Sunday letters: One-party system is detrimental

May 26, 2013 

People in Columbia are scratching their heads trying to understand why Mark Sanford has been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives yet again. We thought we were rid of his shenanigans, but apparently not.

Mark Sanford is the winner, but Elizabeth Colbert Bush was not the only loser. The South’s political process was a big loser too.

Bush and Sanford were the names on the ballot, but Nancy Pelosi became a candidate when Sanford said “A vote for Colbert Busch is a vote for Pelosi.”

Sanford’s campaign was four words long, “Nancy Pelosi and taxes.” Pelosi is the code word for “pushy women,” which is code for “the Bible says men are supposed to be in charge.” “Taxes” is code for “big government,” which is code for “liberal,” which is code for “federal intrusion.”

The danger of using strong emotion in the process of selecting our representatives is that emotion can override reason, leading to choices that later prove to be unwise. Good centrist representation seems virtually out of reach for S.C. voters because we are a one-party state. Why we continue to prefer a one-party political system to our own detriment is an issue worth revisiting.

Verne Pulling

Pinopolis

The State is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service