Support NeoGAF

[Basileus777]

I think the logic is that it isn't very welcoming to new voters. People who are invested in the political system are probably good to go, but imagine being one of those people who waits in line to vote and finds out they can't because they had to register with that party weeks or even months earlier. It's not a very welcoming system.

The ease of changing party affiliation is something that can be independent of whether a primary is closed. There are closed primaries where changing it doesn't need to be done so far in advance.

This is a bizarre conclusion. Ohio should be #1 on everyone's list.

Ohio isn't as important this year as Trump could very easily win it and not come close to 270.

 

[neurosisxeno]

People should register for the party that most closely aligns with their values. Being Independent is the stupidest thing you can you. It offers zero benefit in our politcal system and basically exists for people who want to feel like they are a special flower.

Someone should tell this asshole that.

The ease of changing party affiliation is something that can be independent of whether a primary is closed. There are closed primaries where changing it doesn't need to be done so far in advance.

And that's something I think should be baselined\fixed. I think there should be more strict guidelines that the parties enforce when it comes to Primaries. This whole Wild West approach is archaic and shitty. Even as a Sanders supporter I realize Caucuses are dog shit.

 

[shem935]

Someone should tell this asshole that.

Also tell him to mandate STV as a voting system as well. Till that changes the logic of voting third party being a waste of a vote won't change.

 

[Captain Pants]

Apparently the Obama administration is behind the fraud. Oh reddit...

 

[cogent]

Someone should tell this asshole that.

lol okay dude. I'll also remember to tell Neanderthals that they should have just used Microwaves to cook their meat.

 

[Manmademan]

Ohio isn't as important this year as Trump could very easily win it and not come close to 270.

Speaking not of its importance, but responding to that poster's claim that if any state were to flip from D to R it would be Ohio, not PA.

Ohio was closer than PA was in 2012 and 2008, and PA has twice as many hispanics.

 

[User 463088]

Ohio is important. I'm important. Cleveland may or may not be important. We'll see.

Alcohol is good.

 

[neurosisxeno]

lol okay dude. I'll also remember to tell Neanderthals that they should have just used Microwaves to cook their meat.

Setting aside the point that Microwaving Meat makes it about as enjoyable as dog shit, there were a ton of founding fathers who were against the implementation of Political Parties, exactly because it would lead to the kind of gridlocked political system we see now. Most of them have been retroactively assigned political parties, but Washington was vehemently against being assigned one while he was alive.

I would say as someone else pointed, it's mostly nonsense because we use FPTP voting, which means at best you end up with 2 viable parties.

 

[Suikoguy]

Setting aside the point that Microwaving Meat makes it about as enjoyable as dog shit, there were a ton of founding fathers who were against the implementation of Political Parties, exactly because it would lead to the kind of gridlocked political system we see now. Most of them have been retroactively assigned political parties, but Washington was vehemently against being assigned one while he was alive.

I would say as someone else pointed, it's mostly nonsense because we use FPTP voting, which means at best you end up with 2 viable parties.

Political Parties are, in large part, due to their shitty FPTP system.
So why did you bring up Washington?

 

[sc0la]

FTFY

Oh I'm sorry I was a little bit too busy running for president to change my diaper when I shit myself have a plan for when I'm president.

 

[Valhelm]

I don't quite understand what is wrong with having to register as a democrat in order to vote in the democratic party's primary process. I would hate to see open primaries disempower registered democratic voters who have a huge stake in the success of the party like minorities or other demos that have no political home elsewhere.

Yeah, Bernie's kinda wrong on this one. It's definitely more democratic to allow all voters to partake in a primary, but the Democratic Party is still a private organization.

 

[Rebel Leader]

People should register for the party that most closely aligns with their values. Being Independent is the stupidest thing you can you. It offers zero benefit in our politcal system and basically exists for people who want to feel like they are a special flower.

I will not affiliate with any party what so ever

 

[Basileus777]

Political Parties are, in large part, due to their shitty FPTP system.

What modern system are they not a part of? They exist without FPTP.

 

[Manmademan]

I would say as someone else pointed, it's mostly nonsense because we use FPTP voting, which means at best you end up with 2 viable parties.

