Print

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

[Owlbread]

Russia isn't a dictatorship on paper, it's a delightfully Orwellian "managed democracy".

[Helgoland]

That's why it's a rule of thumb - of course you get Putin or Friedrich II.

[Reelya]

Don't blame me, I voted for the left thumb

[Helgoland]

Yeah, the election was rigged anyway - next time I'll vote for Third Finger, Left Hand.

THIRD FINGER, LEFT HAND 2012 + 4N WHERE N IS ANY POSITIVE NONZERO INTEGER!!!1!

[SalmonGod]

A place without dissent of the dictatorship would be totalitarian, like North Korea. Many modern dictators take the practical "democracy theater" approach to their dictatorship, where they stop being over-sensitive to people talking shit about them and give everyone at least the pretense of a democratic system even though it doesn't really work. If I'm a dictator, what do I care if I let my hated enemies have seats in the legislature, so long as it is never enough to overrule my puppets? Indeed, giving them "representation" keeps them under the illusion that the system is legitimate and just hasn't favored them, instead of planning to assassinate me or something.

Funny.  This is how I feel about America, except it's not an individual that's the dictator.  It's the complete ownership of the two-party system by the upper classes.  We're free to express our dissent... to a point.  When that dissent threatens to reach too widespread an acceptance of legitimacy or too elevated a stage, we get things like third party candidates arrested for attempting to attend the debates, the brutalization of large enough peaceful protests, and discrimination against independent journalists by law enforcement.  And most forms of dissent these days will get us put on "Potential Domestic Terrorist" lists that serve as pretense for surveillance of our activities under the Patriot Act and justification for harassing or outright ruining us whenever they feel like it.

[mainiac]

Funny.  This is how I feel about America, except it's not an individual that's the dictator.  It's the complete ownership of the two-party system by the upper classes.  We're free to express our dissent... to a point.  When that dissent threatens to reach too widespread an acceptance of legitimacy or too elevated a stage, we get things like third party candidates arrested for attempting to attend the debates, the brutalization of large enough peaceful protests, and discrimination against independent journalists by law enforcement.  And most forms of dissent these days will get us put on "Potential Domestic Terrorist" lists that serve as pretense for surveillance of our activities under the Patriot Act and justification for harassing or outright ruining us whenever they feel like it.

The third party candidate got arrested because she got arrested as a publicity stunt.  It's a very old method of protest.  I applaud her for it, it's admirable that she is devoted to her cause and wants to improve things.  But her arrest doesn't make this a dictatorship.  There's absolutely nothing stopping third party candidates from getting their message out through the same channels that the main parties do.  The problem is that people don't give a shit about the message.  It's not a problem with censorship and it's not a problem with the third parties.  People just don't care enough to rock the boat.

You complain about things on the internet as if that's gonna start a third party movement.  Last time a third party got off the ground it was because large numbers of activists spent more then a decade building up support in local elections and showing people that they could get things done.  We don't have third parties in this country because there has been no comparable activist movement.  Nader might have made something but he was egotistical and self centered and pissed in the well.

I'd bet that I have single handedly put in more volunteer hours working for the democrats then every third party wannabe in this thread has put in combined working for third parties.  Politics isn't fun, it's work, slow tedious work.  I'll be the first to admit that it's not a good system.  But if you don't have people that are gonna play the game then you aren't going to win in any system.

[misko27]

Now it's time I think I mention Alexis de'Tocquevilles Tyranny of the majority. Maniac is right. You can't blame anyone. You must blame everyone. This is in fact, a democracy, and that's it's main problem. Every single hated politician is elected by a majority, and people enjoy bitching about everything despite it. If anyone wanted something done, do it. The thing is no one can change it but the majority, and the majority can only be moved slowly, ever so slowly, and is prone to bouts of populism, madness, fashions and fads.

if you want something done, go out and convert the masses. maniac is right. There is no tyranny. You elected those people. So go fix it.

[Frumple]

There's absolutely nothing stopping third party candidates from getting their message out through the same channels that the main parties do.  The problem is that people don't give a shit about the message...

Nothing stopping them except the massive resource disparity between the two main parties (and their relative stranglehold of major media outlets, don't forget!) and every flipping body else, and the fact that our voting system basically actively punishes the voters in most areas for not "voting for the right one" -- by giving their vote to people they didn't vote for, amongst other things.

Don't get me wrong, your last bits are absolutely accurate, that any attempt at getting a third party through will take that kind of effort, but acting like there's no other -- and no other major -- barriers between a genuine third party attempt other than the effort is a huge misrepresentation of what's actually going down these days. I'm not even a "third party wannabe" -- I live in a state where it's only a half step from literally physically impossible for them to make in-roads rights now -- but that kind of message irks me, y'know? It's not "just get enough people together and working hard" -- it's "get enough people together and working hard in the face of massive opposition to any attempts to do so by the entrenched powers and the actual system itself."

And Misk, last I checked no one's been elected by an actual majority (let's go with 2/3rds and make it easy) of the whole population, or even the total voting population, for a long, long damn time. The folks that have been getting voted in are doing so generally scraping in barely a slightly larger plurality of the voting population. And yeah, yeah, you can say "well, people don't give a shit or whatev' so they're not voting" but I'd say that does a pretty damn huge disservice to a lot of people that don't or can't vote. Not all of them, no, but a lot of them.

[GreatJustice]

Yeah, the American system is pretty damn biased towards the two main parties.

I mean, beside the obvious electoral bonuses like the first past the post system, there's a pile of laws that require a party to get above 5% or get lots of signatures to even get on the ballot. Smaller parties are held to different standards, and don't get certain boons that the main ones do. They aren't featured in debates unless they reach around 15% polling despite the fact that they aren't even included in most polls, and they're completely marginalized even when they do get respectable polling numbers. If they get anywhere close to a significant margin of the vote, they're demonized for "vote splitting" like Ralph Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 1992, or the Libertarians in the last election.

[GlyphGryph]

Putin is an extremely popular politician in Russia, even without the repression.

Actually... how do you know? There's no actual way to tell how popular he is, but the closest that's been done that I'm aware of seem to indicate most of the Russian populace want him gone, no?

It's just that there isn't anything they can actually do about it.

[mainiac]

Nothing stopping them except the massive resource disparity between the two main parties (and their relative stranglehold of major media outlets, don't forget!)

What stranglehold?  The media gives us the two main parties because the two main parties are what people want.  When people wanted to hear Ross Perot in 1992 the media gave us three way debates.  When people were interested in what Perot had to say on NAFTA 16 million people tuned in to watch Perot debate Gore on prime time TV.  The media is not stopping voters from seeing third parties.  Voters are stopping voters.

The first past the post system isn't ideal but it doesn't make it impossible for third parties to win.  The democrats won, the republicans won, the progressives were successful enough to make the democrats change.  What does make it impossible for third parties to win is that third parties aren't seriously engaged in the political process.  People bitch about the democrats and republicans but those parties actually do a pretty darn good job catering to the american public at the end of the day.

[Nadaka]

The democrats and republicans have money, money is speech. They have major corporate sponsorship. Perot only got into the spotlight because he was willing to spend $10s of millions of his own wealth in order to get his name in the ring. Even that is unlikely to make a dent anymore. With super pac's now throwing billions of dollars around during major elections, $10s of millions will barely scratch the machine.

[mainiac]

Running for president is expensive.  Running for a lower office is much less expensive.  I can not repeat enough that a successful third party would not start by electing a presidential candidate but would instead win lower offices first.

Even if we eliminated all 3rd party groups and stopped everybody from donating more then $20 to political causes in an election cycle Mitt Romney would have wiped the floor with Jill Stein in the fundraising department.  That's because the republican party has a track record and stands for competitive elections.  This attracts a base of supporters and some members of that base support Romney.  Our political process amplifies this advantage but you need to realize that the foundation of this advantage is that republicans are giving a large number of people what they want while greens are not.  We could pass every reform imaginable to make the system more fair but at the end of the day a 3rd party needs to be useful if it wants to be relevant.

[SalmonGod]

The Commission on Presidential Debates is owned and controlled jointly by the republican and democrat parties, and it's the most important mass exposure for candidates in the entire election cycle.

Stein's arrest was a publicity stunt, yes.  Doesn't that say something to you?  That she can intentionally go and make a publicity stunt out of crossing the street towards the debate building, because she knows she will be arrested for it (or rather for blocking traffic on a street that was already blocked to traffic...). 

It's funny that you mentioned Nader, too.  He tried the same thing (in 2008?) and was threatened with arrest, when he even had a valid ticket to attend the debates.  Not participate.  He only wanted to attend.  When he questioned the officer about why this wasn't allowed, the officer produced a printout with the named and photos of every third party candidate and explained that he had specific orders to arrest any who attempted to enter the building.

Nothing about this seems wrong to you?

As for political groundwork, yes I am guilty of being an internet political whiner.  I know this and don't feel good about it, but I can barely keep my own life stable.  I don't know how anybody of lower than middle class income with a full-time job and a family can be expected to be seriously involved in politics.  I had more opportunity when I was younger (as in pre-20 years old), but didn't know what I had until it was gone.

People bitch about the democrats and republicans but those parties actually do a pretty darn good job catering to the american public at the end of the day.

Catering in what sense?... They're certainly not taking care of us and I don't know anybody who is actually happy with them.  Almost everyone I've ever talked to about politics in the last 8 years admits that they only vote republican or democrat because of the vote-splitting rhetoric, and falling for that is absolutely something that is the voting population's fault.

[Helgoland]

Now it's time I think I mention Alexis de'Tocquevilles Tyranny of the majority.

That's why most of the time when people talk about democracy they mean republicanism (in the Kantian sense, e.g. fixed laws, freedom of speech etc.). Democracy is only superior to other forms of government because it is apparently better at keeping republicanism alive. Just compare two exceptions, India and Singapore: Would you rather live in the corrupt democracy or under the regime that enforces due process?

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about politics in the last 8 years admits that they only vote republican or democrat because of the vote-splitting rhetoric, and falling for that is absolutely something that is the voting population's fault.

As others have said before, the vote-splitting rhetoric is right for presidential elections; third parties would first have to build up large amounts of local support to make a succesful bid for the highest office.

Yeah, the American system is pretty damn biased towards the two main parties.

I mean, beside the obvious electoral bonuses like the first past the post system, there's a pile of laws that require a party to get above 5% or get lots of signatures to even get on the ballot. Smaller parties are held to different standards, and don't get certain boons that the main ones do.

No hating on legisslation to keep splinter parties out of parliament! Compare the Weimar and the Bonn Republic: Weimar had no 5% clause, and as a result proper governing was impossible. In the Bonn (and today the Berlin) Republic, there are quite a few smaller parties that have popped up despite these regulations: The Green Party, the Liberals (market liberals, that is), the Leftists (GODDAMN POPULISTS I'LL HAVE EACH AND EVERY ONE SHOT AT DAWN) and today even the Pirate Party (left-leaning mixture from anarchists over left-wingers to actual classical liberals) all are in parliament (or are about to get in) and live happily along the main parties (SPD, the German democrats, and CDU, the German "Republicans" although they too are much more similar to the democrats). Each of these small parties got in beccause they had a cause or hit a nerve with the public; when a party becomes necessary, it will get more than 5%.
Of course, the German system gives a better picture of the actual election outcome than the American one, because of such mechanisms as Zweitstimmen that ensure that the popular vote will not be drowned out by the voter distribution, avoiding Electoral Colledge-style problems. Come to think of it, maybe the German system could be a model for American reform...