Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[lemon10]

Actually, yes. The Pope does meet with every US president in the underground bunker where they have lived ever since Abraham Lincon (and every president after him once they finished their terms) was turned, feasting on the souls of their former constituents to extend their unholy life.

[misko27]

It sounds like you want to pull the parties to the left, not make a new one. Your opposition is as much to the current electorate as to the current parties. Changing the parties is not radical (relatively speaking), and indeed it has happened, well, a lot. I agree with you on that, but I don't see a third party helping things. If the Tea Party became an actual party, do you think it would bolster, or weaken, the right-wing? The answer is weaken: Either the tea-party wins, and the right is condemned to being unacceptably farther to the right then even the current electorate, and thus will face irrelevance, or the more-likely scenario that the Republican party would win, and nothing would change except the Republican party being trashed by the Democrats for a cycle or two. So it is with the right, so it is with the left.


As for Fidel, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail on the head: "Damn it Obama! The CIA was this close to assassinating Fidel Castro with the most deadly weapon they have: Time."

[smjjames]

It sounds like you want to pull the parties to the left, not make a new one. Your opposition is as much to the current electorate as to the current parties. Changing the parties is not radical (relatively speaking), and indeed it has happened, well, a lot. I agree with you on that, but I don't see a third party helping things. If the Tea Party became an actual party, do you think it would bolster, or weaken, the right-wing? The answer is weaken: Either the tea-party wins, and the right is condemned to being unacceptably farther to the right then even the current electorate, and thus will face irrelevance, or the more-likely scenario that the Republican party would win, and nothing would change except the Republican party being trashed by the Democrats for a cycle or two. So it is with the right, so it is with the left.


As for Fidel, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail on the head: "Damn it Obama! The CIA was this close to assassinating Fidel Castro with the most deadly weapon they have: Time."

Getting away from the far right crazies would be nice really.

[SalmonGod]

It sounds like you want to pull the parties to the left, not make a new one. Your opposition is as much to the current electorate as to the current parties. Changing the parties is not radical (relatively speaking), and indeed it has happened, well, a lot. I agree with you on that, but I don't see a third party helping things. If the Tea Party became an actual party, do you think it would bolster, or weaken, the right-wing? The answer is weaken: Either the tea-party wins, and the right is condemned to being unacceptably farther to the right then even the current electorate, and thus will face irrelevance, or the more-likely scenario that the Republican party would win, and nothing would change except the Republican party being trashed by the Democrats for a cycle or two. So it is with the right, so it is with the left.

If that's how you wish to define it.  I still think it's not analogous to the Tea Party, because they don't have a problem with their interests being near-completely unrepresented.

But even so, the Tea Party has succeeded in pulling the Republicans further to the right.  If it takes a similar phenomenon to pull the Democrats further to the left where they should be (meaning on the left at all), thus bringing a fuller spectrum of representation to the public, then what would be wrong with that?

And I do disagree that my complaints are with the electorate.  On the environment you may be right, but not so much on the other issues I listed.  What I witness most often is that the American left vote for Democrats for two reasons.  First that they feel obligated to oppose the Republicans on social issues, and they see Democrats as the only means of doing so, even if it means forever losing ground on other issues.  Or they simply take the Democratic party at face value and believe that they represent those other issues also, unaware that their actions are most often otherwise.  These things are not the fault of the electorate, but of the successful marketing of the two parties as the only viable choices for everyone.

Is it really any wonder that voter participation is so low, when true representation is completely lacking on so many major issues?  This is why I don't vote.  If equal rights for minorities were the ONLY thing in the world I cared about, I would feel great voting for Democrats.  But it's not.  There are many other issues that I believe to be equally, if not more important.  So why would I put my official stamp of approval on record to hire someone to represent me who will actively work against my interests on half the things I care about?  Makes no sense.  And I know many other people who feel exactly the same way.

[Angle]

Yeah, I have to agree with SalmonGod. The only reason I vote Democrat is because I'm absolutely terrified of the republicans. If there was an even remotely viable left alternative, I'd take it. IRV or score voting would be wonderful for me, because it means I could vote the way I wanted and not have to worry about accidentally putting the republicans in office.

