The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
John Oliver video was good
Third comment on the video:
Lol
Third comment on the video:
Lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Voting for a party and identifying with it are pretty different things. If you've taken the time to become the member of a party, you probably positively identify with it and genuinely vote *for* that party. If you vote for a party but otherwise deliberately chose to have nothing to do with it, then you're clearly not at all fond of that party and vote for it as the lesser of two evils - nothing to do with "feeling special". So, a rise in people considering themselves independents, even if they continue to vote D or R, is indicative of a rise in dissatisfaction - with both parties. That's something pretty important and shouldn't be ignored, especially given it corroborates much else of what we know about popular sentiment towards American politics and American politicians.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Dearie me, I hope you weren't wanting some of that party unity stuff, were you?
"The Washington Post's use of math when talking about caucus turnout is clear bias!
I feel like there are more Bernie voters so there have to be!"
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
Trump is accusing Bill of being a rapist again in a new Instagram post. Should I link it here?
BotoxAgent
Member
anything that reports Hillary in any positive light is because of media bias, or shills, or a giant conspiracy. Jesus, do these people actually listen to themselves!?
I can't read a news article in my Facebook feed anymore without seeing some fool screaming "What about Bernie!!?," "Bias!!!," etc as the top comments. The persecution complex with these people are so strong.
Which makes it all the more hilarious when these independents throw a rage fit when they find out that they can't vote in the D or R primary (in most cases anyway).
And here are her supporters preparing a charm potion for debate moderators..
Amuck amuck amuck!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Crabs are not know for their levity, only their wit and surprisingly good baritone.
your link, and most of what i can find, are only calling out what people think they are, and not what they are registered as. I'm having a harder time finding that data versus what people say they are.
I think there is some aggravation with parties, and there was also a clear uptick of "independents" coming from R's around the time of the tea party, yet again, they vote for the candidate in that party
I just dont think that someone who doesn't want to call themselves what they are counts for very much in my opinion.
Whats the negative of party affiliation when the party votes are the same? (I'm asking this as a serious question)
RustyNails
Member
Man I'm dying to watch this documentary. DYING. When's it out on Blu-ray?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
As has been pointed out, though, the American political system is set up in such a way that only the Democrats or Republicans will ever be viable. Even if you strongly dislike both parties (hello!), as long as you think one party is moderately less bad than the other, you have incentive to at least participate in the primaries, which requires registering for many states.
I mean, you're right insofar as that functionally, choosing to affiliate with a party or not has no (immediate) impact. There are secondary impacts - in the long run, less people becoming strongly involved in their party means less potential candidates, for example, and it's quite notable how the number of Senators and Representatives from low-income backgrounds has drastically increased since the late '60s, in line with the decrease in party affiliation; the new middle classes have since dominated modern politics. But even though there is no impact in itself, it does tell you something important: people are pretty discontented with politics. I don't think you can just try and wish that away as special snowflake-ism; you're talking about nearly half of America at that point.
RustyNails
Member
Ignore TV for next two weeks. Hillary will get a nice 10 point bump after Wacky Bernie goes into a death spiral in NJ with a flameout in CA and Hillary is finally crowned that evening.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Remember all that talk (including from me!) about how many parts of the party would oppose Trump, unity could be an issue in certain areas, etc? Well now it's clear that the party is fully embracing him, outside of a handful of admirable holdouts (Bushes, Romney, perhaps Ryan, etc). Everything is about power. They think Trump can win and are willing to put up with the bigotry and unseriousness if it means they can control the WH/House/senate.
Trump has shown no ability to censure himself, all it takes is a minor attack for him to go overboard. While I can't wait for the primary to end...perhaps it benefits things by deceiving republicans into thinking this is a close election Trump can win.
BTW this farce is another example of why republicans won't close the tech or data gap anytime soon. They pay people to lie to them every four years. I'm still amazed that some of the firms that consulted Romney are still being used by the GOP.
Trump has shown no ability to censure himself, all it takes is a minor attack for him to go overboard. While I can't wait for the primary to end...perhaps it benefits things by deceiving republicans into thinking this is a close election Trump can win.
BTW this farce is another example of why republicans won't close the tech or data gap anytime soon. They pay people to lie to them every four years. I'm still amazed that some of the firms that consulted Romney are still being used by the GOP.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I'm pretty sure I remember studies that show independents are just as partisan as registered Ds/Rs. They just don't like to identify as a party even if they still align with it. Which to be sure, is still important to measure as Crab points out, but it's not measuring true independence as we might expect. A smaller fraction of independents will behave the way the word implies.
