|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, a third party is a possible path to that. The two party system is a big part of the problem and reducing votes for either of the two establishment parties will help undermine its validity. Even getting people to not vote can do that because a political system where almost nobody votes clearly has no legitimacy at all and will make people more open to alternatives. There's little more damaging to the prospect of revolutionary change either literally or figuratively than trying to restore faith in the establishment parties. That really can only have the effect of perpetuating the rottenness of the system. That's one spin. Another is that it's tacit acceptance of the status quo; people vote when it matters / they want change. phasmid posted:Established parties actively suppress third parties. Every time someone runs on their own ticket they get painted as crazies or dummies. In the U.S., it's because they are crazy -- or at least political incompetitents. Anyone with any sense will nominally run as an R or D because party registration doesn't really matter. Neither Team R nor Team D has any real way of enforcing party discipline. If it makes you feel better, think of our system as functionally equivalent to the French system. We just call our first round of voting 'primaries.'
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I guess this provides a good case in point here, so I repeat my question from a while ago to all you "vote left in the primaries but always vote D in the general": What the hell do you plan on doing when the establishment really starts rigging the primaries? Pull a Trump and run as a Republican. I don't think the NY Republican Party is strong enough to prevent such a takeover. edited for clarity. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's literally just trump though. Trump was a Presidential candidate... an off-year year election for, say, a House seat would be a different kettle of fish. Shockingly low numbers actually vote in those primaries. A medium-sized flash mob could turn one of those.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Options for keeping Iran from a bomb without the voluntary material submission and inspection deal: Maybe now, but we certainly blew a once-a-century opportunity with our response to the Green Revolution. We also got taken to the cleaners when we traded sanctions + $700 million for (at best) a ten year moratorium on further developing a few sub-components of a usable nuke. I don't envy the Trump administration on this issue. They have a ton of hard work to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:....I'm pretty sure that article just involved that one person saying how her personal opinion is that they should increase the number, and the tweet linking the article was the only thing saying "the DNC is considering increasing superdelegates." ... Good point. The only way they could improve on this journalistic C.F. is base the whole story on one anonymous source. see e.g., most of the Trump reporting. I'll be somewhat contrarian. I'm sympathetic to superdelegates on the ground that a party should be able to control it's brand. Open primaries, in particular, seem ripe for abuse. Instead, the real problem here is how our election laws privilege the major parties.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Weltlich posted:**** Good, we agree it happens. But I'll posit that the more-typical goal is to just extend the primary race, thereby weakening the eventual nominee. Rush's "Operation Chaos" may have had such an effect both 5 and 9 years ago. Also, the brand-control rules also need to work in off-year, House/Senate elections, too. One D rep (Claire McCaskill, iirc) boasted about using her campaign contributions to promote a particular R opponent. Legal, apparently, but something any party would like protection against. Weltlich posted:Second, that Clinton voters and Trump voters aren't radically different in their ideologies, since most of the "open primaries" that Clinton won, then went on to flip to Trump in the general election. IDK. Getting off-topic, but imho, both Trump and Bernie drew support from the same anti-establishment / anti-globalism crowd. I suspect there was a fair bit of crossover, despite the normal political labels. Even more off topic, we really should come up with a better metaphor than the 'political spectrum'. Two dimensions, or maybe a circle?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why should a tiny cabal of party leadership be the ones in control of its brand and not the members who actually make up the party. Fair point. The R's tend to give their base more say. Unfortunately, that base occasionally selects a wacky candidate for some obscure/non-competitive house seat, who the D's then use to club the rest of their nominees. The D's 'board of directors' model seems to reduce variability. For good or for bad. Both parties are suspicious of their "presidential cycle only" members and their "unregistered leaners," for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 19:04
|
|