And how much downtime will a Mac user have due to viruses and malware?
How much downtime will the Windows counterpart have?
This loss of production time, plus the loss of work product, plus the cost of the anti-virus software, and anti intrusion hardware and software that you need if you are in the Windows realm, a Windows box isn't as cheap as they'd like you to think. Plus, there is the spurious traffic that comes from the infested Windows boxes sucking up everyone's bandwidth, by sending out rubbish.
There is no comparison if we throw the Linux users into the mix. That really drops the curve on price, and raises the curve on stability. Gee, what a problem, you have to choose between:
As I previously stated, I am seeking a fiscal conservative, and neither Bush-Cheney nor Kerry-Edwards are fiscally responsible. This is why I cannot espouse the election of either of those options!
If you don't think the choice between Kerry and Bush will make a difference, you're brain dead. You may not like the alternative to Bush, but it will make a huge difference, mark my words.
I do have a lesser of evils candidate between Bush and Kerry, but he is just that, a lesser of evils.
Both are out to spend money like mad.
Both have international interventionist policies that will send my 4 sons to war.
Both have domestic interventionist policies that impinge upon my freedoms.
They may choose to spend the money confiscated from the taxpayers in slightly different ways, but they both are heavy spenders.
I am seeking a fiscal conservative. Bush is far from a fiscal conservative. I do realize that the legislative branch spends money. The president's role in spending is to veto the overspending. The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation.... I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!
Making me reconsider the WCS in a more positive light... Religious whacko Bush, vs. Kerry the spender...
I would say that it is a bit more than simply a toy. I looked at this site a few months ago. Unlike most of the major media outlets, they listed the majority of the candidate pool from which voters have to choose. This was a great service. No, I found a few questions that I didn't like the choices of answers. That is typical, but the answers weren't as slanted as many other polls and selectors that I have read. If you came down to a 90% match with a 3rd party candidate, and a 60% match with either the Democratic or Republican candidate, at least it might encourage you to do more research on the suppossed better match. You might actually be more in agreement with another candidate.
You are only throwing your vote away when voting for a 3rd party candidate as long as this conventional wisdom of the wasted vote is propagated. When people cease to believe that their vote is wasted, and they free their vote to go where their mind and heart are, then they are no longer wasting their votes!
There is an interesting way of voting for a third party candidate in such a way as to assure that your vote is not wasted. http://votebuddy.org/
Your Vote is Held Hostage!
If you have any doubt that America is being ruined by the "Two-Party System"... well, we have to wonder where you've been!
Of course, our form of government was never intended to be dominated by two parties... or one, or three, or any other particular number. The Founders distrusted "factions," knowing that they always seek special advantages from government -- but also knowing they were inevitable.
But here we are today, faced with two giant political parties that face no meaningful pressure to behave in the interests of the American people. All each of them needs to do is convince you and me that their policies are just a little less damaging than those of the opposition.
Voters increasingly find themselves holding their noses and voting for candidates they really don't like -- just because the other major party's candidate for that office is even worse!
And here's the tragedy: Often there is also a candidate in the race the voter really likes -- but it's a "third party" candidate who everyone agrees has no chance to win. The voter doesn't want to "waste" her vote on a perfectly good candidate, because she feels obligated to vote against the worst of the major party candidates -- the only way she believes she can make a real difference.
In 2004, she feels compelled to choose between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber (and you can decide which of these names refer to Bush and Kerry), even though she doesn't honestly support either of them. Is that sick, or what?!
But what if she could vote for her real preference without contributing to the bad outcome she fears?
A "Catch-22"
Q: Why haven't third party alternatives developed enough of a following that people can vote for them as real, viable options -- potential winners?
A: Because not enough people have been voting for them.
Q: Why haven't people been voting for these candidates -- even if they really like them?
A: Because they haven't been getting enough votes over the years to be viable now!
Just to belabor the obvious (sometimes you need to do that), there is an inescapable conclusion to be drawn here:
Unless people start voting for these third party candidates even though they won't win... this time... we will be stuck with this same old Mutt-and-Jeff treatment from the major parties FOREVER.
People feel trapped. How can they support what they believe in when they think it's most important to stop some disaster they expect from one of the major parties?
Is there any wonder the natives are getting restless?
Can I consider it a late-term abortion to erradicate a child over the age of 10? By that point, the parent has a better perspective, and is better able to judge whether the life should be allowed to continue longer.