Some of Sanders' older supporters having a march:
That kid with the bandana might have a gun
I wonder how much of Sanders' support with young people is purely "if he was elected my college debt would be forgiven."
Certainly the Facebook friends I see online who are diehard supporters are actually ultraliberal atheists and the like so their affiliation makes sense, but in a wider demographic sense I don't see why so many are in the tank for him. But then I just get annoyed because it's pretty rich that people my age and younger are saying "the system is broken!" when they've never actually participated in the system.
Those are some young, fine looking Hillary supporters.And here are her supporters preparing a charm potion for debate moderators..
Amuck amuck amuck!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is a wonderfully American way of thinking that really illustrates how much impact the two-party system has had on American politics. Yes, obviously independents have political preferences; most are not perfect centrists or entirely apathetic. Given they have political preferences, they will have a particular party that they prefer to the other, and therefore a party they will align with for most voting occasions. This is a function of the fact that they have no alternative. Compare, for example, Germany, where if I don't like the Social Democrats but still generally prefer left of centre politics, I can vote for the Greens (or alternatively the CDU/FDP if I prefer right of centre politics). If "truly independent" means "will vote for parties that aren't D/R" or some such, no American voter can ever truly be independent without discarding their vote. Mistaking the fact that voters have no alternative for genuine party affiliation, and therefore brushing it aside or calling it "not true independence", is pretty characteristic of a general willingness to overlook some pretty deep structural flaws in American politics.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I really doubt he wins California. No polling has shown him even being close. All the nonsense with Nevada hit at the totally wrong time for him, as well, as it's when the ballots were arriving.
I will say, like, I don't think many people (in this thread, anyway) would argue that the US electoral system is the best of all possible worlds. As I've said before, we got stuck with the beta version and the upgrade path is hell.
In a hypothetical situation where we had a constitutional convention and I had complete control of it, sure, I'd go to something like party-slate proportional representation or something. I dunno. I honestly haven't given a lot of thought to "which democracy would be best" because I don't believe it's changeable in my lifetime, because a constitutional convention would be a terrifying calamity for America. Anything could happen! As with everything around here, half of the people who want a constitutional convention want to do the exact opposite of what the other half wants to do, but unlike everything else, there are literally no official rules or structures for how to handle that disagreement.
So basically, like, I generally agree that the two-party system sucks. I just don't see how it will actually change. We can't even appoint a Supreme Court justice everybody agrees should be there. I think agreeing to large-scale reforms to the fundamental constitution of the US government is a little ways out. (Actually, to be honest, I am not sure how inertia ever allows those to happen. I need to go read up on France's agile republic strategy.)
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You won't get any argument from me.
Allowing independents to vote in all primaries removes virtually all incentive to register for a party.
User 463088
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree. There's no real chance that anything that is actually constitutionally entrenched is ever going to change. That's why the best way to improve American politics (/the only way) is to improve the existing party structures; which is *very* possible. For example, if I were Sanders, getting Clinton to publicly commit to refuse funding for primaries that weren't semi-closed same-day registration would be an absolute minimum to prevent me running as an independent. If I were Clinton herself... well, I'd be running on an entirely different platform (I mean I would compared to Sanders, but you get my drift), but I'd change the hell out of the DNC. Take a leaf out of Sadat's book (well, except getting it right) and be the Last Pharoah - open up the primaries, use paper ballots everywhere, don't use eligible state voter restrictions (i.e., let former felons vote in the Democratic primaries of states which are too grossly undemocratic to let this happen), use national popular vote for the selection of the Democratic nominee, just clear out the whole party structure.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why do you assume, as a default, that people ought to register for a party? What is the purpose of this? Why is it worth sacrificing democratic input?
BotoxAgent
Member
I also wonder if this will eventually become an actual debate question :/
I agree wholeheartedly. I can't think of any other group that allows nonmembers to vote on how the group operates.
whyamihere
Banned
She just shouldn't respond about Juanita.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
We lost brainchild and got his UK counterpart Crab back.
Welcome back Crab.
Thanks, Neo! Sad to see brainchild isn't around, though.
Got an email inviting me to have dinner with Queen. Well, an entry for a chance to have dinner with Queen. I'm just assuming that I will win.
