In Canada there are five parties represented in the House of Commons (the number has averaged in between 4 and 5 since 1935); however, only three of these (governing Liberals, opposition Conservatives and third place NDP) are considered “major parties” (the other two parties lack official party status as they have under 12 seats). Canada has not had a strict two party system, with only two registered parties in the House of Commons, since before 1921, and at only three relatively brief periods in Canadian history have there been only three parties represented (1921-1935, 1958-1962, and 1980-1993).
Sanders lost, and we lost for some definitions of “we.” I think we stand a better chance of a win next time if Trump loses. If Trump wins, you can rest assured that we/the left will be identified as the problem, and an even more centrist with even worse policies will be the next option, and whoever takes it will be stuck in the same position as Obama of spending most of their time and political capital just trying to deal with the crises created by their predecessor.
I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about what some Sanders supporters priorities are.
But disregarding that, Clinton is the most qualified candidate. I know this because I’ve been told it over and over again. Certainly the most qualified candidate knows what they are doing and if they felt that they could lose votes that matter they would do something about that. They haven’t really done anything, so those votes must not matter.
I think you’re worried over nothing. Clinton does not seem worried.
Remember when folks on the Left made fun of those on the Right for fear-based voting? Remember all the times people with a Left leaning ideology made fun of those on the Right for being hypocrites?
Well, here we are.
You know, the cure for cancer is often horrible and cause the entire body to suffer. People still do it, because they hope that afterwards they won’t have cancer anymore.
We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour
As long as the working conditions for those workers are safe and the cost of living in those countries appropriately low (how else do you think you can feed a child for pennies a day?). And the industry employing those workers is being responsible with the environment then yes Americans need to compete against those workers. Free trade should be the way things work as long as everyone is on the same page with regulations for worker safety, environmental protections, and a living wage.
Perhaps if it is good enough for Duverger, it should be good enough for me.
Other approaches could be to eliminate such parties entirely, or re-formulate the US itself. It would probably be erroneous to say that simply because this system is deeply entrenched, no others are possible. This particular situation might only last for so long as most consider it worth their while - or remain persuaded that most others do.
Matter according to whom? Like anything, it depends upon who you ask. People’s consent to be governed is tied to a social contract of their guaranteed representation. Government deciding to thumb their nose at better representation “because they can” serves only to alienate and create opposition. In a representative democracy, it undermines the basis of the authority of government.
I’m still not convinced. Money is only representation of real wealth. The real wealth was the work done by the countries those factories were set up in and It was the people of those nations that built the infrastructure that allowed them to become more prosperous. Trade meant that we provided information and expertise, but at the price of allowing us to dictate the rules about how that information and expertise would be used. This is why I said I don’t think that they really would have stayed in the dark had we not signed these deals - sooner or later the information would have propagated, maybe because of people who went to universities in other nations and returned to their countries, or by charitable organizations.
I know the explanation of why trade helps. I also know that economics is pretty much bullshit. Without data I don’t trust anything I’m told by economies*, and I have no how to examine the truth of that explanation in the real world. The best I can do is look at whether Mexico benefited from NAFTA, and I’m fairly sure the answer is no.
I think what it does is pushes at least some people to the breaking point. After years and years of being told, “You have to vote for us, what are you going to do… vote for them?” people eventually snap. I sure hope that doesn’t happen this election in America since Trump seems genuinely dangerous to the world, but if I were Clinton I’d be really trying to give people a reason to vote for me instead of hoping the Trump fear would win the day.
*ETA: Apparently “economies” is my pet name for economists. I never make typos, I just retroactively mean what I say.
There’s also the issue of giving lip service to certain progressive policies in theory, but rejecting pretty much every specific item on them in the platform.
While that sounds great in theory, I don’t know of any practical way to accomplish that goal likely to succeed. If there were, we’d probably have done it by now.
Well… In all fairness, that’s what Republican voters had been getting for a very long time as well. Want to drive gays underground and segregate the blacks? Vote for the military-industrial complex and social security privatization!
I guess it’s just a natural function of this no-free-ponies universe of ours. There is only one president for all and those all have to be at least willing to suffer him without openly revolting. So compromises during the selection process have to be made - otherwise you end up with Trump.
But what really seems to get people so worked up is not so much the issue of who will ultimately get elected and what will it do to the country and the world - it’s that they don’t get to vote for their precious special snowflake candidate that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They are deprived of their sacrosanct consumer choice! So basically this:
Or that we think the candidate you think of as a lesser evil is still pretty damn evil and in any other election, we’d running screaming from her. Clinton is a horrible candidate. The only reason we’re even having this conversation is because she’s running against Reality TV Mussolini.
Someone of us feel that a vote is an endorsement of a candidate (why? because it is…) and we don’t want to endorse her or her policies (or those of her “contributors”).
Clinton, whatever telepathic insights some people might think they have in her “true inner rotten core,” will run an administration that will be entirely continuous with the last eight years under Obama - you know, they guy that picked her for a Secretary of State post in his cabinet. Who is also the guy who passed the greatest extension of the welfare state since LBJ, killed DOMA, DADT, got the ball moving on climate change and CO2 pollution and enacted some fairly strong financial regulation legislation. The main difference is she’s positioned herself against TPP - such sellout.
You think this is a good thing and what America needs? Ok. I don’t.
You mean “repositioned” as she was a supporter before. She changed when it was convenient politically (as she did with gay marriage, the Iraq War, etc).
I think it’s the least bad thing we can reasonably hope for given the possibilities. I’d prefer Sanders a thousand fold, but given that the chance is over, we’re down to hoping for the least dire outcome, and the best outcome for positioning future candidates who are better. If Trump’s elected we don’t just have four years of carnage, we have his term, and then a few more subsequent terms primarily focused on fixing what he’s done. Obama’s still struggling to clean up some of GWB’s messes.
If Obama isn’t good enough for you, I’m afraid reality will leave you in a state of perpetual disappointment.
So what. That’s what politicians do. There is no difference to the end recipients between acts passed out of pure goodness of spirit and identical acts passed out of a cynical political calculation. If Olympia Snow only voted for ACA because she wanted to get reelected, does that in any way invalidate the health insurance the diabetics are now able to buy for the first time?
