| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We DO need to switch to a parliamentary system, so we can actually have more viable third parties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This be the toughest election yet....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
> >
< <
So did I.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Timing is irrelevant. He spent months talking about how she was wrong for America. Months. Now all of a sudden that's not true?
Welcome to election politics. When someone is your opponent, they are wrong for America, no matter how much you normally agree. It's a bit of a facade, of course, but it's just how the game is played. Once the contest is over, everyone goes back to being on civil (and sometimes even cooperative) terms.
The reality? Clinton was never actually "wrong" for America, and Sanders knew that. At worst, she simply wasn't the best choice, and even that is arguable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hard time taking seriously any Sanders supporter who claims they feel betrayed, or that Sanders "sold out." He'd been telling you for months now that he would support Clinton should she win the primary. Everyone outside the Sanders crowd had been telling you the same.
Sanders did exactly what he told you he was going to do. If that comes across as a betrayal, you need to do some serious reevaluation of how you set your expectations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents.
Third parties will be at a continuing disadvantage as long as we keep the number of Representatives frozen at 435. If I could wave my magic wand to change the system I would set things so that there would be no fewer than 1 Representative for every 300,000 people. This would increase the number of Representatives to about 1,000, shrink the size of legislative districts and give people more input into the system.
Eh. Bernie does what Bernie does and that has meant having a deal in Vermont with the Democrats since, oh, 1990 or so that includes him doing his best to block third party runs and, in return, the Vermont Democratic Party doesn't run anyone against him. I wonder if that deal's still on or if he's just going to retire at the end of his term.
Anyway, rather than rehash some of the perennial themes I've been working over in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, I'd rather link to the first time (IIRC) that I posted on the Bernie Sanders campaign:
Voting is for ninnies (but please consider voting for Jill Stein anyway, which I am forced to say by party discipline)!
For international proletarian socialist revolution!
Vive le Galt!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents.
Third parties will be at a continuing disadvantage as long as we keep the number of Representatives frozen at 435.
This is true but misleading. It's not the number of representatives but the first-past-the-post/winner-take-all voting system that excludes third parties.
Whether you have 10,000 electors or 500,000, as long as the winner is the person with the most votes, third parties will simply split the vote and more or less a loss not only for themselves but for the party from whom they split the most votes. This is well enough understood in political science to have a name ("Duverger's Law," which see).
Don't listen to Comrade he is minion of DIO!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Begins even more controversial tangent]
What a bunch of crap; every one knows Sabbath sucked with Dio.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until we change our system of voting to a system that allows mutliple ranks (like instant-runoff Voting) or change to a parliamentary system we simply won't have more than two parties on an extended basis. It's simply not mathematically possible.
A change to our system won't be possible because most of the politicians are members of the two parties that benefit from it being a two-party system.
Likewise, the first-past-the-post voting system tends to bring out more partisan candidates.
[Begins even more controversial tangent]
What a bunch of crap; every one knows Sabbath sucked with Dio.
Dio Brando, not the band.
Is that one of Marlon's kids?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Begins even more controversial tangent]
What a bunch of crap; every one knows Sabbath sucked with Dio.
Yeah, but DIO rocked with Dio, and some of Ozzy's solo stuff was meh.
Bernie did what he had to do (and what he said he was going to do) in order to run as a Dem. The only surprise was that America likes an elderly Socialist with a fairly low charisma score better then Hillary.
I think people have finally figured out what a scam the two parties are, and are getting very angry at being talked down to and ridiculed when they don't vote for a candidate who is obviously going to throw them under the bus. The very wealthy and their corporate media are entirely complicit in this.
Trump, Sanders and to a large degree, Brexit are the people saying "F-U" to a system that has been screwing them for decades. Those in power can either make some major systemic changes, or they will lose their power in something much uglier then a wacky election.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent article on the subject in The Intercept
Also, there are few things more meaningless then a "Party Platform". Follow the money, not the b~*%!$$@. (Although I did find it odd that the Hillary backers would not disavow the TTP...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting graphic from some Bernie supporter. Don't know how accurate it is, but if it is, man, there's a whole world to win:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, there are few things more meaningless then a "Party Platform". Follow the money, not the b!&~!++$. (Although I did find it odd that the Hillary backers would not disavow the TTP...)
Yeah. I watched the Bernie peeps cling to that and then get their hopes dashed. Looked like it was just as meaningless as I thought it would be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but Democratic primary voters like Clinton better than Sanders. Which is what matters.
I had something written about delegate count, and superdelegates being pledged from the start and Wasserman-schultz, and what a scam the system is, but it got eaten.
Shorter version is that the power to govern is supposedly derived from "the will of the people". The People, however, see that the system is illegitimate, and does not represent them. If those in power want to maintain the pretension of a democracy, rather then oligarchy backed by police/military force, they need to make some serious changes. Regardless of who wins, the next elections are going to make this one look normal and boring.