How about the Nissan.com case, in which Nissan motors decided that it was their due to rip the domain nissan.com from a Robert Nissan who had been using that domain for years before they decided that they needed a web presence? I'm sorry, if the name is already claimed, you have no rights to it. Sorry about your luck for not having thought in advance! This was one of the arenas in which the little guys had equal footing with the big guys, but with our rogue judicial system, it is screwed.
...The governing bodies selling the domain names should require proof (ie business license etc) before selling a domain name....
So, you are in favor of taking free speech from the masses? The internet has put average citizens on as near to equal footing with the major media as their bandwidth will allow. Do you want this run like FCC licenses? No thanks!
Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).
Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.
Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.
Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."
Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.
But, his background is not as illustriously geeky as Al Gore, whom we all know invented the internet.
Well, he (Michael Badnarik) is on the ballot in most states, why won't the news media cover him otherwise? How about Cobb? He was arrested with Badnarik? The arrests were bound to happen, as the candidates knew. This explains why, for once, Michael Badnarik was not carrying a firearm! They were well within their rights to act as process servers against the organizers who set-up this bi-partisan infomercial. Oh, 'scuse me, I meant debate.
Gerrymandering has been going on for ages. If people want to complain about the inerrant unfairness of that, then try an at large system. Then the disenfranchised voters complain about the tyranny of the majority, in that their vote with their local interests is diluted, when lumped with the state as a whole.
In many areas, city government is elected in an at large system, and people complain. Then it is changed to districting, to lump similar demographic groups together, and people complain.
As we have a bicameral legislature, possibly one solution would be to elect one house in an at large system, and the other house by a geographic district system.
The simple truth is that our Founding Fathers left their homelands because they had fringe beliefs. They left due to religious intolerance. When they came here, they had two major choices.
1) Since they were now the majority, they could persecute the other minorities, as they had been discriminated against themselves.
2) They could choose to be the bigger man, and not commit the wrongs that had been committed against them.
I prefer to think that in their deliberate separation of church and state, that they intended a culture of tolerance, unlike the society from which they fled.
If you choose to think that they really meant to establish no state religion, but to support any faith as long as it's Christianity, I believe that you are mistaken as to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Did California not still have price fixing in effect, that crippled the entire energy industry in that state? If there were still price fixing policies that demanded that the energy companies sell energy at a price lower than their cost of porduction, there was no real deregulation.
Fact number one: You cannot go on obstructing the building of electric power generating plants for years on end without eventually running out of enough electricity to supply your growing population and your growing industries. It has been more than a decade since the last power plant was built in California.
Fact number two: You cannot force California public utilities to charge consumers less for electricity from out of state than the utilities have to pay to get it, without reaching the point where the utilities' deficits exceed the money they have on hand to pay their bills.
Fact number three: You cannot continue indefinitely pandering to the shrill voices of people who call themselves "environmentalists" or "consumer advocates" without reaching the point where the chickens come home to roost.
The Democrats and Republicans have been under threat from 3rd party candidates for the past few decades, with John Anderson in 1980, then Ross Perot etc. To protect their chances, they have to do everything in their power to keep it down to two parties in charge. They'd rather have a two
I'll use an analogy from another area. Just a short while ago, it was said that there wasn't room in the market for a 4th television network, but alas, the FOX network was born. It is thriving quite well, much to the dismay of ABC, CBS and NBC. Since the success of FOX, UPN and WB have been born.
Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!" If I never take a stand, and use my vote to vote against both twits, how are they to know that I am not satisfied with the options at hand? By spending my vote on my candidate of choice, then the viability of my party of choice is increased, and the next election, those afraid of throwing their vote away, may leave the safety of the lesser of evils vote, and vote their conscience. Imagine, a world in which you vote for a candidate who actually embraces, and embodies your views. Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered? With real choices, much of the voter apathy would evaporate.
Many polls ask who the participants support, and list Kerry, Bush, and sometimes Nader. It is rather comical when they are conducting statewide polls in states that Nader lacks ballot access, and they list him as an option. When you poll an area, list all of the options available to those voters!
All too frequently the first exposure to the lion's share of the candidates is what appears on the actual ballot itself. The election laws, due to fairness juggle the order of the names on the ballot, so as not to consistently give one candidate the advantage of being listed first, but if your first exposure to a candidate is just as a name you have never heard on the ballot, that's hardly going to be a fair shake.
In my city, at least, I have seen the media actively avoid reporting on 3rd party candidates. If a presidential candidate can make 6 passes through a major metropolitan area, without a mention in either of 2 daily papers, or the plethora of local television news stations, this is an active, not passive, blackout.
Ask the John McCains and Howard Deans of the World how their Presidential campaigns worked out. McCain's loss you might be able to blame on the party establishment (not to mention the oh so lovely tactics Karl Rove used against him) -- but Dean had the effective support of large portions of the Democratic establishment and the primary voters still overwhelmingly picked Kerry.
The primaries are not exactly a good cross section of the population. A few states decide who the candidates will be. By the time that Super Tuesday, and the even later primaries roll around, it is mere formality. If they had national primaries, in which all of the registered voters of a particular party were allowed to cast their ballots for their choice of candidate, then it could be said that he who won the primary had the overwhelming support of his party behind him, but as it stands, that is rarely true. A question, out of curiosity, are you in a state that actually gets a voice in the primary elections? I am not.
Many parts of our system are due for overhaul, the primary system, and the electoral college are two glaring examples.
The university is taking political sides by alowing the Dems and Repubs to express their views, on the campus, on gov't funds, while denying another valid candidates the same right. In effect, the university is ENDORSING Kerry and Bush, at the expense of the other 4 candidates on the ballot.
If you look at the last few elections splits between the Democratic and Republican parties, the Republicans won the donor areas, and the Democrats won the recipient areas.
Democrats, with all of their social engineering won the big cities, that get more tax money, than the people who live outside of the big cities. Dig up one of the county by county election maps from 2000.
You state that you are a libertarian. If you would step up and become a real Libertarian, if you really believe in the ideals behind the Libertarian party, the party would stand a better chance. You are sporting a defeatist attitude. You sound like a poser. I suspect that you simply choose to call yourself libertarian to be out of the mainstream. If you tire of being a poser, go to http://www.lp.org/, pay your dues, and trade that little 'l' for a real 'L'
The Libertarian party is simply proposing that we return to a constitutional government. Get rid of all of the unconstitutional hog wash like welfare, social Security, the IRS etc.
What about John Anderson in 1980? He was a real candidate, with a decent showing at the polls. He was not my choice of candidates, but he did fare reasonably well for a 3rd party candidate.
Until the 3rd parties can get exposure and coverage, how do you propose that they become viable candidates?
How are 3rd party candidates, the only ones willing to actually take stands on issues wasting your time? When the 3rd party candidates actually answer questions, it sometimes forces the major party candidates to actually admit, and state a position. That is a public service in and of itself, and would be well worth the inclusion of the 3rd parties just to serve that role. But, in reality 3rd parties offer more. Once people quit voting for their lesser of evils candidates, and feel as if their voice may actually matter, and vote their minds, we will get a better caliber of candidates across the board.
Think of it like taking software out of the hands of a monoplistic megolith, and opening it to the free market, and getting better options.
Are you actually backing our current duopoly? I should prefer more choices, real choices. It's like saying with MS, you have a choice, XP home, or XP Pro! They both stink, as do the current Republican and Democratic parties.
If you notice, Badnarik and Cobb were arrested together. the 3rd party candidates do work together, and have debated between and among themselves. You just may not have noticed.
Founding fathers: A group of naive idealists who believe... Oh, dang, I was going to just call the founding Fathers Libertarians, just because the Libertarian party's premise is to actaully follow the constitution as laid out by its writers.
I challenge you to post an excerpt of any state's constitution that sets forth a two party system. I have yet to see any state that has spelled out in its founding documents that there are to be two parties. The closest thing that I have seen would be if you misunderstood the meaning of bicameral. Bicameral does not mean two parties, it means two branches.
Slashdot Mirror
How much downtime will the Windows counterpart have?
This loss of production time, plus the loss of work product, plus the cost of the anti-virus software, and anti intrusion hardware and software that you need if you are in the Windows realm, a Windows box isn't as cheap as they'd like you to think. Plus, there is the spurious traffic that comes from the infested Windows boxes sucking up everyone's bandwidth, by sending out rubbish.
There is no comparison if we throw the Linux users into the mix. That really drops the curve on price, and raises the curve on stability. Gee, what a problem, you have to choose between:
What should I choose?
As I previously stated, I am seeking a fiscal conservative, and neither Bush-Cheney nor Kerry-Edwards are fiscally responsible. This is why I cannot espouse the election of either of those options!
I do have a lesser of evils candidate between Bush and Kerry, but he is just that, a lesser of evils.
They may choose to spend the money confiscated from the taxpayers in slightly different ways, but they both are heavy spenders.
