That's true. I do wonder if today's internet heavy age can change that though.
-
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
Brawndo Addict
Banned
In case it wasn't clear I'm not trying to defend the two party system as an ideal. I'm just saying that an independent who has voted for both democrats and republicans is a much better representation of non-party politics than an independent who votes only for one party.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Your argument boils down to "set up an alternative party"; or alternatively "lol don't care". The entire American electoral system is set up in such a way that it is effectively impossible for a third party to compete. You have first past the post leading to Duverger's Law, you have a presidential system that means you can't have a shared executive leading to one-candidate-wins-all, you have a bicameral structure that means a breakthrough party in one house couldn't even get anything done if they did get there, you have a federal structure that means a new party would have to break through in multiple places simultaneously. All of these things mean this is effectively impossible. Saying "go set up your own party" is not really any different to saying "stick it where the sun don't shine"; it's marginally more polite but unfortunately more condescending.
The American parties are not like, e.g., the parties in the French political system, which do come and go at a rather frequent pace, with frequent new parties being formed and new coalitions being put together. They're not even parties like those in Germany, which, while relatively consistent, are at least exposed to occasional shocks from outside parties that mean they have to be responsive. No, American parties aren't just parties, they're a fundamental part of the American electoral system itself. There is no real alternative to participating in the Republican or Democrat parties if you want any kind of genuine political voice. Why do you think Sanders ran as a Democratic nominee and not as an Independent?
If you really want parties to just be private organizations, then you ought to end federal funding of parties - after all, they're simply private organizations. You wouldn't argue for that because you recognise that they're more important that; they're how the American political system works. Well, the American political system ought to work for everyone, and because the American constitution is dreadful, the only way you can actually change the American political system is by changing the parties.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
...nope. Not what I'm saying at all. I don't think you read my post very carefully.
I think most regulars in this thread will know that I *very regularly* say "fuck caucuses". At this point, that largely goes without saying.
User 463088
Banned
Absolutely not. You're calling for a party process to exclude the party.
It's quite simple: You want to decide who the Democrats nominate, you register as a member of the Democratic party. Period. It cost nothing. There's no added barrier to registration outside of registering to vote. If you can't be bothered to join the party, then I'm not sure why you'd feel entitled to determine who the party nominates. These aren't elections, elections. There is no constitutional requirement that we let anyone get a say in who is selected (Although I think we should, and we should get rid of caucuses like tomorrow.)
I have no issue with closed primaries whatsoever. In fact, I think they should be closed. Not to the degree that New York is, obviously, but I see no issue wiht a deadline ot register as a member of a particular party.
Now, if we're talking about the GE, then no. I believe same day registration should be the norm everywhere because that's an actual election and a constitutional right.
My perfect primary system would be basically what we have now (as far as states being worth a certain number of pledged delegates with Supers still being a thing), with a rolling regional calendar over a period of 3 months or so. Closed primary, early voting for 30 days before your state votes. No caucuses. Registration deadline to switch party and/or register would be at the time early voting starts.
This is a lie. Get one drink in him and he'll be screaming YASSS when Hillary speaks.
Always funny to have Europeans comment on the concept of primaries.
As a French guy, you get primaries if you're lucky and if the party officials feel like it.
The 2 current major parties :
Republicains (yes the shitheads wanted to be associated with the GoP on some level....and also to shed the UMP brand that was worth less than Ralph Nader's current standing with the Dem party) :
- Primary, you can vote if you are part of the party. And that doesn't mean you have to check a box somewhere, you actually have to donate to the party and be affiliated.
PS :
- Incumbent part with the current president
- they actually don't want a primary to happen but they're close to losing pretty badly (like Jeb Bush badly) if they don't.
If you do NOT donate to the party and are not affiliated the whole thing concern you like elections in North Korea, you don't get to vote, you see polls that mean jackshit and in the end you get a candidate that is really not different from the time the party chose with backdoor deals.
Also they're partly funded by the state in an arcane way I won't go into.
If you want my PoV on the matter, I don't give a shit.
It's pretty funny though that the US way of primary means that people with no skin in the party and sometimes outright despise it gets to have a say in how the party is run.
Seems counterintuitive to say the least.
As a French guy, you get primaries if you're lucky and if the party officials feel like it.
The 2 current major parties :
Republicains (yes the shitheads wanted to be associated with the GoP on some level....and also to shed the UMP brand that was worth less than Ralph Nader's current standing with the Dem party) :
- Primary, you can vote if you are part of the party. And that doesn't mean you have to check a box somewhere, you actually have to donate to the party and be affiliated.
