Ventura is a paleolibertarian who takes all sort of conspiracy theories seriously and Howard Stern is a shock jock/radio show host/comedian whose politics are not well known. His Presidential web page is here.
One of Ventura's platform planks is scrapping the political party system by outlawing political parties.
Would you vote for them if only to keep a major party candidate out of the White House?
He'd probably be in a worse position than Obama.
Hasn't seem to matter for the last 50 years, why should it matter now?
The desire to get rid of the parties is as old as the United States itself. At least one founding father was heard to complain about it. Washington was technically neither a Federalist nor a Democratic-Republican but his sympathies apparently lay with the Federalists most of the time.
When you have disputes over policy and the same groups of people end up together no matter what the issue is, they will inevitably find they are more effective at defeating those other guys (who are wrong all the fricking time, what the hell is wrong with them?!?!) if they form a more permanent organization, and you have your political party.
It's a curious phenomenon actually. Issues as disparate as government-provided medical care, abortion, guns, when to go to war, etc. and by and large you will find the same people grouped together. One would think that it'd be more random; Diane Feinstein and Rand Paul would surely agree on some oddball issue. Thomas Sowell tried to argue for a fundamental difference in visions of human nature being at the root of things, but I never finished reading the series as the last two books never (to my knowledge) came out in paperback. If I recall correctly, the "conservatives" tended to think that fundamentally, humans were flawed (fundamentally selfish) and that institutions needed to either counter or re-channel this, versus liberals who thought humans could be educated/indoctrinated out of this if you only got to them young enough. Although somewhat illuminating it doesn't explain everything, and it certainly doesn't explain everyone; most people seem to believe one way and vote the other ("if you think that then what on earth are you doing voting for them?!?!"), or it's totally random, or they eschew such philosophical considerations entirely and just vote for whichever party they believe will deliver the most taxpayer money to them.
A lot of third parties break this paradigm, and end up mixing-and-matching issues in ways that won't fly with most people. If Sowell is right, the ideologies represented by them are fundamentally doomed, though sometimes a third party will "pivot", change its emphasis, start to look more like one of the two visions he enunciated, and if one of the majors is weak, sweep it aside.
I've long felt that there's a fallacy behind trying to operate even a representative democracy (a republic as opposed to a true democracy) in that it can never really be satisfactory.
Let's take an overly-simplified example (by which I mean real world examples can be far more complicated, difficult, and irresolvable).
Let's imagine an election with three main issues: A, B, and C.
Candidate 1 is for A and B but not S.
Candidate 2 is for B and S but not A.
You are pro all three. What satisfactory vote do you have?
And welcome to my life.
I think I read that George Washington cautioned us against political parties. As it is now, there is little real choice.
We live in an Empire, all Empires fail, the American Empire is in decline, history is replete with failed Empires, our Empire will fail as well.
The American system of government is controlled by a small percentage of individuals who benefit greatly from the current system, they will not change such a system.
They grasp the neck of the Golden Goose and squeeze in the desperate hope for more golden eggs...the goose died some time ago.
The collapse is inevitable. :(
Agreed, Gregg. Even though the 1% has mostly gone multi-natoinal, there is no sound alternative for their riches when the US currency is finally recognized as worthless. Gold won't be worth anything without a production market whence goods may be purchased and there won't be any production market like we currently have once Americans are unable to pay for their consumption.
If things were to get really, really, really bad, things like food, clean water, and fire wood would be worth far more than gold. We might end up on a wood standard. (I'm only half joking.)
A toaster would be far more valuable than hyperinflated fiat money in any case, perhaps barter would again be in vogue.
You're imagining a world where there was electrical power cheap enough to waste on browning bread.
Hence the wood standard rather than the gold standard. "I'll trade three cords of wood for your draft horse."