Bernie Sanders wins Michigan primary in big upset

The logic doesn’t hold. You know why? Republicans are speculating about Trump running third-party and Republicans are saying that in that situation “a vote for Trump would be a vote for Hillary.” In fact even Democrats are saying they want Trump to run as a third-party candidate.

We have GOT to break out of the two-party stranglehold.

I just got a mailer from the Green Party yesterday. The platform it outlines is EXACTLY THE SAME as what Bernie has been running on, plus instant runoff voting. I am not supporting Bernie because he’s running as a Democrat, I am supporting him for the platform. I will vote for whoever it is carries the platform to the general election, regardless of whether there’s a (D) next to their name or I have to write it in.

2 Likes

Third party presidential candidates won’t do it this year. The best thing to do is maybe to maybe go into 2017-2018 pushing third parties at the local level, maybe using the Bernie Sanders / Kshama Sawant model. Put a new voting method on their plates (the talking point that “the system is rigged” is a great set up for "this is one way to make it better), get them to implement it for some local elections. As we’ve seen with Bernie, and to an even greater extent with the Tea Party, if we want folks to talk about this stuff on a national level, we need to start at the local level, get it to percolate up through primary challengers, and make it something that the power-brokers can’t safely ignore.

2 Likes

Sanders supports IRV. He doesn’t talk about it like he does public financing, but last I checked it was on his website somewhere.

1 Like

Everyone is speculating about Trump running 3rd party/independent if he doesn’t win the nomination. And the reason why they’re worried about that is because it would split the right wing vote giving the left an easy win. Splitting the democratic vote as well just removes the chance of an increased margin win, a mandate etc. And doing it without a similar split on the right just gives the GOP an easy win. Because of the polarized and partisan situation on the ground in this country. In national elections somewhere around 45% (a basic plurality whatever the exact number) of Americans simple vote Republican or Democrat automatically, and down the ballot. Regardless of platform, candidate or stakes. With somewhere less than 10% typically willing to branch out from that. You provide 2 candidates from the same end of the political spectrum for any one office, and you split up that reliable ~45%. ~22% give or take (rough stupid numbers I know) doesn’t give you a win when the other guy can still reliably take ~45% of the vote. Assuming huge numbers of people will switch to wholly change that dynamic ignores that those people genuinely disagree on politics. It would take a something massive to change that in a time span of months. Instead its changing slowly, as demographics change and the country is ideologically starting to shift left.

This election is in large part not about the presidency. Its about maintaining control of the the white house and senate, and waiting for or taking advantage of those changes. As it stands the GOP’s undemocratic, and disproportionate control of The House and many states counties etc. is what will (and does) allow them to stall out any legitimate progressive push. Regardless of who’s making that push. The Democratic nominee whoever they are, and how every far left they decide to go, is the only reliable way to make sure a conservative doesn’t end up in the white house and not just stall things out. But actually reverse gains that have already been made. But like wise pushing back the GOP lock on those down ballot offices is the only way for any progressive or liberal higher up the ladder to make more than slow incremental improvement.

You can’t compromise when the other side has taken a strict obstructionist approach. You can’t compromise when your opposition have colluded to force you out of the system. More parties aren’t a net good. They’re simply more granular, and potentially ideologically pure. You end up with parties that represent 10, 20, 30, percent of voters rather than 40-50. Not enough to reliably win in isolation, or form functional governments on their own. Which is why you see governments in countries with many political parties form coalitions. The center left party gets 35% of voters and the left left gets 20% so together they’ve got a clear majority. They team up to form a functional, stable-ish government. But things still get weird, problematic and corrupt. You see a lot of situations like conservative or center right parties forming coalitions with multiple small far far right or left wing parties. Tenuous, ideologically divided coalitions that accomplish little, and are prone to collapse. Or parties with overall low support gaining control because while there are more people on the opposite end of the spectrum, those people are split up among many very small and not very influential parties. The smaller, more ideologically extreme or pure parties are often significantly beholden to the larger centrist parties they work with. Alliance with the larger party gives them influence, and their only chance to push their agenda. But they aren’t large enough or strong enough on their own to push those larger parties’ platforms. There’s are reasons you largely see the many party solutions in countries with parliamentary systems of government. And one of the things you see in those parliamentary countries is that when a coalition fails it forces a new election. It doesn’t just stall things out for a while, it actually causes the government to collapse. Some of this of course effects our two party system as well. Our parties have traditionally contained those coalitions within themselves. Until fairly recently both the GOP and DNC have had identifiable conservative, liberal, and centrist wings. The DNC is still a coalition. Largely of a bigger centrist group and a smaller more liberal group. The GOP on the other hand has purged anything but conservatives, while absorbing the most conservative elements from the DNC. Despite this push to ideological purity they haven’t seen a reduction in their share of support from the general public. Despite being (potentially) ideologically out of line with even their base. I think that’s what we’re seeing with Trump. His voters, while mostly hard line republicans, are pretty clearly not all that into some of the deeply embedded conservative ideals the GOP have built their platform around. They are for example not all that interested in things like abortion, libertarian style personal liberty, strict constructionist constitutional interpretations, or all that Jesusy shit that defines the religious right.

That’s a situation that has in the past lead to short lived 3rd parties. Part of one of the large parties splits off into its own unit. In this case you could be looking at Trump leading off a populist, nativist, still fairly extreme party. Which could drive the main body of the GOP to moderate. You could also see a moderate party split off from the GOP leaving it as the party of Trump. Which is what all this rumbling about #nevertrump would point to. These new factions don’t typically last long however. They’re usually absorbed by your main 2 in some fashion in short order, and they realign ideologically after all the mess, lost elections, or failure to prevent whatever they’re trying to prevent. If a moderate splinter faction of the GOP needs to work with the DNC to prevent Trump from Trumpin, on a long enough time line they will likely simply become part of the DNC. If they don’t need to work with the DNC and Trump fails at Trumpin then that splinter faction just becomes the GOP and Trumps insanity fades into the background.

1 Like

This is what I want. The coalition exists anyway, just smaller parties would be able to be more honest/explicit about what their aims were.

I’m totally fine with a parliamentary system and frequent government changes (it’s every 2 years anyway right now, so hardly all that stable). Make the President ceremonial, give the speaker the power (but sort out the districting first!)

The Democratic Party is really more than one party anyway, right?

3 Likes

See now your just pissing in the wind. You’re not talking about reforming extra-constitutional structures poorly grafted into our political system. You’re talking about scrapping the constitution and completely starting over. I for one would not be fine with a parliamentary system. In (most?) parliamentary systems you do not vote for a candidate. You vote for a party. Which means no independents. Seats in legislature and similar offices are awarded proportionally according to vote. Then the parties place whoever they want in the offices they have been awarded (sometimes by internal vote, but not always). Which means reduced choice of candidates for individual seats. Individual offices may be voted for, but again you vote for a party. For the sake of campaigning parties tend to put up their choices for offices as candidates. But there is usually no guarantee or requirement that the person put up as their choice is actually the person who serves. Its not uncommon for a party to put forward a candidate for a particular office because they are more electable, and then for that person to refuse the office or resign after the party wins. The party then replaces them with a less publicly amenable member. I’ve got family members who fulfilled this roll over in Ireland decades ago. Heads of state are typically chosen by vote within legislative bodies, with no involvement from the public. This particular system involves even less direct say by the public. And the “frequent government changes” are also accompanied by frequent government collapses. As in the government ceases to be and you need to start over. Its not a better system, although its more amenable to multiple parties. Those parties however are directly baked into the function of government. Our government was structured without this direct connection, and a number of the founding fathers were directly opposed to the idea of political parties because the set up has generally been bad for the general population. And its significantly less Democratic than our representative indirect democracy.

1 Like

Not denying that. I know it won’t happen, short of revolution, in which case we have a lot else to worry about. But I’m not overly attached to the constitution. I’m not convinced a marginally modified 18th century system is what we should have now. I also criticize the UK system even though that’s similarly entrenched.

Not true. In the UK there have always been independent MPs, and you always vote for the candidate, not the party. Even in proportional systems, you get independents. See how many are in the Dáil now (>10%):

I get the desire for separation of powers, but I don’t understand why anyone would want the current system where you deliberately stymie the President for half of their term.

Or where the cabinet is all appointed, the public gets no say at all.

But we are probably getting waaay off topic. :slight_smile:

I was speaking in generalities. There are approaches to reducing or eliminating each of these problems. And plenty of places that baked those solutions in from the start. But that doesn’t change that its often an inherently less democratic setup. There are also plenty of ways to fix our current system without tossing it out in favor of something that’s just as problematic and in need of fixing. And I’m particularly not enthusiastic about systems that bake political parties into the base political structure. Since so many of these issues, and corruption in general, have their origins in political parties themselves.

That’s not our system. That’s our current situation. Its relatively new, and a result of the heavy political polarization of the country right now. Parties play into it but they aren’t the source of it. Fostering more political parties might help with that, it might not. And I certainly don’t think it will help to the extent that most people seem to assume. A lot of the rote obstruction we’re seeing now is entirely unprecedented. As in it hasn’t actually happened before. Some of it has its roots in the 90’s or a bit further back in the neocon revolution of the 80’s. And I’d argue its the results of trends starting with Nixon and the Southern Strategery even earlier. But similarish things have happened in the past. Usually in concert with heavy corruption and huge gaps in income equality. Such situations usually end with party collapses and realignments. People shift around, things become less polarized, individual parties with embedded corrupt holds on power lose that. Our history is short, so there’s not a lot to draw on. But the situation we’re looking at now tends to be the exception not the rule.

2 Likes

The Chinese government is successfully herding 3000 parliament members, I think western lobbyist are at least as good as the CPC.

If you build a great hall to stuff them in, the lobbyists will certainly come.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.