PS :
- Incumbent part with the current president
- they actually don't want a primary to happen but they're close to losing pretty badly (like Jeb Bush badly) if they don't.
If you do NOT donate to the party and are not affiliated the whole thing concern you like elections in North Korea, you don't get to vote, you see polls that mean jackshit and in the end you get a candidate that is really not different from the time the party chose with backdoor deals.
Also they're partly funded by the state in an arcane way I won't go into.
If you want my PoV on the matter, I don't give a shit.
It's pretty funny though that the US way of primary means that people with no skin in the party and sometimes outright despise it gets to have a say in how the party is run.
Seems counterintuitive to say the least.
User 463088
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yup. I have absolutely no party loyalty whatsoever; they are simply instrumental tools that exist for the purpose of democratic input. If they're not doing that well, they need to be changed.
Okay, sure. But surely you agree we should therefore remove state funding of parties, right? I mean, they're just private organizations? They don't contribute to a public good, they just happen to be an agglomeration of a particular set of private interests, after all.
Even if Bill is pushed out, Obama will certainly campaign for her. That birther stuff won't go away and will hurt Trump even more.
You guys are arguing from the perspective of "do independents deserve to vote in our primary?" instead of thinking in terms of what's best for the nomination process. What's the advantage to taking this exclusionary, tribalist point of view? Dems are trying to nominate someone with broader appeal to win the GE, so there's a pretty clear case for wanting to take input from a broader base. It also gives non-partisans a chance to be more invested in the election by taking part in the nomination process. I think we should generally make it easier to vote and to motivate people to participate in governing themselves, and opening up the primaries is often a good way to do that.
Preventing people from voting on both primaries at the same time is enough to filter out sabotage votes for the most part.
RastaMentality
Banned
Trump and his people know that everyone's gonna see rape claims way differently than they did back in the 90s which is why these are gonna be tricky claims to deal with.
The smart thing for Trump to do is probably to explicitly take some of Bernie's platform and try to sway some of his white voters but that's probably known.
The smart thing for Trump to do is probably to explicitly take some of Bernie's platform and try to sway some of his white voters but that's probably known.
adamsappel
Member
And I wonder how far their support goes if it was "your college debt can't be forgiven, but the next graduating classes' will be." We've seen how current homeowners backlash against the idea of mortgage forgiveness.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I was under the impression that was his plan. Has he ever mentioned anything about forgiving debt for people who have it already?
The issue with that, I guess, is someone like me who worked hard and lived frugal for years to work towards paying my debt off early to avoid interest. I will have paid it off in 5 years instead of ten, by making aggressive payments.
Money that, should it all just be forgiven anyway, will have just been wasted. Tens of thousands of dollars lost.
I've met too many college students that believe Bernie's plan means their loans go away.
nature boy
Member
Trump's only interest is hammering the idea that the whole "Hillary is for women" is a facade.
He knows he has a (big) problem winning the support of moderate woman, and this is the only angle of attack he has on her.
He knows he has a (big) problem winning the support of moderate woman, and this is the only angle of attack he has on her.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
If independents are unhappy with the parties, they should join the parties.
Leaving (or not joining) just ensures your view will get less exposure.
Leaving (or not joining) just ensures your view will get less exposure.
BlastProcessing
Member
What are your feelings on Unions? Specifically, who should be allowed in and who should be allowed to vote on Union matters?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Suppose that you are a permanent minority in whatever party you joined. What do you do now?
RustyNails
Member
Yes the party system isn't perfect. But since you were talking about DEMOCRACY, that means that Democratic and Republican parties reflect where the country is. If a party undergoes schism like Republicans like to do every few decades, then that reflects where those voters are. If the people want to affect change, they have to join a party or make their own. Easier said than done, I agree. But there's a reason why Green Party and Libertarian Party are on the fringes: American society is not sold on them. If Bernie Independents want to fight for the soul of "Liberal" movement, they have to convince the Democrats about their ideas first. If not, form your Berniecrat party and show us how much appeal you have. The Democratic party encompasses conservadems like JBE and progressives like Barney Frank. I think the majority of the members are okay with this kind of a broad spectrum and don't want the party to become Purist nonsense utopia like Bernie envisions.
Yes there is lack of multiple parties in American system and I understand you cannot form coalitions. But you can form party caucuses and I think Bernie is part of one. Also, we don't have the power to censure the President like you can in European democracies but that's why we shuffle the Congress every two years. If Berniecrats were able to replicate Tea Party successes by convincing the Democratic party to adopt it's ideas, Bernie's vision will have much better chance of being fulfilled.
No, no, no.
Pragmatism is not the equivalent of "the ends justify the means", especially since strategically this ridiculous plan of feeding misinformation only undermines proper policy.
Completely absurd and dangerous idea.
Registering for a party creates an in-tribe effect that encourages people to identify with that party, vote for it to gain power, and agree with its policy goals.
Therefore our best route to changing American policy is to control one of the two large parties, set its policy goals to be our policy goals, and then provide as many incentives as possible to joining that party so as to encourage people to adopt our goals and vote for them.
Also, like, I'm unconvinced about the "democratic input" point here. If we actually switched to something like party-list PR, people would have literally no control over who the party nominated. Lots of countries seem to get along fine that way. Why is it necessary or useful to increase democratic input in an internal party process? Why do other countries not have this requirement?
Right, because it isn't an adaptation. Sanders is a thing that the two-party system is literally designed to restrain and prevent from becoming successful.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Because it is our party!
The democratic party is a party of people who share values and are committed to those values. If your not willing to commit to those or want to change them then I don't think you should be able to select party nominees. If you share different values start a new party. The system allows for this. And it has happened many times.
Never mind the values part of the equation your allowing people not affiliated with a party to allocate where said party will spend money and resources. Open primaries have very similar problems to right to work laws
Yep, but not RTFM would be part and parcel for most political wagons anyhow. From his site: https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
Basically he'd allow current loans to be refinanced, which to me does sound like a solid idea even if I'm not on board with his "college should be completely free" ideas. Other than that though it would only impact incoming college students.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Mixed. Unions have the same problem parties do, insofar as that they aim to bring benefit to workers who are members of that union rather than members in general; but typically speaking workers outside of a union are more vulnerable than those inside workers, so you get the usual insider-outsider divides. Generally speaking I think that stronger unions, given the status quo, would be an improvement; but in an 'ideal world' there would be a basic income, and I'm unsure to what extent unions would persist in a basic income scenario because now workers have a credible exit option to prevent coercion - I think they'd end up being more about political bargaining than wage bargaining.
whyamihere
Banned
Veep is going to actively mess up how the House votes for the president, isn't it?
THIS GIVES ME ANXIETY
THIS GIVES ME ANXIETY
Retromelon
Member
Milton Friedman, of all people, proposed the near-equivalent of basic income in the 70's as a negative income tax.
This really isn't some crazy lefty ideological stretch.
Now, regarding parlamentarism or tweaked forms of presidencialism: The party identities and variety in elections hides that the actual impact on policy-making is severely overstated; The at-first-brush more tailored and representative members will still have to form coalitions and compromise to get something done. The majority of the difference between the US's system and most variations around Europe is that in the US the coalition is resolved before the elections, while elsewhere the coalition is created after.
I don't think there's a clear answer on which one will ALWAYS be best.
This really isn't some crazy lefty ideological stretch.
Now, regarding parlamentarism or tweaked forms of presidencialism: The party identities and variety in elections hides that the actual impact on policy-making is severely overstated; The at-first-brush more tailored and representative members will still have to form coalitions and compromise to get something done. The majority of the difference between the US's system and most variations around Europe is that in the US the coalition is resolved before the elections, while elsewhere the coalition is created after.
I don't think there's a clear answer on which one will ALWAYS be best.
User 463088
Banned
Because it's our party!
I don't get to vote for homecoming queen at Podunk University because I don't go to Podunk University. I'm not a member of that community. Maybe I know the best person to be homecoming queen. If that race means that much to me, then I need to do what I need to do to quote unquote earn a say in it. That's all we're saying. You want a say in who the Democrats nominate? Awesome. Join the party. We're happy to have you. If you can't even do that, and refuse to be a member of the party for whatever reason, you don't get to pitch a fit if you can't decide what we do.
It costs nothing to join. You don't have to donate a dollar or a minute of your time. Join the party, and you get a say in what we do. Refuse to join because you (and, again, this is the universal you not YOU specifically) want to be an "Independent" then you can't moan when you don't get a say in a party you're not a member of. That's just common sense.
I've been involved in the Democratic party since I was a wee baby drag queen in training. I have no qualms with restricting access to vote in our primary to members of the actual party. No one is disenfranchised.
