Lenlo

The DNC in 2016

Recommended Posts

 

TL:DR -> The Republican Party today is the third party alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties of the 90s and 00s.

 

That would only be true if... you know... there was actually a 3rd party. 
It doesn't matter if one party disappears and another takes it's place. A 3rd party, requires actually having more than 2 parties in power, or at the very least, have a different name.
 
 
As far as I can tell the laundry has been cleaned and we're all headed back to work. You're yelling that there used to be a stain on now clean, or at worst, smudged shirt, which will also fade in time.

 

Ever try selling a house where someone was murdered? A murdered family in a home can leave a house tarnished, even if there are no visible signs left. It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, and it requires someone who is ignorant of the past, or relishes in the bad past to accept the house as something worth while.

 

 

 

Exactly, Leno, that's what allowed the weakest candidate in a field of 18 to win and the weakest candidate in a field of 2; by sowing division in others and blind loyality in his followers.

DNC's corruption, allowed the RNC's weakest candidate the best chance against the DNC's worst.  (The Media obviously was involved with free advertising to 2 candidates that fed them the best ratings.)

A no Name democrat would have polled better against Donald Trump than Hillary.

Pitting Hillary against Donald is like Pitting Rosie O'Donnell against Trump. The odds were never favorable for the DNC.

 

 

 

 

All of you stuck in the mindset that this countries democracy can and will only be a 2 party system, well, you are part of the problem. This country need's less of you, and more people willing to vote outside of just the RNC and the DNC. Hell if even 10%, of the 20% of this countries non-voters voted for the same party, we could see noticeable change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

Exactly, Leno, that's what allowed the weakest candidate in a field of 18 to win and the weakest candidate in a field of 2; by sowing division in others and blind loyality in his followers.

Yes, cause what allowed Trump to win against Hillary was his actions, not the DNC.

 

Face it, the DNC put the worst possible person against Trump, as has been said multiple times before. They screwed up and they need to own that.

 

As for Trump being the weakest, can you seriously put that label on the person who won the Whitehouse? Regardless of how it was done, "weakest" certainly cant apply to Trump. Thats like calling the Australian who won speed skating at the olympics the weakest. He won with alot of luck yes, but he still had to beat alot of people to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All of you stuck in the mindset that this countries democracy can and will only be a 2 party system, well, you are part of the problem. This country need's less of you, and more people willing to vote outside of just the RNC and the DNC. Hell if even 10%, of the 20% of this countries non-voters voted for the same party, we could see noticeable change.

 

If you want to a see a third party rise you MUST appeal to non voters.

It's extremely hard to get to someone already steeped in one side or the other of American politics, to shift gears and choose a third way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Which in itself needs fixing."

 

How exactly are you suggesting to make a structural change in our political system? You can get an odd none Democrat or Republican elected to Congress (Sanders is the obvious example) but how are you going to effectively create and finance a third (or multiple second tier parties) in a winner take all, majority rules system? Even in most European countries where there  are third parties the system usually is that although their are multiple parties when it comes to Presidential  elections their are grand alliances of Center Left and Center Right Parties. The alternative is the Italy of 1945-1990's and today's Belgium which have seperate parties which can hardly agree to act together the result being in the case of Italy 49 different coalition governments in 42 years or in the case of Belgium the inability to even name a government in an 18 month span of time, much less able to pass any legislation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Which in itself needs fixing."

 

How exactly are you suggesting to make a structural change in our political system? You can get an odd none Democrat or Republican elected to Congress (Sanders is the obvious example) but how are you going to effectively create and finance a third (or multiple second tier parties) in a winner take all, majority rules system? Even in most European countries where there  are third parties the system usually is that although their are multiple parties when it comes to Presidential  elections their are grand alliances of Center Left and Center Right Parties. The alternative is the Italy of 1945-1990's and today's Belgium which have seperate parties which can hardly agree to act together the result being in the case of Italy 49 different coalition governments in 42 years or in the case of Belgium the inability to even name a government in an 18 month span of time, much less able to pass any legislation at all.