There is a revolution coming, and while I would love it to be a Socialist love fest, the Cliven Bundy types are out in front, and I think they have different plans...
EDIT: He may be America's Mussolini, but he is right about this:
"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Thread title reminds me of this scene from John Carpenter's, They Live.
Actually, everything about current politics reminds me of They Live.
For those that get posts eaten, I've found preview is more often than not the culprit. I recommend just hitting submit post, then edit as you need to. :-)
Most of the unregistered just don't bother.
And may they continue not to.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the purpose behind the "get out and vote" initiative, unless you're just hoping the drooling masses too stupid, lazy, or otherwise disinclined to vote happen to be easy enough to manipulate to your cause. I mean, for every person that actually votes, your vote is less powerful. Why would you want to purposefully water down your vote with that of the ignorant masses who actually need a carrot and/or stick to get out and vote?
Tangential, I know, but still - if you don't want to vote, fine, don't.
But then, I've almost always voted for fringe candidates who can't afford the advertising that the big two parties can, and so if only informed voters who actually give a s#%! are likely to vote, my candidates are statistically more likely to win.
...hm...an analysis of my voting habits shows I haven't ever voted for a single candidate who won, even when I chose a "lesser of two evils" scenario or actually got behind a major party candidate since I turned 18. Except for one mayor.
I really do hope Johnson gets the 15% he needs to make the primaries, though. I really, really want to see him call Trump a pussy to his face on national television. It would be wonderful to see someone beat that dirty fighter at his own game. The man has made a mockery of the system, and acted like a child and bully - it would be so wonderful to see him put in his place using exactly the same tactics, as much as I hate seeing those tactics mainstreaming.
Go for it.Interesting graphic from some Bernie supporter. Don't know how accurate it is, but if it is, man, there's a whole world to win:
Oh, as I'm sure you know, I already am.
Anyway, I didn't read her accompanying blurb, just looked at the pretty colors.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Thread title reminds me of this scene from John Carpenter's, They Live.
Actually, everything about current politics reminds me of They Live.
I'm just stuck here in the middle with you.
Mandatory viewing:
George Carlin on Voting
R Rated content. Not safe for work if you work at the DNC/RNC. Strongman's Cautions are Parented
EDIT:
For those that get posts eaten, I've found preview is more often than not the culprit. I recommend just hitting submit post, then edit as you need to. :-)
I type very slowly, so I'm usually good about hitting Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, (select All, Copy) before I hit post. This time, I used the search function of the browser while on the reply page. Of course when I hit the back button, my post was gone. This was 100% me, 0% messageboard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The common wisdom around the barracks was "Don't vote, you'll get a boot in the ass either way. What size it is doesn't matter."
Shhh! Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!
What is the deal with voting in the military? When you are stateside, do they provide you with a polling place if you are on-base? I recall something about overseas military ballots being counted after others, or potentially not counted unless the election is close? Is that just some weird Florida law from 2000 or am I totally mistaken?
Politics are largely a matter of compromise, so Sanders endorsing Hillary is just another compromise.
Something that I think is increasingly forgotten about in today's politics. If you don't get your way you don't take the ball and go home, so to speak. You work with your opponents and find some solution that both sides can feel comfortable with, even if its not their preferred choice.
At any rate yeah the current electoral system is broken, but it also favors the two leading parties, so at the moment there really is no reason for either side to support a new system. That could change: Demographic change and increased shifts to the "right of the party" may increasingly reduce Republican influence to just the core red states, which means they are unlikely to win future presidential elections or have much influence on the Supreme Court. The Republicans came to this conclusion themselves after Obama beat Romney, but then didn't really appreciably act to change anything, possibly because too much of the hardcore base wants to compromise on issues that turn off women and various minority groups.
It will be curious to see the outcome of the next election and how the Republican party reacts over the next half decade
The US system is designed on both sides to prevent any 'interlopers' from getting enough votes to really matter. The differing ways various states handle the Electoral College just reinforces this.
As for Sanders, it doesn't matter if he claimed earlier he would support Hillary instead. What he did was reprehensible.
He ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate on the Left and held on long enough for his opponent to be removed for legal reasons--but that ended up not happening (surprising everyone who didn't believe the system was rigged). Afterward, he turned around and threw his support (and all the money he raised from those who believed in him) behind the most Establishment person that has played the game in the past decade and a half. Sure, maybe it was 'working toward his goals' in the best way he could, but believing that the person he's supporting would actually follow through with it? Really?
Is it a surprise he did this? No, unless you thought he would actually follow through on the morals he claimed to have and the promises he made. His credibility is gone.
MMCJawa: The Republican Party has effectively been nuked from orbit. Now the question is: Are they the survivors of the fallout who will try to rebuild a functioning society with the numbers they have left? Or are they the radioactive mutants who will mindlessly swarm the one they failed to take down before in a bid for vengeance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system is illegitimate,... more
I would turn it around and say, "I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system as legitimate."