OR you have a bunch of micro-parties that end up joining more or less permanent coalitions under a larger umbrella in order to ensure that they get to 51% of the vote- which would end up completely identical to the current system we have now.

 

[User 463088]

Yeah, Bernie's kinda wrong on this one. It's definitely more democratic to allow all voters to partake in a primary, but the Democratic Party is still a private organization.

And the great thing is, all voters are more than welcome to vote in our primary. We'd welcome every single one of them...if they register as a Democrat.

I'm in agreement that the deadline shouldn't be as early as New York, but that's the only thing I'm willing to entertain. Well, that and get rid of cock uses.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah, Bernie's kinda wrong on this one. It's definitely more democratic to allow all voters to partake in a primary, but the Democratic Party is still a private organization.

I am however in favor of pushing back party change dates in some states. NY is particularly bad being in October.

But otherwise, the barrier to enter the Dem party is pretty low, it's virtually no cost, and in many areas you can change to it online.

What modern system are they not a part of? They exist without FPTP.

Yeah, but if trying to avoid political parties was a concern of theirs, then FPTP is a surefire way to make sure they happen even more so than other systems.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Basketball is stupid. Cleveland is stupid. Cock uses are stupid. Primaries are stupid. Everything is stupid.

Vote Trump 2016.

Your campaigning for Trump seems to have worked, please continue until you see the crying Jordan memes.

 

[shem935]

Setting aside the point that Microwaving Meat makes it about as enjoyable as dog shit, there were a ton of founding fathers who were against the implementation of Political Parties, exactly because it would lead to the kind of gridlocked political system we see now. Most of them have been retroactively assigned political parties, but Washington was vehemently against being assigned one while he was alive.

I would say as someone else pointed, it's mostly nonsense because we use FPTP voting, which means at best you end up with 3 parties.

I meant that in a sarcastic sense pointing out that the founding fathers who you are holding up as these wise sages who predicted that parties suck insured that we would end up with two major parties all the time through the voting system they enacted. Sure they spoke out against parties but:

A. Parties in general help clarity as they unify an understandable message under one banner.

B. The idea that people wouldn't group up into similar like minded camps to achieve common goals is silly in and of itself

C. They made the governing process as slow as possible and gave us the worst possible voting system to deal with a polarized country.

At the end of the day we work with the system we have. Not complain about a reality that won't change without effort and then waste that effort where it won't make a difference.

 

[Man God]

OR you have a bunch of micro-parties that end up joining more or less permanent coalitions under a larger umbrella in order to ensure that they get to 51% of the vote- which would end up completely identical to the current system we have now.

People ignore this when they clamor for a new system. All political systems end up with two mega parties of the rulers and the opposition. In some systems the groups that make up the mega coalitions shift stances and change names quickly, and in our system they may switch stances and change names much more slowly.

 

[User 463088]

Your campaigning for Trump seems to have worked, please continue until you see the crying Jordan memes.

Everything is terrible.

Someone turn on Keeping it 1600 so my love's voice can carry me to wonky heaven.

 

[Valhelm]

Is there any feasible way for the US to peacefully and legally transition away from a two-party system?

 

[User 463088]

Is there any feasible way for the US to peacefully and legally transition away from a two-party system?

A third party has to win. Public funding of elections may help, but, honestly, someone outside one of the partties is going to have to win.

 

[Suikoguy]

OR you have a bunch of micro-parties that end up joining more or less permanent coalitions under a larger umbrella in order to ensure that they get to 51% of the vote- which would end up completely identical to the current system we have now.

This is true, but I think it leads to people voting for parties that better represent themselves. This leads to less of a feeling of voting between 2 parties where you dislike one and hate the other. Which leads towards disillusionment.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

#letclevelandburn

This is the official hashtag of tonight and the GOP convention

Spoiler

j/k...

 

[User 463088]

#letclevelandburn

This is the official hashtag of tonight and the GOP convention

If the Cavs pull it off, they'll have to relocate the convention. Cause, not only will there be no Q, there will be no Cleveland.

 

[cogent]

A third party has to win. Public funding of elections may help, but, honestly, someone outside one of the partties is going to have to win.

A succesfull third party will just transition to the other party in a two party system.

 

[B-Dubs]

Is there any feasible way for the US to peacefully and legally transition away from a two-party system?