There are different polling styles than first past the post you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Which in itself needs fixing."

 

How exactly are you suggesting to make a structural change in our political system? You can get an odd none Democrat or Republican elected to Congress (Sanders is the obvious example) but how are you going to effectively create and finance a third (or multiple second tier parties) in a winner take all, majority rules system? Even in most European countries where there  are third parties the system usually is that although their are multiple parties when it comes to Presidential  elections their are grand alliances of Center Left and Center Right Parties. The alternative is the Italy of 1945-1990's and today's Belgium which have seperate parties which can hardly agree to act together the result being in the case of Italy 49 different coalition governments in 42 years or in the case of Belgium the inability to even name a government in an 18 month span of time, much less able to pass any legislation at all.

There are different polling styles than first past the post you know.

 

Sure, you would either have to get at the very minimum the agreement of the state legislatures to change that? And possibly the Constitution (the Supreme Court's decisions on one man one vote cases make the constitutionality of any other structure doubtful at the very least. So how are you going to get Republicans and Democrat's in the states to agree to cut their own political throats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Which in itself needs fixing."

 

How exactly are you suggesting to make a structural change in our political system? You can get an odd none Democrat or Republican elected to Congress (Sanders is the obvious example) but how are you going to effectively create and finance a third (or multiple second tier parties) in a winner take all, majority rules system? Even in most European countries where there  are third parties the system usually is that although their are multiple parties when it comes to Presidential  elections their are grand alliances of Center Left and Center Right Parties. The alternative is the Italy of 1945-1990's and today's Belgium which have seperate parties which can hardly agree to act together the result being in the case of Italy 49 different coalition governments in 42 years or in the case of Belgium the inability to even name a government in an 18 month span of time, much less able to pass any legislation at all.

There are different polling styles than first past the post you know.

 

Sure, you would either have to get at the very minimum the agreement of the state legislatures to change that? And possibly the Constitution (the Supreme Court's decisions on one man one vote cases make the constitutionality of any other structure doubtful at the very least. So how are you going to get Republicans and Democrat's in the states to agree to cut their own political throats?

 

I dont see how Alternative Vote goes against the one man one vote constitutional aspect. The individual is still placing one vote. However, should their top choice be the lowest contender, their vote still matters in the next round of voting. It insures a candidate with the highest average "score" or policy opinion of. In my opinion its superior to first past the post in every way.

 

As far as getting state legislature, well yeah. Every law or amendment which fixes something in this country needs someone to ok it. Does that mean its not worth doing? I dont understand how you would get anything passed with this attitude of "Well we have to have the states ok it, so might as well not try".

 

In regards to "cutting their own throats", well in a 2 party system, Alternative Vote works exactly the same as First Past the Post. In a 3 or more party system is the only time it actually starts to matter. For getting it through, one at a time. The more and more states that adopt it the easier it will be to get others to do so. Would probably start in a place with good 3rd party polling, focus on getting a 3rd party in place there. Once they get that state they can get the change through and move from there. Slow process but doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to post an anti-3rd party rant tomorrow

 

In the mean time

 

Feel free. Imo, a 3 party system is far better than a 2 party system, and with your arguments for the DNC so far, I doubt you will convince me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I dont see how Alternative Vote goes against the one man one vote constitutional aspect."

 

Simple presume an election where preference is used so that you cast a vote for your preferred candidate and then indicate who your second choice is. Let's presume the 2016 presidential election with 3 voters. You, me and Nolder. You vote for Bernie, Nolder votes for Trump and I write in Cruz as my first choice but indicate Trump as my second choice. If it's one man one vote then its a three way tie, but if its a preference vote Trump wins. Basicly I get to make a symbolic vote but still have an impact on who wins by virtue of the preference voting system. Note that me and Nolder can outvote your candidate and still vote for different candidates as our primary choice. The system basicly allows people to cast multiple votes that count. Considering the strict way that the courts have read the one man one vote requirement the preference system would hardly meet the constitutional standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I dont understand how you would get anything passed with this attitude of "Well we have to have the states ok it, so might as well not try".