[Reelya]

It sounds like you want to pull the parties to the left, not make a new one. Your opposition is as much to the current electorate as to the current parties. Changing the parties is not radical (relatively speaking), and indeed it has happened, well, a lot. I agree with you on that, but I don't see a third party helping things. If the Tea Party became an actual party, do you think it would bolster, or weaken, the right-wing? The answer is weaken: Either the tea-party wins, and the right is condemned to being unacceptably farther to the right then even the current electorate, and thus will face irrelevance, or the more-likely scenario that the Republican party would win, and nothing would change except the Republican party being trashed by the Democrats for a cycle or two. So it is with the right, so it is with the left.


As for Fidel, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail on the head: "Damn it Obama! The CIA was this close to assassinating Fidel Castro with the most deadly weapon they have: Time."

That's only true with the first-past-the-post voting system. With IRV / Alternative vote, having more choice on your own side of politics actually improves things because there will be more potential parties you're willing to get out and cast a vote for. So you might get e.g. a Republican and a Tea Party candidate in each electorate, and everyone on the right votes them 1, 2 or 2, 1. Similarly on the Left you might get a choice between Democrats, Socialist and Green parties, and you vote those all some combination of 1,2 and 3 on your ballot, with the right wingers right at the bottom.

So instant runoff voting gets rid of the "you split the vote" issue entirely.

In the House of Representatives, which is by districts, you will get about 90-95% of candidates from the big two parties winning, but you will get some independent voices in there too (perhaps with the deciding vote), but in the Senate things are proportional on a state basis, so you will see e.g. Greens senators and the like having a voice in politics.

Of course, the Republicans and Democrats will never implement a voting system that prevents the two main parties from having 100% control.

[smeeprocket]

Actually, yes. The Pope does meet with every US president in the underground bunker where they have lived ever since Abraham Lincon (and every president after him once they finished their terms) was turned, feasting on the souls of their former constituents to extend their unholy life.

This is true. It's science.

More parties muddies the waters. ANy attempt to get a third party (and I should know, I voted green during Bush Jrs first run for office,) siphons votes away from the side that the voter would be most likely to sympathize with. It's counter productive.

[Darvi]

More parties muddies the waters. ANy attempt to get a third party (and I should know, I voted green during Bush Jrs first run for office,) siphons votes away from the side that the voter would be most likely to sympathize with. It's counter productive.

Again, that's a problem with FPTP, and not the third parties.

[Angle]

I think he means that that's why he supports IRV or score voting or some such. He could have been clearer about that, though.

[Reelya]

Actually, yes. The Pope does meet with every US president in the underground bunker where they have lived ever since Abraham Lincon (and every president after him once they finished their terms) was turned, feasting on the souls of their former constituents to extend their unholy life.

This is true. It's science.

More parties muddies the waters. ANy attempt to get a third party (and I should know, I voted green during Bush Jrs first run for office,) siphons votes away from the side that the voter would be most likely to sympathize with. It's counter productive.

Alternative Vote fully explained with cute animals. It's just a better system and allows more parties without the spoiler effect. There are other systems that are arguably better that Alternative Vote. But it has the advantage of being simple to understand for voters and easy to implement as a replacement for First Past The Post voting (which is what America uses and is basically just the worst voting system possible).

[misko27]

Spoiler: By god I am worked up. Good night! Warning: long (click to show/hide)

But even so, the Tea Party has succeeded in pulling the Republicans further to the right.  If it takes a similar phenomenon to pull the Democrats further to the left where they should be (meaning on the left at all), thus bringing a fuller spectrum of representation to the public, then what would be wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that at all! Not one damn thing! Except it doesn't tell me I want a third party, it tells me I want a democratic Tea Party (which I am divided on). The discussion is three-parties! And even if all that was true, the only example of a third party you seem to want is one that will get absorbed by the real parties after accomplishing its task.

I do disagree that my complaints are with the electorate.  On the environment you may be right, but not so much on the other issues I listed.  What I witness most often is that the American left vote for Democrats for two reasons.  First that they feel obligated to oppose the Republicans on social issues, and they see Democrats as the only means of doing so, even if it means forever losing ground on other issues.  Or they simply take the Democratic party at face value and believe that they represent those other issues also, unaware that their actions are most often otherwise.  These things are not the fault of the electorate, but of the successful marketing of the two parties as the only viable choices for everyone.