Third-parties would actually have to try being actual parties for that to happen. All of our national third-parties are deeply embarrassing and total fucking jokes. They don't deserve any power right now.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Someone should tell this asshole that.

I'm not necessarily opposed to open primaries, but I'm not sure how relevant Washington's views are. His political career existed during a time when the first American political parties were still forming and both of them were represented in his cabinet. That's a little different from living in a political system where politics clearly function within the confines of the party system, refusing to join either party, and then demanding the parties accommodate one's decision.

What modern system are they not a part of? They exist without FPTP.

I mean, proportional representation assumes the existence of political parties for its allocations to work. What you can charge FPTP with is creating pressures that lead to a two party system.

 

[pigeon]

Is there any feasible way for the US to peacefully and legally transition away from a two-party system?

At this time there is no feasible way to even enact an amendment to the Constitution, so there's definitely not a way to change the whole election process.

Someday after the parties finish realigning there will be less, like, arguments over the legitimacy of government and then we'll be able to actually do things like major Constitutional changes again.

 

[Y2Kev]

The argument hasn't been made convincingly to me, though, why states should pay for closed primaries. I think this is a pretty good point that Bernistas and other political junkies bring up. I don't agree that the parties are necessarily private (I mean, they are, but ok), and I think they don't make it overly difficult to register either, but if you don't have reasonable registration requirements (and we can debate what that means), then it's difficult to really understand why the government should provide for this as a public good.

I would not be opposed to closed primaries with same day registration for all new voters and like a two week blackout for people "switching" party registration.

 

[gutter_trash]

Sanders is more concerned with convention politicking than actually doing his job as Senator on "No Fly, No buy"

 

[Wilsongt]

Are we gonna get any of Dick's Hot Takes this year? Or Karl Rove freakouts?

 

[User 463088]

Are we gonna get any of Dick's Hot Takes this year? Or Karl Rove freakouts?

 

[pigeon]

The argument hasn't been made convincingly to me, though, why states should pay for closed primaries. I think this is a pretty good point that Bernistas and other political junkies bring up. I don't agree that the parties are closed, and I think they don't either, but if you don't have reasonable registration requirements (and we can debate what that means), then it's difficult to really understand why the government should provide for this as a public good.

I would not be opposed to closed primaries with same day registration for all new voters and like a two week blackout for people "switching" party registration.

States pay for primaries because states hold primaries. Both parties have to hold primary elections so it makes sense to have them both leverage the same apparatus to do so.

Primary elections are really expensive so if the states weren't willing to pay for them we'd just have 50 caucuses. Or just superdelegates, which is what they actually used to do!

Also SCOTUS:

Appellants seem to place reliance on the self-evident fact that if the State must assume the cost, the voters, as taxpayers, will ultimately be burdened with the expense of the primaries. But it is far too late to make out a case that the party primary is such a lesser part of the democratic process that its cost must be shifted away from the taxpayers generally. The financial burden for general elections is carried by all taxpayers and appellants have not demonstrated a valid basis for distinguishing between these two legitimate costs of the democratic process. It seems appropriate that a primary system designed to give the voters some influence at the nominating stage should spread the cost among all of the voters in an attempt to distribute the influence without regard to wealth. Viewing the myriad governmental functions supported from general revenues, it is difficult to single out any of a higher order than the conduct of elections at all levels to bring [405 U.S. 134, 149] forth those persons desired by their fellow citizens to govern.

 

[Valhelm]

Third-parties would actually have to try being actual parties for that to happen. All of our national third-parties are deeply embarrassing and total fucking jokes. They don't deserve any power right now.

This is a shitty attitude. While the Green Party and Libertarians can be wacky, both of them offer desperately well-needed alternative policies to those offered by either major party. Much of the reason why third parties seem silly is because most pragmatic voters who agree with their views are either Democrats or Republicans.

I'm absolutely certain that a more powerful Green Party wouldn't harbor anti-vacc positions. Problem is, American politics is so restricting that crazies are more likely to be party members.

 

[mo60]

Are we gonna get any of Dick's Hot Takes this year? Or Karl Rove freakouts?

Karl Rove doesn't like trump to much. Someone else may do something like Dick's hot take or freakout like Rove.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I meant that in a sarcastic sense pointing out that the founding fathers who you are holding up as these wise sages who predicted that parties suck insured that we would end up with two major parties all the time through the voting system they enacted. Sure they spoke out against parties but:

A. Parties in general help clarity as they unify an understandable message under one banner.

B. The idea that people wouldn't group up into similar like minded camps to achieve common goals is silly in and of itself

C. They made the governing process as slow as possible and gave us the worst possible voting system to deal with a polarized country.

At the end of the day we work with the system we have. Not complain about a reality that won't change without effort and then waste that effort where it won't make a difference.

It is ironic that, by assuming there wouldn't be any political parties, the Founding Fathers ended up designing a system that is so biased toward a two party system.

I'd also note that, for all their stated opposition to parties, they mostly joined one of the two once they formed. Honestly, you get the impression a lot of them hated parties not so much based on merits, but because they associated them with Britain.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

A succesfull third party will just transition to the other party in a two party system.

There are three active and influential parties in the UK government, which is first-past-the-post.

 

[cogent]

The argument hasn't been made convincingly to me, though, why states should pay for closed primaries.

Because otherwise your state has zero say in the presidential candidates?

 

[Y2Kev]

States pay for primaries because states hold primaries. Both parties have to hold primary elections so it makes sense to have them both leverage the same apparatus to do so.

Primary elections are really expensive so if the states weren't willing to pay for them we'd just have 50 caucuses. Or just superdelegates, which is what they actually used to do!

Also SCOTUS:

Because otherwise your state has zero say in the presidential candidates?

States hold primaries. But states could hold open primaries instead of closed primaries. An open primary makes sense as a public good. They facilitate voting for the entire population. Closed primaries don't do that, obviously.

 

[pigeon]

There are three active and influential parties in the UK government, which is first-past-the-post.

Terminology problems.

The UK's government is parliamentary with FPTP for individual seats in parliament*. That means the head of government is not FPTP, because they lead a coalition in parliament. America's government is FPTP for the head of government because they are separate from the legislature. This makes it practically impossible to have a third party compete for the presidency. That impossibility means that it is very difficult for a third party to influence lower offices as well.

* Technically the UK is governed by a divine sovereign who personally owns all the people and land in it and does with them as she wishes, but, you know, technicalities.

 

[User 463088]

There are three active and influential parties in the UK government, which is first-past-the-post.

Regionally there are more, since the Conservatives are SOL in Scotland, but the SNP is strong there but no where else. The Lib Dems were rekt by the last election....well, because of their coalition arrangement, but whatever.

 

[pigeon]

States hold primaries. But states could hold open primaries instead of closed primaries. An open primary makes sense as a public good. They facilitate voting for the entire population. Closed primaries don't do that, obviously.

Closed primaries facilitate voting for the entire population, because everybody in the state is allowed to sign up for the party.

 

[cogent]

There are three active and influential parties in the UK government, which is first-past-the-post.

UKIP is just the tea party. In the US they'd be another group of Republicans. The UK has an illusion of more than two parties.

 

[User 463088]

UKIP is just the tea party. In the US they'd be another group of Republicans. The UK has an illusion of more than two parties.

SNP brah.

Scotland is basically a two party system between Labour and SNP. Obviously, SNP has no power outside of Scotland. And Plaid Cymru hasn't been anything in Wales, so there's no other regional party with that level of power.

 

[Valhelm]

What are the benefits of a two-party system versus a multi-party system based on coalitions? Could the Democrats or Republicans reasonably decentralize into multiple collaborating parties?

 

[Box of Kittens]

There are three active and influential parties in the UK government, which is first-past-the-post.

Certainly FPTP doesn't guarantee a two party system. Canada has three at the federal level, plus the Bloc Quebecois. But it does tend to create pressures against having a large number of parties. On the other hand, pure proportional representation (i.e. with no thresholds) tends to lead to a lot of parties. See Germany during the Weimar Republic, where having 12 to 15 parties earn representation in the Reichstag was typical.

The US also has the Electoral College, which creates several more pressures for a two party system.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Adam you can stop campaigning for Trump now.

 

[thebloo]

Adam's gonna be drunk tonight.

 

[Paskil]

Will Cleveland survive the night?