 

Youcan try but I do not see how you can convince politicians to vote against their direct interests. You would have to vote in a majority of a third party into power in each legislature and if they became the majority why would they change the system that guarantees them effective control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I dont see how Alternative Vote goes against the one man one vote constitutional aspect."

 

Simple presume an election where preference is used so that you cast a vote for your preferred candidate and then indicate who your second choice is. Let's presume the 2016 presidential election with 3 voters. You, me and Nolder. You vote for Bernie, Nolder votes for Trump and I write in Cruz as my first choice but indicate Trump as my second choice. If it's one man one vote then its a three way tie, but if its a preference vote Trump wins. Basicly I get to make a symbolic vote but still have an impact on who wins by virtue of the preference voting system. Note that me and Nolder can outvote your candidate and still vote for different candidates as our primary choice. The system basicly allows people to cast multiple votes that count. Considering the strict way that the courts have read the one man one vote requirement the preference system would hardly meet the constitutional standard.

If all 3 of us filled it out, rating Trump, Cruz and Bernie as first second or third pick, then the one with the highest average opinion/vote would win. Makes sense. The whole point of the preference voting system is to avoid ties and ensure the most well received  candidate is chosen, so the vote isnt symbolic at all.

 

What you describe is exactly how the system is supposed to work. 2 out of the 3 people dont want one candidate, so they vote them the lowest. That candidate then loses and votes are retallied as if that candidate wasnt in the race. In this example, since Bernie was out, my vote now becomes the tie breaker between Cruz and Trump. Thats exactly how its supposed to work.

 

That all looks like one vote to me, because each vote is only tallied once per elimination and you cant change your vote. Your vote never counts for 2 people at once, it only ever counts for 1 person at a time until your top choice is eliminated from contention.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I dont see how Alternative Vote goes against the one man one vote constitutional aspect."

 

Simple presume an election where preference is used so that you cast a vote for your preferred candidate and then indicate who your second choice is. Let's presume the 2016 presidential election with 3 voters. You, me and Nolder. You vote for Bernie, Nolder votes for Trump and I write in Cruz as my first choice but indicate Trump as my second choice. If it's one man one vote then its a three way tie, but if its a preference vote Trump wins. Basicly I get to make a symbolic vote but still have an impact on who wins by virtue of the preference voting system. Note that me and Nolder can outvote your candidate and still vote for different candidates as our primary choice. The system basicly allows people to cast multiple votes that count. Considering the strict way that the courts have read the one man one vote requirement the preference system would hardly meet the constitutional standard.

In a 3 way tie, it would still be a 3 way tie.

You'd have to have a few more people in the voting pool to make a lesser candidate as the actual lowest% before moving that vote to the next guy.

Else if it worked the way you said....

 

Nolder - Trump, Cruize.

Cubarey - Cruize, Trump.

Lenlo - Bernie - Cruize.

 

First round = 3 way tie. if since no one had the majority or minority and we move to the next lined down. Cruize wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I’m going to post an anti-3rd party rant tomorrow

 

Feel free. Imo, a 3 party system is far better than a 2 party system, and with your arguments for the DNC so far, I doubt you will convince me.

 

 

My position isn't pro-DNC, or pro-RNC (imo you and Nolder have similar views with respect to the current politcal structure), buuuuut...here it goes:

 

With regards to 3rd parties in legislative assemblies:

 

1.) In most modern democratic sytstems legislative power in controlled by bodies which need a majority (either simple/super) to pass legislation, thus reducing any n-party system into a two party system; the majority party (in the US) or the Prime Ministers party in Westminster-based systems. In both Houses of Congress, the Speaker of the House is elected by the members as the representative who can get the most (plurality) of votes; so even though all the democrats voted Pilosy to be speaker again, more people voted for Ryan, therefore he's the speaker. Same with the Majority leader in the Senate. Between the two of them, they control all the legislation (and executive appointments) which move through Congress.