Based on approval ratings for the legislative branch that have been hovering in the 10-20% range for years now. And the two most hated candidates in history competing for president. I can't remember the last time I talked to someone about politics who didn't use words like "dysfunctional, broken, and corrupt." There might have been a time when people only felt that way about the opposition, but that is now how seemingly everyone feels about their own Party (if they still affiliate with one). I suspect both conventions are going to be s*&~shows, and those are supposed to be showcases by and for the party.People love to write off non-voters as uncaring or uninformed, but increasingly people feel that they are being asked, or told to play a clearly rigged game. At this point it is basically like being asked to put your stamp of approval on a system that is actively working against your interests, and people are either not voting, or seeking candidates like Sanders and Trump who have little connection to the political parties.
Theoretically, in small enough districts, especially if they were designed in a non-gerrymandered fashion, you could wind up with a national third party having a majority in some districts. It wouldn't be likely to have much effect on a national scale. A few Reps in Congress at best.
I'm actually surprised we don't see more of this in those House seats that are already so far to one side or the other that the real contest is the primary.
The issue is that a party that can't compete beyond the house and local elections isn't going to get traction. They don't have a national fundraising machine. They don't have other politicians supporting them. The major parties are already going to push those voters to vote for their candidates in the wider races, so why not put out the vote for a rep as well?
In a place that is far to one side, the party on that side has it easy. Adding a third party candidate means that a safe seat is at risk by splitting that vote. You could end up with a candidate that the majority doesn't like. In areas of mixed preferences, it's just as bad. The side closer to the third party will be weakened.
Systems that allow a voter to choose multiple candidates would open that up. One example is instant-runoff voting. They get to vote first for the third party candidate without worry because if the 3rd party is eliminated, their second vote is for the main party. Since they don't need to worry about splitting the vote, this allows enough people to vote for the third party that it becomes viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Libertarian party wants to abolish:
All forms of welfare (job training, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, etc)
Minimum wage
Don't believe me? Here's their website. If you look around, you can find their beliefs on certain issues. Such as Poverty and Welfare. Essentially, the Libertarian wants to double down on Reagan's policies, which set us on a path where the lower and middle class stagnated and the rich have continued to get richer. Except they want to speed up the process.
They want to replace the Social Security system with private accounts. Accounts that will be managed by investment firms. In other words, Wall Street.
In addition, I can't get behind their stance on guns.
In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate). Libertarians would repeal waiting periods, concealed carry laws, and other restrictions that make it difficult for victims to defend themselves, and end the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
I know there are people who will disagree with me on these issues, and that's fine, but if these are important issues to you, which I suspect they are if you liked Bernie Sanders, than the Libertarian Party is not for you.
I'm always torn about optional voting... Having lived most of my life in a country where voting is mandatory (and still having to go to an embassy every two years to vote) I can see the good and the bad in it...
But at the end of the day, I suppose people should be allowed to not exercise one of their rights if they so choose.
Hey, I do it every day with the 2nd Amendment!
That's my point. Every one does it every day with one right or another... So it makes sense that it should also be possible with voting, despite how important it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been fond of mandatory voting with a binding "None of the above" option. If that wins, there have to be new elections with none of those candidates.I'm always torn about optional voting... Having lived most of my life in a country where voting is mandatory (and still having to go to an embassy every two years to vote) I can see the good and the bad in it...
But at the end of the day, I suppose people should be allowed to not exercise one of their rights if they so choose.
That's how it's like in the country where I was born... I've never seen it happen, though. I haven't even heard of a case where it happened.
Admittedly, while I love my mother nation, I can't deny it has one of the worst political scenarios in any democracy... So I'm not sure it's a fair example. The US would probably fare much better, even with electoral colleges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been fond of mandatory voting with a binding "None of the above" option. If that wins, there have to be new elections with none of those candidates.I'm always torn about optional voting... Having lived most of my life in a country where voting is mandatory (and still having to go to an embassy every two years to vote) I can see the good and the bad in it...
But at the end of the day, I suppose people should be allowed to not exercise one of their rights if they so choose.
...Historians are looking back at 2016, which was the last time that the United States had a President. Six years later, there was no Congress. We have had 9,783,464 elections in the last ten years, but it still seem that there's no end in sight...
|
The way the system is set up, yes, only two parties have a realistic shot at getting one of their candidates (and political platforms) elected. By design, we don't have a coalition government, which has its own strengths and weaknesses.Abraham Lincoln was third party at the time. The Republicans ousted the Whigs, why not Libertarian take out Republicans?
Time and numbers, 3rd parties get a sum of <2% of the vote. There is no current trend showing a change there.
|
We DO need to switch to a parliamentary system, so we can actually have more viable third parties.I wouldn't object, though those systems have their own drawbacks.
Not going to happen though. Massive constitutional changes with no real constituency pushing it.
Adopting something like IRV would be more possible. I think it could even be done on a state by state basis.
I doubt it would actually have a large affect though. We'd see that the two major parties really do have majority support.
IRV?