User 463088
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think you have the wrong idea of democracy. This story has the parties first: they pick the policy goals, they create social structures that cause people to identify them, and then mobilize those people to achieve the policy goals. If your parties start in a position of being controlled by a particular set of interests, then all you do is literally entrench that class' interests as the prevailing political social norm. That's pretty harmful. In fact, I think that's what American politics has largely been about for the past thirty years, and why it is in such a bad state. A basic principle ought to be that parties are beholden to people, not the other way round. People shouldn't have to do as parties command, parties ought to be competing for people. Right now, American parties are a cartel [Katz and Mair, yay!].
Our sexy Scandinavian overlords beat you to this one.
Also, even if you have closed list PR, it's still preferable to the American system. While you might not be able to chose who each party nominates, if you dislike who that party nominates, you can vote for a different party - i.e., if the Democrats chose Clinton and you don't like her, you can vote Socialist instead because they have Sanders (or vice versa, whatever floats your boat). That means parties have a large incentive to pick candidates you like. Conversely, even though American systems have primaries as "The Party Chooses" points out, it's very rare that the candidate favoured by the party establishment doesn't get through, and they can do this because ultimately we all have to vote Democrat or Republican in the end. I might dislike Clinton, but I can't credibly punish the Democrats for selecting her because that implicitly means the Republicans do better.
jack_package_200
Banned
DNC agrees to give Sanders greater influence over party platform
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/dnc-bernie-sanders-convention-2016-223477
Threadworthy?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/dnc-bernie-sanders-convention-2016-223477
Threadworthy?
Because in other countries that have proportional systems, "start your own party" can actually be a serious suggestion and not merely a way to say "fuck off, outsider."
...if the two party system didn't adapt like I described, blue dog democrats wouldn't be a thing and Sanders would have never gotten any traction at all because the party platform would have been incompatible with his alternative views, as it is generally the case with parties in more proportional systems. That's why in proportional systems, you're sometimes voting on a party platform more than an individual representative -- you can expect someone representing a party to represent that party in a more rigid and predictable way. Our two party system has obviously adapted in a different direction -- fewer parties, but more variation within a party. It'd be helpful if you listened to the Vox piece so you understood what I'm talking about.
BlastProcessing
Member
Unions do have similar problems and benefits. They are both examples of groups forming a collective to maximise their power. Neither are perfect, but both seem like necessary institutions.
Do you think that non-union members should be allowed to vote for a union's leadership?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not even a near equivalent; you can prove mathematically that for a given set of values that the negative income tax and the basic income have identical effects. For example, if you have a negative income tax of 50% at the £30,000 threshold, for any given pre-tax income, the post-tax income is exactly the same as a £15,000 basic income with a 50% tax rate on all non-basic income.
As said above:
The trouble is that this ignores the very next step of governance. The fact that Sanders is there and you voted for him does not mean you will get his platform: The Socialists and Democrats of your example would then need to form a coalition to actually govern properly and pass policy.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
True, it's not really an option in a 2 party system.
But why should they not join the party and influence it via voting in primaries?
The core question remains.
Why have anything other than figurative parties if there is no reason to join them?
Just stay independent, and if you feel like fucking with the other parties process you can.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The Democratic and Republican parties aren't "necessary" institutions. They're enabled by a deeply flawed political constitution. I think the same is largely true of unions; we only need them to exist because workers have no credible exit option and so firms are in a position of advantage.
I think there are a lot of industries where post-entry closed shop (I think it's called union shop in the United States?) is preferable to other union structures, yes.
I like that both of these answers, in response to
Is basically "because it's our party and if you're not part of our party you don't deserve to vote in our primary."
Pigeon is the only one to even try to articulate why that view is actually going to create better outcomes for the party.
whyamihere
Banned
While I think same-day registration is a great, idea I'm suspect of these claims:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...rnia-voter-confusion-20160522-snap-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...rnia-voter-confusion-20160522-snap-story.html
Not that I'm aware. I usually listen to podcasts while cleaning or taking a walk. Here's a link anyway http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10869298/weeds-taxes-third-parties
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Suppose you are a permanent minority period. What do you do?
You can be in a party and have some voice, or in none and have less voice.
Membership in the party has no strings. There is no downside.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Nope, the contest is nowhere near close enough.
Jack Remington
Banned
Starting to think Hillary should drop out and the Dems should just run Biden. I honestly think the Bill Clinton rape accusation could be fatal in the year 2016.
Beer Monkey
Member
Not this late in the game it isn't. Once your party is clinched (see Trump) there's zero reason to not sabotage the opponent.
I assure you a very real number of Republicans are voting in the Democratic primaries on June 7, given that they can no longer influence the outcome on their own side.
The fact that people are on this train and the majority of European political parties require paid dues to vote for party leadership is strange.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked