to put them to use. Unfortunately, nobody with money will back them.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Our Founding Fathers set up a House of Representatives so the people could have a say, a Senate of state legislature appointees (a collection of the wise), and a President elected by committees from each state (the Electoral College). The idea was to suppress mobocracy. We now have mobocracy. The parties are not the problem, it is our electorate. We need to cut federal spending by 650 billion dollars (a year) just to have a balanced budget. Any office seeker who pushes for this will not be elected, or if an office holder, will be fired.

  • The Final Word Alpine, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Ya, we saw what a third party candidate did the year Perot ran for President. It just enabled the other party win with a minority which means the majority did not want who won. That worked out real well.

    Right now we have 2 parties and they are both liberal. The democrats have moved further left and the republicans are chasing them left in order to win elections with all the purchased votes.

    If you don't appeal to the people who want something for nothing you can't win national elections anymore. Our last presidential election proved that. You have to exploit the poor and minority voters. Our government has successfully/intentionally grown that voter base so they swing elections.

    Unfortunately statistically poverty is worse than when he took office 6 years ago but the poor and minorities don't seem to realize they are just being used for political gain.

    It is shameful.

    Nonetheless we need a new party but the existing parties will ensure that does not happen. That would threaten their power.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    The answer is not more political parties. We are too diverse for that. What we need is something like an instant runoff where voters rank preferences for the individual candidates. The candidate that is most appealing to the most voters will be the Presidcent. To avoid rancor between the President and Vice President, the President and Vice President run as a team.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    We live in an age when change is happening faster and faster. Conditions are ripe for the appearance of a 3rd party, and when it does it will happen faster than anyone imagines.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Yes they are beyond fixing.

    They are both a disaster. One is worse than the other though in terms of how hard they work to tax peoples hard earned money to give to those who don't in order to buy their votes. Why do you think republican presidential candidates have little appeal? T

    They don't pander to the free loaders and the other party has been successful at increasing the amount of free loaders exponentially.

    Both parties are corrupt though no mistake about that.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    I wish every candidate had to stand on their own merits as well... But we all know that's never going to happen.

    I also wish there were no political parties.... but we know that isn't going to change until their supporters and their funding leave them (not gonna happen).

    I also wish we had term limits... again... it will never happen.

    When people climb to the top of the political ladder.... when they get there they want to STAY there. They have usually spent a good amount of their own time and their own money (and a lot of other people's money) to get there. So they aren't going to want to just leave.

    And they are the people who make the laws... do you think they are going to even PROPOSE a law that means they are going to have to give up what they have worked their whole life to achieve? Mush less pass it...

    I don't.

    This is fun to talk about but it's never going to happen.