But is it not the electorate's job to judge what is true and false? That which is worth consideration and not worth it? To act as informed individuals able to separate truth from fact? This seems a problem in democracy rather then of the system. I can't help but think that politics is more democratic then you know. If the percentage of Americans who are so incredibly fed up with politicians that they don't vote bother voting at all actually voted, they could do whatever they damn well pleased. Politicians spring up to support damn-well-anything. It seems that you are demanding a party representing your interests appear, and then you will support them, but that seems pretty backwards.

I cannot help but notice that when it comes to the division in politics, everyone from the most lunatic off-his-meds conspiracy theorist to the officials at the highest levels of government can't help but point the finger elsewhere. And I can't help but notice how absurd that is.

Is it really any wonder that voter participation is so low, when true representation is completely lacking on so many major issues?  This is why I don't vote.  If equal rights for minorities were the ONLY thing in the world I cared about, I would feel great voting for Democrats.  But it's not.  There are many other issues that I believe to be equally, if not more important.  So why would I put my official stamp of approval on record to hire someone to represent me who will actively work against my interests on half the things I care about?  Makes no sense.  And I know many other people who feel exactly the same way.

Regardless of the other things, my point remains. You desire a change that is neither incompatible with the current system as I understand it, nor one that is especially helped by a long, arduous campaign to change the constitution. In my head (so please correct me if I'm wrong), I've pegged you as a person who wants change, and wants anything that moves toward that change. That's fine. But I'm concerned with means.

Having heard various responses, let me state my position more fully: Reelya, Angle, Darvi, I always get back to the same issue: I am not necessarily arguing third-parties are worse, I'm arguing that they are not worth the bother. Descan had this point in hand: The system would not survive the change, this is no casual thing. We are talking about what is basically a revolution, and I don't think that this system is worth it. This is more directed at SalmonGod, but this: America is divided, and more fundamentally then by just party right now.

You guys want, and let me be really blunt here, a more left-wing (Green? Socialist? whatever) government, not a more democratic government. A government that allows more room for your own viewpoint. I don't really know what happens in your vision to the 20% who are on the opposite fringe and dramatically disagree, but I imagine you don't think about them often; perhaps you deny their existence, importance or relevance, although they have all three. I often hear variations on "They will see the light" or an accusation of brainwashing, not explaining how anyone intends to fix them with politics while they have political weight. The other side thinks the exact same as the left does, for the exact same reasons. You (by which I mean America, but also Bay12) are just as divided as the parties, and the systems you've shown me would just lead to a congress dominated by the interests of the radicals both left and right, because that is where America is now, and that America is what a more democratic government will need to copy. And I don't think that America is one anyone wants to be in, especially not you guys.

Lord Shonus makes a damn good point that the parties have been creating polarization (arguing that the system isn't flawed merely because it is less democratic), but I think that they can also temper it: unlike a parliamentary party, which truly has no reason to capitulate to reality, in America the fringe has to play nice and bite the bullet to run. On some level, I feel Bay12's problem is that very temperance, and it feels that the democrats are too moderate, but whereas the Tea Party wants to take control of its party, the left wants its own thing ("Splitters!") The distinctions do exist, they just exist within a single party rather then across multiple ones, and they must appeal to the middle (is the middle stupid? Perhaps, but fix the middle, not the parties). The problem of the last few years is because the parties are acting more parliamentary, not less; that is something you have all noticed and mentioned, in your own way, and that really is unsustainable, as the system is not designed for it. Is the middle more corrupt? Yes: less emotional, less ideological - if the opposite of pure is corrupt these guys are it. But compromising beliefs because of the reality is not a crime. Even if you disagree: the multi-party is enough of a crapshoot, and the current system fixable enough, that the change just doesn't seem worth its weight in the blood, sweat and tears it will need.