 

Similarly, in Westminster systems, the Prime Minister is the person who the majority of the MPs vote for, and who can control their votes. The system has been reformed recently, but basically if the PM loses the ability to control the majority, their government is disolved and there are new elections. Now, you are correct in saying that in most Westminster systems (I should specificy I'm restricting this to England, Austrialia and Canada), there are more than one party for voters to choose from, however, the "minority" parties are forced to join with one of the two major parties in order to form a government. 

 

An example of this is the rise, and subsequent fall, of the UKIP party. They were able to, in successive elections, win enough votes to enter into a majority government with the Conservatives, and push that party to, eventually, take the UK out of the EU. This could not have been done, probably, without the rise of a third party, in conjunction with the Conservatives, but, it also could have been done without the Conservatives entering into government with UKIP, since, asides from the EU, their priorities were roughly alligned.

 

The same is true on the left of politics, in, say, Canada. Voting for the Green party is essentailly the same thing as voting for the Labour party, but you get to say that you voted for Green, but, since the Green party will probably never win an outright majority, you're essentially saying "I'm voting for liberal policies, except I don't like the Labour party"

 

Which brings us back to the US.

 

Since it is highly improbable that a third party could win enough seats in either House to take either the Speakership or the Majority leadership, they would have to enter into an "allaince" with one of the two "establishment" parties, and, again, this is exactly what the tea party did. They were able to control policy for years, even though they did not have a majority of the Republican seats, because without their votes, Pilocy would have had more votes for Speaker than Bouner and therefore would have won, so Bouner was forced to let them, a minorty, control policy.

 

So, again, and this is boring at this point; if you want to shift the direction of one of the political parties you have to do it by electing people to that party who share your views NOT by voting for a third party.

 

On the presidential front, the choice is even clearer:

 

Since we do not have a national presidential election, we have, instead 50 state elections and the person who wins the most votes gets all the electors from that state, it is practically impossible for a third party candidate to win any state, and, without electors, the number of votes won doesn't matter. See: presidential elections of 2016, 2000, 92 (if you want to count Perot), etc.

 

So, in order for a third party - or non-establishment - candidate to win the presidency, they would have to be nominated by one of the two major political parties, again, see presidential election of 2016, or 2008.

 

In conclusion, since you need a legislative majority (or plurality) to win the Speakership/Majority leadership in Congress, or need to be nominated by one of the two political parties in order to have a chance at winning the Presidency, voting, or running, for a 3rd party is useless at best, and dangerous at worst as it gives the electoral advantage to your opponent. 

 

If you want to change the direction a party goes, you need to do so from the inside. 

 

Note: This post does not address the "correctness", "justness", "fairness", "democratness", or the "governability" of the systems described, it merely address how to govern effectively using them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they need speakership or majority? They only need enough votes that, assuming party lines hold, their votes are required to pass or deny a bill. With that, they can start bargaining.

 

Why do that have to enter into an alliance when, with lets say 3 votes in the case of the Senate, they already control what will and will not pass legislation. If their goal isnt to pass their own legislation but build the power base, that should be plenty to get started. You already described how a minority could control policy, ok, why cant they do that from outside either major political party? They still have their votes when not a part of those parties.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they need speakership or majority? They only need enough votes that, assuming party lines hold, their votes are required to pass or deny a bill. With that, they can start bargaining.

 

Why do that have to enter into an alliance when, with lets say 3 votes in the case of the Senate, they already control what will and will not pass legislation. If their goal isnt to pass their own legislation but build the power base, that should be plenty to get started.