I am seeking a fiscal conservative. Bush is far from a fiscal conservative. I do realize that the legislative branch spends money. The president's role in spending is to veto the overspending. The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation.... I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!
Making me reconsider the WCS in a more positive light... Religious whacko Bush, vs. Kerry the spender...
You are only throwing your vote away when voting for a 3rd party candidate as long as this conventional wisdom of the wasted vote is propagated. When people cease to believe that their vote is wasted, and they free their vote to go where their mind and heart are, then they are no longer wasting their votes!
There is an interesting way of voting for a third party candidate in such a way as to assure that your vote is not wasted. http://votebuddy.org/
Your Vote is Held Hostage!
If you have any doubt that America is being ruined by the "Two-Party System" ... well, we have to wonder where you've been!
Of course, our form of government was never intended to be dominated by two parties ... or one, or three, or any other particular number. The Founders distrusted "factions," knowing that they always seek special advantages from government -- but also knowing they were inevitable.
But here we are today, faced with two giant political parties that face no meaningful pressure to behave in the interests of the American people. All each of them needs to do is convince you and me that their policies are just a little less damaging than those of the opposition.
Voters increasingly find themselves holding their noses and voting for candidates they really don't like -- just because the other major party's candidate for that office is even worse!
And here's the tragedy: Often there is also a candidate in the race the voter really likes -- but it's a "third party" candidate who everyone agrees has no chance to win. The voter doesn't want to "waste" her vote on a perfectly good candidate, because she feels obligated to vote against the worst of the major party candidates -- the only way she believes she can make a real difference.
In 2004, she feels compelled to choose between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber (and you can decide which of these names refer to Bush and Kerry), even though she doesn't honestly support either of them. Is that sick, or what?!
But what if she could vote for her real preference without contributing to the bad outcome she fears?
A "Catch-22"
Q: Why haven't third party alternatives developed enough of a following that people can vote for them as real, viable options -- potential winners?
A: Because not enough people have been voting for them.
Q: Why haven't people been voting for these candidates -- even if they really like them?
A: Because they haven't been getting enough votes over the years to be viable now!
Just to belabor the obvious (sometimes you need to do that), there is an inescapable conclusion to be drawn here:
Unless people start voting for these third party candidates even though they won't win ... this time ... we will be stuck with this same old Mutt-and-Jeff treatment from the major parties FOREVER.
People feel trapped. How can they support what they believe in when they think it's most important to stop some disaster they expect from one of the major parties?
Is there any wonder the natives are getting restless?
Can I consider it a late-term abortion to erradicate a child over the age of 10? By that point, the parent has a better perspective, and is better able to judge whether the life should be allowed to continue longer.
How about the Nissan.com case, in which Nissan motors decided that it was their due to rip the domain nissan.com from a Robert Nissan who had been using that domain for years before they decided that they needed a web presence? I'm sorry, if the name is already claimed, you have no rights to it. Sorry about your luck for not having thought in advance! This was one of the arenas in which the little guys had equal footing with the big guys, but with our rogue judicial system, it is screwed.
So, you are in favor of taking free speech from the masses? The internet has put average citizens on as near to equal footing with the major media as their bandwidth will allow. Do you want this run like FCC licenses? No thanks!
PROFESSIONAL
Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).
Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.
Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.
Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."
Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.
But, his background is not as illustriously geeky as Al Gore, whom we all know invented the internet.
Well, he (Michael Badnarik) is on the ballot in most states, why won't the news media cover him otherwise? How about Cobb? He was arrested with Badnarik? The arrests were bound to happen, as the candidates knew. This explains why, for once, Michael Badnarik was not carrying a firearm! They were well within their rights to act as process servers against the organizers who set-up this bi-partisan infomercial. Oh, 'scuse me, I meant debate.
In many areas, city government is elected in an at large system, and people complain. Then it is changed to districting, to lump similar demographic groups together, and people complain.
As we have a bicameral legislature, possibly one solution would be to elect one house in an at large system, and the other house by a geographic district system.
1) Since they were now the majority, they could persecute the other minorities, as they had been discriminated against themselves.
2) They could choose to be the bigger man, and not commit the wrongs that had been committed against them.
I prefer to think that in their deliberate separation of church and state, that they intended a culture of tolerance, unlike the society from which they fled.
If you choose to think that they really meant to establish no state religion, but to support any faith as long as it's Christianity, I believe that you are mistaken as to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=168 The Cause of the California Power Blackouts
Fact number one: You cannot go on obstructing the building of electric power generating plants for years on end without eventually running out of enough electricity to supply your growing population and your growing industries. It has been more than a decade since the last power plant was built in California.
