Democrats then were the party of the slave-holding south and Republicans were the party of the "free" north (let's not forget, the North had slaves as well) that opposed slavery's expansion (just expansion, not slavery itself). Yet Republicans weren't concerned about Lincoln because they thought Douglas, a Democrat, might be willing to work with them against expanding slavery.
Lincoln's goals were to differentiate himself from Douglas and to voice a prophecy publicly. Douglas had long advocated popular sovereignty, which the settlers in each new territory would decide their own status as a slave or free state (a sentiment echoed in the Emancipation Proclamation); he had repeatedly said that the application of popular sovereignty would prevent slavery-induced conflict and would allow Northern and Southern states to resume peaceful coexistence.
But Lincoln was not the first to say this. As mentioned before, it was said in the Bible (twice). Thomas Hobbes, in his 1651 Leviathan (Chapter 18), states that "a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand." In Thomas Paine's 1776 Common Sense, he describes the composition of the English constitution "hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself. ... ". During the War of 1812 a line appeared in a letter from Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren: "... A house divided upon itself - and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us. Felix Walker, in his speech for Buncombe, on the Missouri Compromise, said, "And we have the word of truth for it, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Famously, eight years before Lincoln's speech, during the Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston had proclaimed: "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
It was common knowledge. For several centuries in fact. But we have forgotten this in recent times. We have the parties purposefully dividing the people (which is tantamount to treason at this point) simply to gain power and keep control, and the people have gone along for the ride. At one point the parties did make an effort to work with each other. But no longer. Leaving our nation in the condition it is in now. Divided, weak, and hostile. Not the nation that was envisioned by the founders.
And now we have a two party system (that we were warned about). A two party system that shuts out any and all dissenting voices, or anyone that has any different ideas, to the point it is near impossible for them to have their voices heard.
The two-party system is so ingrained in American politics that citizens generally don't stop and question it. Election after election, "left" vs "right" rhetoric fills every American TV screen as attack ads try to discourage indecisive voters from certain candidates (all while avoiding why they should vote for the person airing the attack ad other than "I'm not them", making them completely void of any substance). The government is no longer responsive to the people but to the two parties that do everything in their power to influence elections. The "commoner" is simply left in the lurch.
For the average citizen, navigating the rules and regulations to run for office, and participating in the process of self-governance, is near impossible. They are apparently designed to keep ordinary taxpayers like you and me from having a say in the process.
The problem for third parties is compounded by restrictive ballot access laws and barriers that the major parties have erected to solidify their de facto monopoly.
Duverger's law. Named for French political scientist Maurice Duverger, Duverger's law is a theory than an actual. It holds that any democratic country with single-member legislative districts and winner-take-all voting will favor a two-party system.
In order to qualify for ballot placement, a party must meet certain requirements that vary from state to state. For example, in some states, a party may have to file a petition in order to qualify for ballot placement. In other states, a party must organize around a candidate for a specific office; that candidate must, in turn, win a percentage of the vote in order for the party to be granted ballot status. In still other states, an aspiring political party must register a certain number of voters. Individual state legislature controls the process in which candidates are put on the ballot. In Illinois, different requirements are mandated for third-party candidates compared to the requirements for the candidates of the established Democratic and Republican parties. Seeing as the two major parties have the branding and PR to drown out other voices, it's harder to just get on the ballot.
Some states bar candidates who sought and failed to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents. 45 states have "sore loser laws" on the books, but in 43 of these states the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas.
Winner-take-all system Electoral College system (voter disenfranchisement and fraud) hamstring third parties. All but two states give all their electoral votes to the candidate who won the majority (however slim) of votes in the state,1 so for a third-party candidate to win, he or she must win states outright
Throw in the millions upon millions it takes to run, is it any wonder why the common citizen is essentially barred from having their voice heard?
The election system we have is so far removed from what the founders intended. They wanted an average citizen to be able to run for office. Not the two party, nation dividing, voice silencing system we have today. The nation is divided precisely because of political parties. It is getting to the point of questioning if the nation will survive.
People have often compared the USA to a modern day Rome" but looking at current state of things, that's not a good thing"
Rome fell because of Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor (Our economy is in shambles, and the working class get crumbs while the rich do nothing). Overexpansion and military overspending (our military is spread so thin we have to rely on mercenary groups, and this nation spends more than any other nation on military) and as more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome's civil infrastructure fell into disrepair (sound familiar?).Government corruption and political instability (says enough right there). Over-taxation and inflation (again, familiar?). Rome's influence was reduced significantly in the third century AD (familiar?). Growing social divisions, abuse of power". Get the picture? All of it seems like what we're going through now. This is what the political parties have wrought. Something we knew (as the founders warned us) was going to happen, and the people did nothing. In fact, the people made it happen (who put them there, keeps putting them back, and constantly falls for their lies and fake promises?).This is why all political parties need to be banned. If we are to avoid the same fate as Rome, major changes in our political system have to happen, or like Rome, we will cease to be.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
