wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

ab - good point, but that's only if he were to be elected Prime Minister in a parliamentary government, not President.

Trevor - I understand the frustration with the electoral college and there are problems with it. I don't, however, think that a coalition government would be preferrable to a majority government because coalition governments give a voice and influence to special interest minority parties that is greater than the people's actual desire for their governing. Imagine: Democratic party forms a coalition with the Communisty party and the Anarchist party to govern. Do those parties even deserve a voice that great? -Or- Republican party forms a coalition with the Fascist party and the Party for Monarchy-Government to govern. Do special interests that represent 10% or less of America deserve to be part of a ruling coalition in a government? I think it would give them influence over government beyond the power bestowed to them by the sovereign people.

Thank you for putting Charles W. Dunn on to articulate the evangelical point of view on the air. I'm getting rather sick of just angry left info vibrating around the air and the net.

Lol..."The Mediocre party". I like that.

Though of late the Dems may as well call themselves that.

Splitting up a state's electoral votes has NOTHING to do with the Constitution! Many states split their electoral votes when the country was first founded. In fact, the requirement of states to give all their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest popular vote in their state came in stages over a number of years.

I hope you are wrong Robert and they are so arrogant as to believe they could win..and they do in fact split the party..that would be great.

Hillary is going to be demonized as the devil incarnate no matter whether the evangelicals split off or not.

I have it. A third party. Those who keep touting the Center position. You know, the no position party. They can take the name of the Mediocre Party: motto, "Well, let's look at that" with "and come to no conclusion" implied.

Multiple parties might invigorate the U.S. populace to become engaged in politics, and when more people vote and feel empowered, liberals always win.

When only the elites and old people vote, Republicans and the rich win.

Its in the people's interest.

Gaines--

that's why there are our coalition and parliamentary governments however. Do we trade efficiency for fairness? Or fairness for efficiency?

Right now, it seems to be efficient cutbacks on the rich, efficient war in the Middle East, and so on. So I understand frustration with the electoral college.

Hmmmmmm, "he possibly can change his position on abortion rights too" well, isn't that what you call flip-flopping in the Republic Party? If Hillary did that would not Republic Party call her a flip-flopper?

Dunn seems to besaying that pander is good enuf--i.e, as long a Rudypanders to the religious voters, everything will be just fine. Doesn't matter if Rudy believes. H'mmm. Why am I not surprised?

In a parliamentary system "W" could have been removed already.

Our simplistic 2 party system stinks!

wow...this is why the left can never win...i can't believe people would be calling for the Dems to split too.
Great...that's a sure way of letting one of these crazy candidates on the right who want to continue the war ad infinitum to get in.

No, no, no...let the Repiglicans split...they will then lose for sure. Worry about splitting the Dems AFTER the election is won.

I don't agree with you Robert. There is a good reason behind the two party system: it ensures that government control will go to the candidate who wins the majority. In a multi-party system the power goes to the plurality; so, feasibly the country could be run and elections could be won by someone who less than a third of the nation agrees with. In a multi-party system, W. Bush could win an election today if he were allowed to run, in a two party system it is impossible to win with approval ratings that low.

Furthermore, in a multi-party system we'd have a divided Congress, where the legislative cycle is set by a "majority"-leader who leads a plurality of the votes. Congress would freeze solid in a multi-party system as our Constitution establishes the branch.

Don't get me wrong, I am for third parties (and fourth, and fifth)...but isn't the Supreme Court pretty pivotal here? Is it really an executive decision? Maybe I am confused.

As for the Christian party-- go for it!

Hillary is not a shoe in for democrats just like giuliani/brownback/romney isn't set in stone yet. I hope they do create a 3rd party, and I hope democrats split as well! the more parties the better. But america will always go strategy over substance when it comes to presidential races.

Why does everyone assume that Clinton will be the democratic candidate? There are many DEMOCRATS who have no intention of ever voting for a Republicrat like Clinton. If the Republicans want to split their followers, then let's have the Democrats split their supporters.

Oh and contrary to what was stated by someone above...it's plainly obvious our system would be better with more than just two viable parties having a stranglehold on our system.