I just think you guys want your guy in office and don't worry whether (or simply assume that) the system as a whole gets better for it. I want a change that will lessen the division in America, and no one here has yet convinced me that third-parties will do the job. Do I also want a more liberal America? Of course. But I'd rather give the entire country over to moderate conservatives (and all the social issues too!) than set up a death-match between my side and their side. Moderates listen to reason and react to failure, which is something we lack today. Radicals are unwilling to attribute the failure of an event to the plan as a whole. You guys know that ridiculous joke, that everyone hates congress but everyone gets re-elected? Its not some super-corruption, its because America hates everyone else's congressman! And why? Because they are different! They do not believe what we do! They are alien. And I don't see more parties solving that. An alternative voting system will never make the people in other districts listen to you more, and that is what America wants. And here is where I get off being a liberal making this argument: They are disillusioned not by mere policies, they are disillusioned by the failures of institution itself! Failures caused by division two decades or more in the making. And that is why the government has trended conservative. Even as both sides blame the other, the majority (that excludes you guys) of voters clearly believe that the solution to bad government is a smaller government; social issues are for the fringe.

In some sense, I'm the real idealist here, because you guys have accepted the division you live in, while I want to stop it. My aim isn't an ideal, it's a real thing has existed in the past, with fundamentally the same system as today, and I think it can exist again. I don't mean solving argumentativeness, lord no. But this division is not natural to the best of America. It is not what made America strong. That isn't rhetoric people, this is historical freaking fact. For all our hate for it, it was under the stewardship of the American political system we all love to hate that America became the most powerful, wealthy, and advanced nation that ever existed. All the issues that have crept up over the years have polarized the nation, but a polarized nation cannot solve them ("A house divided..."). The Parties used to change and shift as ideas waxed and waned: single issue parties didn't win elections, but that didn't matter, as they could still move minds and create change. Now parties are just vehicles for political fundamentalism! And you guys want more of that? Call it better, more democratic? Please, explain...

(Wow, I'm worked up now) Ultimately, my position is the inherently conservative notion that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people in it, and that looking at third-parties is inherently re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic. It's unpleasant, it doesn't flatter the public, and indeed it puts the blame squarely on each one of us, but that's how it seems to me. By god bay12, give me something that proves you are not trying to implement the worst of democracy in exchange for years of wasted time! Prove you are not mere radicals seeking a more radical-friendly system. Prove that my idea is going backwards instead of fixing a mistake. Prove that third-parties are a necessary upgrade. Prove that the history of America can't repeat, and that technology, ideals, whatever, have made what's worked in the past impossible. Be liberals damn it! But don't demonize, I know the problems that exist. Don't patronize, I understand your arguments and what they refer to. Prove that this is the best thing for the America that exists today; not the one we wish existed, not the one we suspect exists, but the one that is!

I spent too long on this. But anyway, clearly I haven't properly explained myself enough, and no one can answer me until they know where I stand. Yell at me if you wish, but don't go with "You just don't understand". Its just depressing is what it is, I hate hearing that. I hope no one is offended also, I'm not trying to call you all bad or something. I'm just saying I see problems, prove me wrong if you want.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Vermont scraps their Single-Payer Healthcare plan.

[smjjames]

@misko: Well, it's just that the third party candidates provide an alternative and in the current voting system, you might as well be throwing away your vote or splitting the vote

[Rez]

In the current voting and political system, you might as well throw away your vote.

[Angle]

The thing isn't that we want a third party, it's that we want a lot of third parties. Right now, there are some things that the people in power just don't care about and won't pursue - like campaign finance reform, fighting corruption in congress, environmentalism, ending the police state, etc. We really need these these things, and many of them are even things people from both parties can agree on. But we're so divided on social issues, that there's not much that can be done. IRV would allow you to cast your first vote for, say, the Anti-corruption party without your vote being potentially wasted.

And yes, it'd be difficult to implement, but the majority of the fight would be political - once you get through that, actually reprogramming the voting machines would be a snap. Most of them already have the ability to run RV already anyway.

And as for addressing the divisions in America - well, that I have little to no advice for you on. Honestly, I think the root of the problem is that everybody listens to their own news, and interacts very little with anyone else veiwpoint. And yes, I think that the conservatives have this MUCH worse, but just cause they think the reverse doesn't make me wrong.

Edit: Though actually, now that I think about it, the thing I've been working on, Agora, could be used to link up the various online communities and force them interact. It'd be difficult, but it's possible.