The Dangers of Bipartisanship

I would like to start by defining a few terms, as all good papers should define terms when there is a real danger that missunderstanding could result due to the different meanings that are attached to words. (This can be particularly bothersome when one of us cannot spell.)

• Partisanship: This is the word that is used when a person is acting on behalf of one party. According to my dictionary (by the Gramercy company) the word partisan means "an adherent of supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance" In this context, I will limit that to "party." ("When I use a word it means exactly what I say it means")
• Bipartisanship: This is in support of two (count them, two) parties.
• Nonpartisanship: This is in support of no political parties.

I've always been a admirer of "daffynitions," like "Penmanship: the art changing pens in to men." (laugh). Or (although not quite a daffynition) "Be alert. The world needs all the lerts it can find." (laugh)

Or how about "Bipartisan Committee on Election Reform: the committee to insure that only Republicans and Democrats win elections." (laugh - but somehow I don't feel like laughing.) Or "Bipartisan Committee on presidential debates: Committee to insure that the public only hears Democrats and Republicans in presidential debates." (Forget about it, no laugh with this one.)

When I suggested that the Democrats and Republicans were rigging the system to insure they win, one person came up with "Well, if there were any viable third parties, maybe I could vote for them." I noticed something this last election cycle. In presidential debates anyone other than Democrats and Republicans have been excluded from day one. However, I've noticed in the past that other parties (and even independents) were allowed in local debates. This last election I noticed that this has been "corrected" and only Democrats and Republicans were allowed in. I wonder if this isn't because during one of those debates a dark horse candidate (with something like 2? in the election polls) became well known, and actually won an election. (Name: Jesse Ventura.)

(Is the reason Presitential Debates was removed from the control of the League of Women Voters because of a real fear on the part of the Democrats and Republicans that this group might decide to allow some other party to present its view? Interesting question.) (The advocates of Demo/Republicanism will say that if all candidates were allowed in, then there would be too many. I believe that during the last election "too many" was 5, that is, only something like 5 people got their names on enough ballots to actually win a presidential election. Too bad we cannot hear the opposition.)

When the communists were in power in the Soviet Union, and the United States was actively supporting them by attacking them regularly (nothing draws a country together like being attacked from the outside) I was told that one problem with the Soviet system was that they did not allow political debate in that they outlawed all parties other than the Communist party. Have we not done this as well? We, as tax payers, pay the Democrats and Republicans millions of dollars each election so that they can get their message out. All other parties are excluded. (Some will say, "yes, but if they get 5? of the vote [running against a stacked deck] then they can get the money too." I will bet that if this happens, the law will be "corrected" to increase the percentage to whatever is required to insure there is no change in the nature of the ruling coalition.)