 

Basically because the Speaker and the ML, through controlling both access to the floor and who sits on what committes, can control, directly or not, what bills get brought to vote, and because most members, once elected, realize that it is the party structure which keeps them in power. Yes, the Freedom Caucus could withhold a votes for Paul Ryan to be speaker, but if enough of them do, then it's not one of their who wins, but Pilosy, and, second to that, if they vote against the party leadership, what cause the party leadership have to fight/campaign/fundraise for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do they need speakership or majority? They only need enough votes that, assuming party lines hold, their votes are required to pass or deny a bill. With that, they can start bargaining.

 

Why do that have to enter into an alliance when, with lets say 3 votes in the case of the Senate, they already control what will and will not pass legislation. If their goal isnt to pass their own legislation but build the power base, that should be plenty to get started.

 

Basically because the Speaker and the ML, through controlling both access to the floor and who sits on what committes, can control, directly or not, what bills get brought to vote, and because most members, once elected, realize that it is the party structure which keeps them in power. Yes, the Freedom Caucus could withhold a votes for Paul Ryan to be speaker, but if enough of them do, then it's not one of their who wins, but Pilosy, and, second to that, if they vote against the party leadership, what cause the party leadership have to fight/campaign/fundraise for them?

 

That would be the point of a third party, who is independent of the party leadership. They wouldnt need Dems or Reps to campaign or fund-raise for them. You make your vote valuable by being the tie breaker. If you dont "alliance" with another party, if you are self sufficient on the campaign aspect, you dont need to care about whether or not the other parties are willing to campaign for you.

 

Your still thinking in terms of Party A, Party B, Subparty 1A, Subparty 2A, Subparty 1B, Subparty 2B. I am talking Party C. Independent of the other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your still thinking in terms of Party A, Party B, Subparty 1A, Subparty 2A, Subparty 1B, Subparty 2B. I am talking Party C. Independent of the other two.

 

 

Then that fails FPTP; Party's A and B, (with subparties) will always outvote Party C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your still thinking in terms of Party A, Party B, Subparty 1A, Subparty 2A, Subparty 1B, Subparty 2B. I am talking Party C. Independent of the other two.

 

 

Then that fails FPTP; Party's A and B, (with subparties) will always outvote Party C.

 

In the Senate? Or ballot boxes?

 

For Ballot boxes, your probably right, which is why a third party needs to focus in on a specific area or state. This goes back to why FPTP is an inferior voting system btw.

 

For Senate, not true. An ideal split would be 48/49/3. The 3, assuming party line split, decide what does and does not get through. The first hurdle is getting elected. Once you can get them in, get that foot in the door, your start having bargaining power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

For Senate, not true. An ideal split would be 48/49/3. The 3, assuming party line split, decide what does and does not get through. The first hurdle is getting elected. Once you can get them in, get that foot in the door, your start having bargaining power.

 

 

I'm not ignoring your views on the flaws of the FPTP voting system - i completely agree with them, but also with Cubarey that any serious reform would have to be done through amendment and is therefore highly unlikely.

 

As for your 48/49/3, scenerio, those three would be stripped of any committee chairmenships or any in-party seniority which they had, so, there's no way they'd do it. 

 

Currently, the senate is 52/46/2, with 2 (King and Sanders are independant but cacus with the democrats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

For Senate, not true. An ideal split would be 48/49/3. The 3, assuming party line split, decide what does and does not get through. The first hurdle is getting elected. Once you can get them in, get that foot in the door, your start having bargaining power.

 

 

I'm not ignoring your views on the flaws of the FPTP voting system - i completely agree with them, but also with Cubarey that any serious reform would have to be done through amendment and is therefore highly unlikely.

 

As for your 48/49/3, scenerio, those three would be stripped of any committee chairmenships or any in-party seniority which they had, so, there's no way they'd do it. 

 

Currently, the senate is 52/46/2, with 2 (King and Sanders are independant but cacus with the democrats)

 

Well it would have to be new people obviously, so they wouldnt have a place to lose in the first place.

 

Then you start bargaining with your votes. "Give us this chair and we will vote with you for these" etc. Basically selling your vote, but thats politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Then you start bargaining with your votes. "Give us this chair and we will vote with you for these" etc. Basically selling your vote, but thats politics."

 

And you do not think that that vote selling would totally disgust and turn off the very voters that would have elected these new Senators?  Also exactly what piece of legislation would be important enough in the eyes of either the Republican and Democrat party to justify giving up a Committee chairmenship for?

 

 

"The first hurdle is getting elected. Once you can get them in, get that foot in the door, your start having bargaining power."

 

Presumably these three new senators actually believe the positions they espouse, so how exactly would vote bargaining work? GIve me what I want on abortion and I will vote for you on immigration? Or, I vote for or against a tax cut which I have made clear my position on in return for you (48 or 49 other senators) voting against your stated stance on immigration, or gun control or etc. etc. etc.?

 

 

Seems to me that neither the voters nor the politicains you envision voting for a third party would ever stomach that approach of poltical wheeling and dealing.

 

 

 

"They only need enough votes that, assuming party lines hold, their votes are required to pass or deny a bill. With that, they can start bargaining."

 

Except that recent history has shown us that both Democrat's and Republicans are fine with the status quo of no bill passing as long as a bill they disagree does not pass. It helps in their campaigning and fundraising if nothing else. Why do you believe that they would "bargain" with members of a third party just to get a piece of legislation passed especially if that passage were seen as empowering and encouraging the growth of that third party?

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your still thinking in terms of Party A, Party B, Subparty 1A, Subparty 2A, Subparty 1B, Subparty 2B. I am talking Party C. Independent of the other two.

 

 

Then that fails FPTP; Party's A and B, (with subparties) will always outvote Party C.

 

Republicans = Socially and Economically Conservative. 

Democrats = Socially and Economically Liberal.

Libertarians = Socially Liberal, and Economically Conservative.

Psychopaths = Socially Conservative, and Economically Liberal.

 

On a per-issue basis, the Libertarian 3rd party, would side with republicans. On others, they would side with the Democrats. So in this particular case, your counter-argument falls flat. You believe Democrats & Republicans will side against the 3rd party, when in reality, republicans will side with libertarians on gun issues, and Democrats will side with Libertarians on many social issues. You blindly assume that only the democrat & republican votes will out-vote the 3rd party, but fail to acknowledge that the 3rd party & the other parties can team up against the other and win votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You blindly assume that only the democrat & republican votes will out-vote the 3rd party, but fail to acknowledge that the 3rd party & the other parties can team up against the other and win votes."

 

Not blindly, the last succesful Third Party was the Republican Party in 1856. Further, Why would let's say the Libertarians team up with the Green or Socialist Party? It seems to me that you must first show that any third party can actually consistently gain the adherence of a significant number of voters in even one state. Here I argue that the evidience of Bernie Sanders is not proof for your argument as he runs as an individual in a state with rather (FOr the US) strange demographics and even here his success is personal as no other "democratic socialist" has gained anywhere as nearly the same type of popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not American and thus doesn't have as deep an understanding of the system as some of you, but the system you have is inherently flawed.

 

It makes it virtually impossible for an outsider to actually stand a chance, and strengthens power for the elite. (As far as I know, some of the point of it was also to ensure the "masses" didn't get too much power.)

I do believe Cubarey etc. is right about what it takes to change it, though. The only way you would get a more functional and fair system was if some outsider could just decree "let's change to this system", for example a more representative system with several electorates from each legislative area, etc., but that won't happen.

 

So I think you're stuck with trying to make the system you have, better. 

 

The DNC has a more radical wing, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren as main figures, but the DNC will not just say "okay, you guys try, then" - because a large portion of the party seem to be more moderate and disagree with the policies Sanders and Warren would put forth. (I dig Sanders, though, he is sort of the Jeremy Corbyn of the US.)

Edited by OlwenaSedai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Posts