Fact number two: You cannot force California public utilities to charge consumers less for electricity from out of state than the utilities have to pay to get it, without reaching the point where the utilities' deficits exceed the money they have on hand to pay their bills.
Fact number three: You cannot continue indefinitely pandering to the shrill voices of people who call themselves "environmentalists" or "consumer advocates" without reaching the point where the chickens come home to roost.
I'll use an analogy from another area. Just a short while ago, it was said that there wasn't room in the market for a 4th television network, but alas, the FOX network was born. It is thriving quite well, much to the dismay of ABC, CBS and NBC. Since the success of FOX, UPN and WB have been born.
Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!" If I never take a stand, and use my vote to vote against both twits, how are they to know that I am not satisfied with the options at hand? By spending my vote on my candidate of choice, then the viability of my party of choice is increased, and the next election, those afraid of throwing their vote away, may leave the safety of the lesser of evils vote, and vote their conscience. Imagine, a world in which you vote for a candidate who actually embraces, and embodies your views. Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered? With real choices, much of the voter apathy would evaporate.
All too frequently the first exposure to the lion's share of the candidates is what appears on the actual ballot itself. The election laws, due to fairness juggle the order of the names on the ballot, so as not to consistently give one candidate the advantage of being listed first, but if your first exposure to a candidate is just as a name you have never heard on the ballot, that's hardly going to be a fair shake.
In my city, at least, I have seen the media actively avoid reporting on 3rd party candidates. If a presidential candidate can make 6 passes through a major metropolitan area, without a mention in either of 2 daily papers, or the plethora of local television news stations, this is an active, not passive, blackout.
The primaries are not exactly a good cross section of the population. A few states decide who the candidates will be. By the time that Super Tuesday, and the even later primaries roll around, it is mere formality. If they had national primaries, in which all of the registered voters of a particular party were allowed to cast their ballots for their choice of candidate, then it could be said that he who won the primary had the overwhelming support of his party behind him, but as it stands, that is rarely true. A question, out of curiosity, are you in a state that actually gets a voice in the primary elections? I am not.
Many parts of our system are due for overhaul, the primary system, and the electoral college are two glaring examples.
The university is taking political sides by alowing the Dems and Repubs to express their views, on the campus, on gov't funds, while denying another valid candidates the same right. In effect, the university is ENDORSING Kerry and Bush, at the expense of the other 4 candidates on the ballot.
Democrats, with all of their social engineering won the big cities, that get more tax money, than the people who live outside of the big cities. Dig up one of the county by county election maps from 2000.
Wearing the big 'L' feels much better!
I could do a poll to get any result that I want! I could eliminate Kerry from the running, if I run my poll by the right group!
Polls are b.s. Go by qualifications, he who has sufficient ballot access to have the potential to win, this is a 6 man race in this case.
Just think
WWJD (What Would Jefferson Do?)
What about John Anderson in 1980? He was a real candidate, with a decent showing at the polls. He was not my choice of candidates, but he did fare reasonably well for a 3rd party candidate.
How are 3rd party candidates, the only ones willing to actually take stands on issues wasting your time? When the 3rd party candidates actually answer questions, it sometimes forces the major party candidates to actually admit, and state a position. That is a public service in and of itself, and would be well worth the inclusion of the 3rd parties just to serve that role. But, in reality 3rd parties offer more. Once people quit voting for their lesser of evils candidates, and feel as if their voice may actually matter, and vote their minds, we will get a better caliber of candidates across the board.
Think of it like taking software out of the hands of a monoplistic megolith, and opening it to the free market, and getting better options.
Are you actually backing our current duopoly? I should prefer more choices, real choices. It's like saying with MS, you have a choice, XP home, or XP Pro! They both stink, as do the current Republican and Democratic parties.
If you notice, Badnarik and Cobb were arrested together. the 3rd party candidates do work together, and have debated between and among themselves. You just may not have noticed.
Founding fathers: A group of naive idealists who believe... Oh, dang, I was going to just call the founding Fathers Libertarians, just because the Libertarian party's premise is to actaully follow the constitution as laid out by its writers.
I challenge you to post an excerpt of any state's constitution that sets forth a two party system. I have yet to see any state that has spelled out in its founding documents that there are to be two parties. The closest thing that I have seen would be if you misunderstood the meaning of bicameral. Bicameral does not mean two parties, it means two branches.