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
Let's also not kid ourselves: most third parties are very fringe. Even the Libertarians and Greens hold a number of frankly insane views and Gary Johnson has been attacked for supporting Drivers Licenses.
Even if I were inclined to support the Greens, their views on a number of matters are just very, very crazy. Ralph Nader, after the 2000 election, did not remain and build them into a real electoral movement.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:40:08 AM by Lightysnake
In my mind it's not just a matter of electoral systems. First, a lot of third parties sink their resources in chancy presidential runs rather than a congressional election which is a lower treshold. And presence in Congress gives staying power they thus don't have.
Second, a lot of "big tent" parties have internal factions that contest control/dominance over the parties. E.g Tea Party vs. traditional Republicans. Or "third way" Democrats vs. progressives.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
![]()
That's conflation. We still have two parties, even if one's changed with the times better than the other, and the only way a major split is going to happen in the current political environment is if the Republican establishment disavows Trump. Right now they're busy sucking his [huge, really very large] cock, so that's not going to happen.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:41:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
The attitude of society doesn't change unless people make an effort to change it. Would you ask all feminists to stop complaining about the remaining inequalities between men and women and wait twenty years for things to get better? Would you ask the black community to sit down and stop complaining about institutional bias in the police and wait twenty years for things to get better?
edited 17th Jun '16 9:42:49 AM by CaptainCapsase
Even if a third party emerge, in long turn a party will eventually go down, leaving the remaining two.
I don't recall third parties being fundamental human rights.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:42:31 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
![]()
Again, you're mixing things up. The Democratic Party continues to push, as it has for the past 80 years or so, for progressive social change, while the Republican Party continues to resist. Yet change is happening — more slowly than some would like but (obviously) faster than others are comfortable with. This is how our system is designed to work: slowly and haltingly. Revolutions are bad for people's health.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:45:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@flameboy: Self determination is however considered a fundamental right, and a more pluralistic electoral system is one means of improvement in that regards.
Which is precisely why people must continue to make noise about it; electoral reform is something that goes against the interests of the political elite in virtually all cases, thus, without a mass movement threatening to displace them (democratically), electoral reform simply won't happen.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:46:14 AM by CaptainCapsase
I don't find that relevant to the number of parties.
2 is a plural.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:46:10 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
"Self-determination" is another meaningless buzzword in this circumstance. You can't secede on the basis of political opinion when you're mixed in with the general population. Stop making things mean what they don't.
The threat of political revolution cannot be planned, or coerced; it can only come as an organic response to some outrage committed by (or at least blamed on) the ruling class. You seem to be trying to foment outrage without a clearly defined focus, which never, ever works.
We've seen that with Sanders' campaign: he rails on "inequality" as if it's a specific menace, like Communists, or cholera, that can be systematically attacked. Unfortunately, the real subject is far too complex and nebulous to be broken down into sound bites, which is why it isn't gaining him the traction it needs. He's taking genuine issues and turning them into windmills, discrediting the very movement he's trying to create.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:50:08 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
On the contrary, I have several specific objectives in mind (and so does Sanders. His stump speech highlights several of them), first among them being electoral and campaign finance reform that will make it easier for future reform to happen, while reducing the risk of regression.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:51:10 AM by CaptainCapsase
Heh. Good luck with that one. It offers no tangible enemy that can be attacked, no scapegoat that's simple to point fingers at. "The campaign finance system" is far too nebulous as a concept to bestir the necessary targeted outrage, especially when politicians that the left likes benefit by it as well.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:52:02 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Exactly, it's about money and resources. That's not an inherent part of the system, it's not even an inherent part of First Past the Post, it's a part of the system because the people in charge have agreed to set a "your political party must be this rich to even hope to compete for a seat at a local level" bar, and they've set it high.
Also I'd note that Sanders has never been a member of a third party, he's been an independent for a long time but never a member of a third party, it's always been the pure Bernie show. He's in a way part of the problem, he could start a third party movement nationally by associating himself with a third party that would then run congressional and local candidates in Vermont.
