In my blog-reading today, I can’t help but notice that several blogs have
pointed out Greenspan’s annoyance of the political duopoly. See, for
example, Charging RINO, Moderate Voter, and Political Wire.
I’ll gloat for a moment, and point out that I wrote about this last Friday. For once, I’m ahead of the curve!
Bloggers have a couple of points to add. Charging RINO, for example,
writes:
[I]f a third party candidate emerges during the primary
campaigns, he or she could make things very interesting for those choosing
the Republican and Democratic candidates.
ModerateVoters asks:
How about letting Independents, where the biggest bloc of
centrists are, vote in primaries, thus electing more centrists from the two
major parties?
I agree with that sentiment; if my tax dollars are going to pay to open,
equip, and staff a poll location for a partisan primary, I should be allowed
to vote in it, regardless of my party affiliation, and regardless of whether
I participate in the other party’s primary.
If the parties want closed primaries, let them fund it, and leave my tax
dollars alone!
Having said that, I should point out that primaries are open in some more
enlightened states, and that I would consider “electing more centrists from
the two major parties” to be more bad than good. If you’re getting
centrists in from the major two parties, you still aren’t necessarily
providing a check against some of the wackier, more extreme ideas within the
party, if the aforementioned party has control.
I want either a stronger check on the two parties (e.g. the Senate always
controlled by the party the President doesn’t belong to), or I’d like to see
3-4 viable parties in the country.
However. the duopoly seem rather unlikely to relinquish their control over
the American political scene.