6 ms·
They don't, because if they did, they would vote for candidates which want to do that, but they don't.
by qxnqd 7y ago
They don't, because if they did, they would vote for candidates which want to do that, but they don't.
- mc32 7y agoI think the problem is there are candidates who do support it but they also support other things their electorate finds less favorable. So it will require a “maverick” who aligns with them politically in major areas AND also supports FMLA improvements.
- Clubber 7y agoDo you feel most candidate pools seem pre-selected? It seems that way to me and I think Bernie and Trump are recent anomalies. A lot of push back from their respective parties during their primaries because they weren't part of the preferred candidates. You can't win an election without being a member of 1 of two parties today.
- MandieD 7y agoOur non-parliamentary, first-past-the-post system causes that. We’ve always been a two-party system. The parties that are those two parties have swapped (no more Federalists or Whigs) and realigned (Andrew Jackson would be a bit surprised by the current Democratic House Caucus, and Abraham Lincoln would probably be a bit surprised, as well), but outside of the independents who sometimes win seats in New England (but are pretty aligned with the Democrats), it’s effectively a two-party system. Conclusion I’ve come to while comparing systems with my German colleagues: in Germany, the coalition negotiations happen after the election; in the US, they happen before the general election, via the primaries. I’m curious to see if Louisiana and California “jungle primaries” might begin to break this up a bit after a few more cycles.