Why? What's to stop (to pick a state at random) Vermont becoming a state where two parties compete for the seats, while Ohio has another two parties (or maybe one other one and one for the original two) competing for seats there.
Each seat has to come down to a two horse race, but there are a lot of seats up for grabs.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:53:39 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Sanders has done a reasonably good job of whipping up outrage against the current system of campaign financing, though his specific policy objective of "repealing citizen's united" doesn't go nearly far enough. My top priority is the establishment of strict limits on how much money a campaign is allowed to spend, determined based on the type of election being conducted.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:59:28 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Then he's the Bernie Party.
Vermont and Ohio have different amounts of delegates.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:55:08 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameGreat, I agree with Campaign Finance reform: I believe in a constitutional amendment or USSC pick to overturn the Citizens United system and hopefully take us back to public funding.
But in order to accomplish that, I have to realize my issues are not the priority of everyone. In order to get this stuff done, I'm going to need to make alliances,perhaps give a little on other issues, and work with some dreaded Blue Dogs. Maybe I'll have to take some corporate money to get elected to do this.
The problem is we have a contingent on the left staunchly unwilling to accept these compromises or imperfections. Creating outrage is worthless without specific policy directive, and Sanders has been ridiculously bad at providing real grounding to his ideas. 'Political Revolution' has become a meaningless buzz-phrase on getting things done now because it doesn't solve anything on its own. Show me the electoral map. Show me your efforts to get Democrats elected.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:56:33 AM by Lightysnake
![]()
Nope, he's an independent, there's an important legal difference between being part of a one man political party and being an independent, if he was head of the Bernie Party he'd have other party members, perhaps a conference, primaries, a party war chest, a party platform and more.
And yes I know that Vermont and Ohio has different numbers of delegates, so do Scotland and Wales in the UK Parliment, that doesn't matter when it comes to Scotland being (largly) an SNP-Labour race and Wales being a PC-Labour race.
X3 And yet he refuses to give up his personal position as an independent even though doing so would be the best thing imaginable for a third party and the third party. movement, he could found a political party and start running candidates for other offices, but he won't, because then he'd have to hold primaries, he could be pushed out to marginalised,
edited 17th Jun '16 10:00:36 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
If he started his own party, the democrats would run an opponent against him, and his senate seat would go to the GOP in all likelihood, thereby ending the Democratic Socialist party of Vermont; there are also a fair number of laws on the federal level which are specifically designed so as to make it extremely difficult for third parties to run for office in the United States; independents have it easier, but only slightly.
edited 17th Jun '16 10:04:25 AM by CaptainCapsase
Sanders has twice won the nomination of the Vermont Democratic Party despite not being a member, I fail to see why that would change.
Plus he last won with 71% to 25%, he might well be able to still pull a win in a three way race.
As for laws that make it harder, what are the laws, name them please. I can't find anything that forces a Dem-Republican race. Hell if anything I could see an argument for the Democrwts being frozen off the ballot, as The Sanders Party and Republican Party and the two parties with reasonable vote amounts for the seat.
edited 17th Jun '16 10:08:37 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFrankly I think Sanders is just hurting himself by staying in at this point. He wants to go to the convention with lots of leverage? I get that. But staying in is, I think, costing him leverage, and it's only going to radicalize the crazier elements of his fanbase. The longer he stays in, the less time they have to get acclimatized to reality.
Case in point—gotta love the comments on this
. Move On.org admits to reality, while its members rail in the comments about how Sanders actually won and Clinton "stole" the election via fraud and he should run third party to keep her out of the White House. There's one person in the comments saying they'll support Clinton. Now, I get these people are a tiny minority, but when you see the same sort of thing on political sites all over the Internet you start to get concerned.
Be concerned, be concerned for the sanity levels of Internet comment section folks on political articles.
However there's no reason to be concerned in general unless you have reason to belvie that Internet folks make up a significant chunk of Sanders supporters.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

So maybe we should wait 20 years to bring up this topic again because right now it's just as realistic as a socialist utopia.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:40:09 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username