3 ms·

Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of

Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of that was, hey, maybe these policies are bad and we should blame the people who are making the bad policy. No. It's the Republican's fault for not stopping it. That indicates a very skewed world view, and yes, I think requires some introspection. Sure, blame Republicans for specific bad policy that you disagree with, but it's completely beyond the pale to blame them for the Democrat's bad policy making. That's like a mom blaming a father for not stopping her from giving the kids too much candy.

Aloha 4y ago
Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change - and if the permitted band of expression is too narrow, you'll never get the better answers.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspective No, it mostly doesn't, except in fairly strong party systems (which the US doesn't have), and even then it usually only applies to being a member of the party-in-government, not the party-in-the-electorate.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    You cannot be a Dem or a Repub pol and survive a primary reliably without hewing to certain ideological precepts - there are notable exceptions, Cuellar of Texas and Collins (to a lesser extent) for example - Even with them, hewing too far outside of the ideological precepts your voters have will find you losing a primary. The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, This could be remedied by either getting rid of primaries entirely - or introducing fusion voting, either solution would solve the drive to ideological purity during the primary cycle.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, No, it is the single-winner FPTP general, particularly for seats in legislative bodies. This has been studied fairly extensively in comparative government, the narrow range of choices is the product of a system that effectively avoids proportionality by favoring a narrow range of outcomes. “Primaries” aren't the problem, and most solutions that try to avoid them or reform them while retaining the real source of the problem would either have no effect or actually further reduce meaningful choice.
      - Aloha 4y ago
        Low turnout for primaries produces non majoritarian choices, while I'm interested in proportional representation systems but who picks the candidates? Also, realistically we vote too often, and on too many things - the last time I voted, I had no less than 26 offices to vote for, I'm a reasonably well informed voter, and I had no idea who 3/4's of those people are and in some cases, what their office did. I'm if the opinion we don't need more choice, when so few people show up to do the choosing. Im interested on your ideas to solve it.

Aloha 4y ago

Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change - and if the permitted band of expression is too narrow, you'll never get the better answers.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspective No, it mostly doesn't, except in fairly strong party systems (which the US doesn't have), and even then it usually only applies to being a member of the party-in-government, not the party-in-the-electorate.
- Aloha 4y ago
  You cannot be a Dem or a Repub pol and survive a primary reliably without hewing to certain ideological precepts - there are notable exceptions, Cuellar of Texas and Collins (to a lesser extent) for example - Even with them, hewing too far outside of the ideological precepts your voters have will find you losing a primary. The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, This could be remedied by either getting rid of primaries entirely - or introducing fusion voting, either solution would solve the drive to ideological purity during the primary cycle.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, No, it is the single-winner FPTP general, particularly for seats in legislative bodies. This has been studied fairly extensively in comparative government, the narrow range of choices is the product of a system that effectively avoids proportionality by favoring a narrow range of outcomes. “Primaries” aren't the problem, and most solutions that try to avoid them or reform them while retaining the real source of the problem would either have no effect or actually further reduce meaningful choice.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      Low turnout for primaries produces non majoritarian choices, while I'm interested in proportional representation systems but who picks the candidates? Also, realistically we vote too often, and on too many things - the last time I voted, I had no less than 26 offices to vote for, I'm a reasonably well informed voter, and I had no idea who 3/4's of those people are and in some cases, what their office did. I'm if the opinion we don't need more choice, when so few people show up to do the choosing. Im interested on your ideas to solve it.