I think you’re on the mailing list and then they ask for a donation. I gave them $5, so we shall see what happens.
1 Like
Amen to letting them die. Occasional turnover is good for the soil, I hear.
14 Likes
This is far more important than who wins the white house.
6 Likes
Sanders’ tax plans are less extreme than the tax plans under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. His socialized health care plan is less ambitious than the one proposed by Republican President Richard Nixon. Painting him as a partisan hack really just shows how far the other side has moved away from the center.
15 Likes
As a USican I would be interested in hearing how they managed to flush and redo without, well, the mandatory anarchy state between then and now.
1 Like
It’s not a matter of willpower or imagination, it’s a matter of design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
In the US, political parties don’t get born, they just change labels (as can be seen in, for instance, the flip between what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican in the last 100 years).
Rather than trying to go a third way, my own focus is on changing what it means to be a Democrat. Right now, it means being a neocon with a permissive social agenda. In the 1960’s, it meant being a dang racist (among other things). In 2020, it could mean being an economic progressive and democratic socialist. There’s no limit to what this chameleon will change to, but there IS a limit on how much change can come to it from outside of it.
4 Likes
Targeting the midterms, when turnout tends to be relatively low. Energize your base, give them something to vote for, and you have a chance to flip some seats. Also, in a lot of districts, incumbents run basically unchallenged, so they have no incentive to stray very far from the party line. That’s got to end.
But unless you actually organize a real party, the people you vote in are still working for the existing party leadership, and your movement will get coopted and astroturfed.
1 Like
This is worth a read, even if it’s really about why complaining about how the parties pick their candidates is a fool’s errand.
A political party is not an institution of democratic government. A political party is an instrument of democratic government.
…
This comes home with special force in 2016, because, very unusually for American history, we have two big political parties that have now actually become political parties of some ideological rigor—one long pushed well to the right of center, and now pushed to the right of the right, while the other, long a coalition of unlike kinds, is increasingly becoming, at least in terms of ideas, a social-democratic party in the European model. We can be happy or unhappy about this, but the cure for our unhappiness is not to insistently “democratize” the parties. It is to be more passionate about our faction and its rules—and, perhaps, to add more parties to the political pageant. When we go into the voting booth on primary day, we are not directly engaged in the greatest constitutional responsibility of citizenship, which is to vote for a government. We are simply one fraction of our faction. But that’s still a good instrument for a band of citizens to play.
Compare and contrast with France, where the party (names, at least), regularly change (and are more explicitly made of coalitions of smaller parties anyway.
3 Likes
We normally have a full lower house election and a half-Senate election every three years or so. The timing is slightly variable, as the incumbent government can call the election early if they want to.
However, if sufficient conditions are met (basically, the Senate has to repeatedly reject a proposed bill), the government can choose to call a double-dissolution election instead. This works exactly the same as a regular election, except that the entire Senate is involved instead of just half of them.
6 Likes
The founding fathers should have put a provision in to do something like that here ‘If congress choses to stonewall or otherwise forestall the processing and creation of laws it shall be dissolved in favor of a new elected body.’
As is though? How would you get themto sign up for something like that now as an amendment?
3 Likes
Voters who fall to the right are unlikely to vote for Progressive or Left wing independents. Simple because those voters are conservative. There are genuine ideological differences there, and people aren’t going to vote counter to their ideology simply because they’re dissatisfied/angry with conventional options. Do you really see a block of people who genuinely think banning abortion is more important than anything else voting for a left wing campaign? That demographic votes right wing for a reason. As it stands this is basically a 3rd party move from the left. As such it will pick off seats from the existing left, or places where the left has become newly competitive. In safely blue districts this isn’t much to worry about, in most cases they’ll simply siphon off some votes from an eventual Democrat winner. In a few places they may actually take a few seats (and good for them if they do). In solidly red districts it’ll be totally a non- issue. Wont be enough left wing voters to push them or a democrat to a win. But in those contested districts they’ll likely simply act as the spoilers others would warn about. And frankly with the GOP’s Gerrymandering and what have still in place it probably wouldn’t have the success/effect they think. When you’re fighting it out for a single congressional district that’s either solidly democrat/left wing or at least competative, and the GOP have five safe districts immediately adjacent you aren’t materially going to shift the make up of the house. The senate is another story given they’re voted in on a state wide basis. But more importantly this totally ignores the situation with state level offices. Conservative control and ability to obstruct is in no small part driven by their lock on state and country level offices. Not just the near lock on the house they’ve managed to hand themselves. As an example the New York State Senate is currently GOP controlled. NEW FUCKING YORK. And those states that are solidly red on your election maps are GOP from top down, with much less chance of a swing.
It looks good that they’re focusing on the midterms, when this sort of thing and increasing left wing gains at the national level in general seem more feasible. And I’ve thought a push of this sort from the left would be a good move for a long time. But it just seems unfortunately myopic, particularly in that its tied explicitly to Bernie’s platform (which has some practicality issues, especially if Bernie doesn’t win) and Bernie’s campaign. And I’m curious why this push is coming from outside Bernie’s campaign. From the start of his campaign he’s pretty much refused to work on down ballot races, endorse other candidates, or raise money for them. In fact he has demonized Hillary for doing so (despite the fact that the money raised and work done will benefit Bernie, should Bernie take the nomination). For all his talk of a political revolution, he’s been actively working against any such movement happening. Additionally any independent progressives elected will have to form a coalition or otherwise work with the DNC to get shit done (as Bernie did), because this sort of thing is a numbers game. A narrow focus on Congressional seats leaves pretty much every other office in the hands of existing parties, who will have to be worked with. In the 2 party system these coalitions already exist, simply inside of the existing parties.
Because he’s running as a Democrat. He can (and has) supported progressive candidates running as Democrats, he can’t support ones running against Democrats.
1 Like
Hi, your neighbour here,
Our third party, relatively young at 55 years old, operating under a FPTP system, pushed in the last election campaign (and before it) for an end to the FPTP system. Such was the public support for the concept during the last election that one of the two “major” parties was compelled beyond their own interests to adopt electoral reform and to make a historical promise (that could still be broken). That promise was that the election in 2015 would be the last FPTP election in federal government elections.
If it comes about as promised, the third party will not have done it, but there is no question it will not have occurred without that pressure.
Tomatoes? Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, et al, My child bears my surname, my child is not in the coffin with me. Your labeling dilemma is only perceptive. Any pressure that could come from within can come from without, and does depending on your perspective.
But if you see an effort like the one presented in the OP, of what possible benefit is there to immediately co-opt it by tying it’s apron strings with limitations that are only inevitable because they serve what power serves now?
There is no limit on what can occur. The very notion is ludicrous.
2 Likes
Sorry but this is demonstrably incorrect. Throwing the bums out, with less regard for the replacement than the act, is tradition above and below our respective borders. It isn’t as hard as all that for people either, because in reality the differences in ideology within our respective systems are slim and hardly immutable.
5 Likes
Since when? Nothing stops him from endorsing, supporting, or raising money for non- DNC candidates. He just can’t do so through DNC mechanisms (for practical reasons). Just look at Joe Lieberman (who is the worst), as a sitting US senator for the Dems he was doing fundraising and campaign events for Republican candidates. And near as I’ve read his “support” of other candidates is pretty limited. Starting with 3 candidates just a few weeks ago. And largely in response to criticism about his not doing so. His Victory fund, the mechanism through which party candidates raise money for down ballot allies, is functionally empty. And if he’s willing to run as a Democrat, why would he have an active interest in not electing other Democrats? Those are the people he needs to get anything done, the party he will supposedly be governing with, and the organization he will be the defacto leader of should he take the nomination. He could be (and should be) empowering and increasing the viability of progressive wing of the DNC. Significantly. And there are plenty of mechanisms for him to still support 3rd party and independent politicians as well. He isn’t, and he’s demonizing those who will. It makes him seem actively antagonistic to forming any sort of movement at all.
Something that takes more time, less polarization, and more strife than we have now. And seldom works out well. More over it isn’t something that can be predicted, or practically catered to or fostered as anything other than opportunism, and its not emblematic of a movement or stable. Just look at Trump. The “fuck those guys” element is bolstering him as much, if not more so than Bernie. And what he’s pitching is baldly opportunistic, and pretty fucking frightening. Generally speaking you aren’t going to get Christian Conservatives to vote for a candidate running on an explicitly Satanist platform. Your just as likely to get urban Black communities to vote for a white power campaign. I’m exaggerating for effect but the point is there are people out there who disagree with you. Genuinely. At base. The less ideological can be won over (with time), and these rigid blocks/demographics can lose power or influence over time (or be deliberately disenfranchised by voter suppression measures and the like!). And frankly at a certain point they just, you know, die. Literally or figuratively. But they aren’t going to suddenly vote for some one who’s on the opposite side of their preferred political issues because they’re not the guy already in power. Instead they’re likely to find some one else who lines up with them somewhere or somehow on their big ideological sticking points, and is also in a “fuck those guys” sort of situation.
1 Like
They’re going to be running candidates in 2018, not 2016.
1 Like
So the third party in this case worked toward its agenda by co-opting one of the other two parties, and then nothing so far has come of it (because FPTP is still how we elect people unless I’m mistaken). That’s a point in favor of changing the major parties rather than working on a third party!
What benefit is there in excluding members of the two dominant parties that agree with the platform?
My position isn’t an ideological one it’s simply a functional one: at this point in time (circa the 2018 election), a “third party” of progressives won’t do much. Though a fund that provides money to candidates whose agenda lines up with it no matter what party affiliation that candidate has could do some interesting things.
1 Like
Hopefully more than Lessig’s SuperPAC managed.
1 Like
That is a matter of willpower: at least at the local level, the “design” can be changed. It’s not easy, it’s hard work, but it can be.
First-past-the-post is not written in stone. Here in Cambridge, for example, we’re one of the few places in the world that uses [Single Transferable Vote] (Single transferable vote - Wikipedia), (which is basically just Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Voting to elect multiple office holders) for our city council.
As far as I can tell, Senate and House elections are baked-in as FPTP by Federal law, but presidential elections definitely are not. States have the power to appropriate electoral college votes however they want – see several states’ existing amendments that could lock in their votes to the nation-wide majority winner. A state could certainly choose to adopt IRV for the presidential election.
But while voted for federal office may be hard to change, don’t ignore the power of locally-elected officials selected by “quirky” systems like Cambridge’s. These offices are what decide policies like bathroom laws, and are often stepping stones to higher office.
Support any movement or amendment to change your local county’s election system to something other than FPTP, and start your own movement if none exists.
2 Likes
Happened with Dean too. Seems to be a structural issue within the Democratic party. From my point of view (unaffiliated with any major party), the Dems turn into their own worst enemy in election years.
If they’re half as smart as they claim to be, maybe this time they’ll notice what the Republicans have demonstrated: if you vote for who you want to vote for you can make great progress, even if your candidate is a total moron.
But I doubt it.
1 Like