He seems to last a day or so after coming back from a ban before being banned again.
He seems to last a day or so after coming back from a ban before being banned again.
I worry this could become the subject that sinks Hillary. I feel pretty melancholic on the subject because I don't dismiss the claims. The way the presidency can affect so many though makes it gray I feel. Hillary would certainly be much better than Trump on all fronts. Her response, if she does so, will be something to look out for sure.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Like Trudeau in Canada with the #DontHaveAMillion who think Trudeau will bring home prices down so they can get their own condos and not feel like renting losers anymore.
Once they get their condos, then they want taxes to go down and deregulation galore to be able to flip.
#1 goal for Trump right now is to have Bill leave the campaign or be pushed out of it by Hillary or her team. Next will be keeping the divine between Sander and Hillary's supporters after he's out, for maybe two weeks or so as the media focus on the "divided Democrats". Then attacking Obama when he joins in, but that will be kind of pointless and he probably hopes Bams never really campaigns.
whyamihere
Banned
It's a super dangerous gamble that didn't work in the 90s and I would be surprised worked today. It's also not like he's Mr. Clean -- remember Ivana's testimony?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
There's nothing deeply American about questioning statistics. If you want information on actual policy/values behavior of voters you need more than their registered party, simple as that. If you have to go through a chain of inferences to get to the conclusion you want you ought to be measuring a more direct statistic.
By true independence I mean behavior that demonstrates variance from the votes of identified party voters, that is, a Republican leaning independent who has voted for Democrats who more closely matches their values and vice versa. A commitment to policy/values over party.
Besides, people can vote for third parties, they'll just lose. Does this make them more idealistic and independents more pragmatic? Or are third party voters the ones most disillusioned with the system? I don't know. I couldn't tell you just looking at third party registration versus independent.
If people want to vote in a party election you vote from within that party.
The US is one of the few western democracies that even has public primary elections for party leadership and nomination.
Europeans screaming about the American primary process and democracy don't have a much of a leg up given how most Eurorpean nations don't have a public party vote and many others require paid party dues to even vote in party leadership elections.
User 463088
Banned
There is actually a plus one. I saw you mention earlier in the thread that you are maxed out. I assume she is sending them to all or donors that have contributed over a certain amount. Don't lose hope! I wasn't maxed yet so I made an additional donation to get a second entry. Not that I needed it, though.
RustyNails
Member
Because in a democracy, party system is also a "democratic output". Why does an outsider gets to decide the nominee of a political party he's not affiliated with? It looks like people want their cake and eat it as well. You need to decide how much which way you lean between two parties. Is abortion and gay marriage a big problem for you despite you want wealthy to be taxed much more? Register Republican. Simple as that. Otherwise form your own party and set up your own tent. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. You will even get tax subsidies from us if you do!
User 463088
Banned
There is actually a plus one. I saw you mention earlier in the thread that you are maxed out. I assume she is sending them to all or donors that have contributed over a certain amount. Don't lose hope! I wasn't maxed yet so I made an additional donation to get a second entry. Not that I needed it, though.
I got the email too.
I guess I could donate to her GE fund. I'm not sure if I have to mark that myself or if they do it automatically? Not sure.....Oh well. Since you're going to win anyway.....
So what you are saying is, give Trump the presidency in return for a party change that doesn't actually matter at all other than to appeal to some weird notion that actual party members can't be trusted to pick their own nominee?
And I'm sorry, but anyone talking about primary reform without starting and ending with 'fuck all caucuses' is barking up the wrong tree. Nothing you list is anywhere near as undemocratic and egregious as those things.
The way our two party system has adapted to be able to be compatible with more than two views is that we allow for something like Sanders to happen. Then you guys shit on it and tell him to get in line.
Vox had a great discussion about this (on a broader sense, not specifically about Sanders) on their podcast (The Weeds). We have fewer parties, but they're less congruent when compared to countries that have proportional systems and more parties.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
As someone involved in party politics I think lots of your reforms would make it HARDER for a Sanders style push to be successful. Your just seemingly calling for a giant popular vote. This will lead to the majority shutting out the minority which are those farther to the left.
The party diffuse structure actually helps Sanders and his supporters win influence. There are many points of entry and influence. Your asking for all those to be closed and only have one door.
You should be able to enter once. There is no required donation to enter. If you are able to, though, you can enter a second time by making a donation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked