Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The issue to "electability" is that such discussions tend to veer away from polling and data and towards subjective "likability" discussions that are completely fact free. Oh, and often sexist.
Electability is an important consideration, but not the kind of "electability" that media and pundits talk about.
The US actually has very open political parties, in most other western democracies the party can and will expel members and elected officials if they get out of line, plus primaries are totally closed.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe idea of a faction-less nation is nothing more than purest delusion, people have common values and interests and thus have reason to collectively pool their resources in the forms of parties.
To consider the existence of parties as a failure of the US political system is absolutely bizarre.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYou know, do we have any explicit indication of what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi think? That Schumer let Bernie become ranking member in the budget committee implies that he doesn't care that much about his formal non-membership, but that's just inference.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'd prefer a more European coalition-based system. More legitimate parties not enforcing doctrinal purity.
Bernie benefited the Democratic Party by forcing it more to the left and he did that by being a "outsider" (who was never very outsider-like at all anyway).
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 12th 2019 at 2:40:37 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.And how do you plan to regulate these new parties in general? Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of only two parties being involved in politics quite bad, yet I'm also aware that having various political parties opens a different can of worms.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.Im with Chuck here. All this talk of "loyalty to the Party"—apart from the platform and values—sounds really weird to me. "The Party" as an organizational entity exists as a platform for electing people to office; that's it, that's all it is. If a number of members of Congress were in favor of strengthening, say, the civil rights of people of color, would you care what party they belong to? Why? What we need are people who are willing to stand up and defend the institutions of democracy, human rights and humanism, regardless of their institutional identification. The Democratic Party has a relatively spotty record regarding this. Not, I conceed, that there is a better alternative. There may be reasons to dislike Bernie Sanders, but remaining independent of the Democratic Party isnt one of them.
That said, I really like Warren as well.
Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 12th 2019 at 5:48:01 AM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Also, having more than two parties allows a diversification of political leanings beyond right and left, not to mention that, in theory, it should keep the more radical parts of the political spectrum in check.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.For what it's worth I would say a problem intrinsic to the American system-not necessarily to the two-party system but related to it-is that it favors gaining support of the largest Vocal Minority rather than being somewhat palatable to everyone.
Essentially, pissing people off isn't a big deal in the current system so long as you can pander to a large enough base. I'd prefer a system which preferred being seen as So Okay, It's Average across the board. Everyone's 3rd favorite candidate is probably the guy who should be running things.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
I'll reiterate that we'd need to revamp the voting system just so that everyone's 3rd favorite candidate has a shot as opposed to losing to a binary choice between everybody's 2nd and 1st favorite candidates. In other words...we need to axe FPTP.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jan 12th 2019 at 3:16:10 AM
The US two-party system is bad, it forces people with semi/similar ideologies to work together as one party instead of being multiple parties that unite on certain issues.
Bernie’s plantform was basically the same as Hillary’s, but Hillary’s platform is not the platform that the entire Democratic Party runs on.
You can turn the two-party system into a two-and-a-half party system simply by reducing the cost of politics, right now only the democrats and republicans can afford to run for office, the cost of politics is what separates the US from other First Past The Post democracies.
Once you’ve done that other parties will start to form, likely regional parties that would seek only low office to begin with. After that allowing parties more internal control would make them more ideologically harmonious and boost the growth of more parties, as people expelled from their own parties.
Then you can look at changing the electoral system, removing First Past The Post and have a more proportional system.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran> The US two-party system is bad, it forces people with semi/similar ideologies to work together as one party instead of being multiple parties that unite on certain issues.
The founding fathers would probably go "It's working as intended then" so changing the system they founded the country on is difficult to say the least
Edited by Ultimatum on Jan 12th 2019 at 11:31:43 AM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverThe founding fathers were also incredibly awful people. Majority were very wealthy, many of them slaveowners, almost unanimously racist and sexist, distrusting of the people and concept of democracy in general... almost no one could vote in the first few presidential elections. And that was on purpose. So screw what they wanted, unless you’re using pretty rhetoric and select quotes to persuade people who care more about the founding fathers than the rights of oppressed people today.
I don't think the Founding Fathers were envisaging that political parties work in a certain way. And given how short the US constitution is, I wouldn't blame it for the way the US parties work today even if there are good reasons why it is no longer considered a good model to follow
.
Fair for Its Day has a place, but I don't know if the Founding Fathers were fair for their day, or better, or worse, and it really doesn't matter.
There day is long past. Focusing on what they would want or would react to the problems of today are kind of missing the point.

As has been said, he's disloyal to the party, not the agenda. Part of a political leader's job is to help build the party, which includes being a part of the party organization and encouraging his followers to join as well, and supporting Democratic candidates for office.
Instead, Sanders is intentionally staying out of the party and picking fights with Democratic candidates through Our Revolution, using the same purity-tested primarying that the Tea Party used to take over the Republicans. We absolutely should not support that kind of shit; the Democratic Party does not need its very own Freedom Caucus.
As any D&D player can tell you, Don't Split the Party.