7 ms·

It's time for a new political party. Forget the people who say it can't be done. Now is the time. We are stuck in a rut and its time to get out. You have a c

by theklub 13y ago

It's time for a new political party. Forget the people who say it can't be done. Now is the time. We are stuck in a rut and its time to get out. You have a choice, be lazy and accept what is happening or step up and make change. Its clear our current system is rotten.

pstuart 13y ago
Please share your vision of that party's platform.
- m_myers 13y ago
  In multiparty systems, it is possible to have a single-issue party which is actually electable (see the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany). But in the US, any party must have a completely defined platform which is acceptable to a majority - or at least a plurality - of voters. That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
  - Androsynth 13y ago
    it doesnt have to be a national party initially. If you took a pro-privacy, socially-liberal, fiscally conservative platform you could make a strong push in large urban centers across the nation. I know that the bay area would be accepting of this (accepting != elected, but it wouldnt get laughed at by the voters, only by the national media). you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
- theklub 13y ago
  The vision that I have includes allowing web based voting on party issues for party members. Complete financial transparency. Debate and decide what the party should support from within. Decide what issues are most important and attempt to tackle those first. I think the platform is that there is no real platform and the members decide what is important. Forget about gay marriage there are real problems in America. (education, war, privacy) I could go on and on about what I think are the issues in America but the point is we need to have a place to discuss these issues and have a group of people that can decide what should be done and then do something about it. Leaving it to a group of old men who are constantly lobbied is no longer an option.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    That's not a party, that's more about process (which I do agree with, btw). A party has to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes. It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.
- nullc 13y ago
  > Please share your vision of that party's platform. "It's like libertarianism meets communism but with promiscuous transparency and cryptography instead of classlessness. Get ready people, Libercommusharepunkism is about to disrupt!"
  - pstuart 13y ago
    I've progressed from Liberal to Liberaltarian.
tim_hutton 13y ago
This. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/02/does-america-need-a-pirate-party/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/0... (Local discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 ) Lawrence Lessig for President?
podperson 13y ago
An insurgency within one of the two big political parties is probably more likely to work than a third (or nth) party given how broken the US electoral system is. And of course it's the super-low-turnout primaries where we can really make a difference.
- Osiris 13y ago
  Broken is a strong word. I studied comparative politics in college include a variety of different election system. It turns out that each system has it's own pros and cons. For example, proportional representation systems end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power because of the 50+% vote requirement to pass a bill. The smaller party can throw its weight around and create a coalition with one of the bigger parties, thus getting more of their agenda passed than they should be able to. So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I think that the un-broken version of our system is one where votes are still for particular candidates directly but tallied via approval or range voting. What objections do you have to such a system, that make it look comparably broken to the current one?
    - Osiris 13y ago
      Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates. My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage. Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
ctdonath 13y ago
The two viable dominant parties have very similar voter counts. Starting a new political party requires taking voters away from the one dominant party closest to the new party's position, rendering both impotent and handing control to the party you least want to have it. The political equilibrium keeps things as they are. Those in power can't do what needs doing because they'll get thrown out for it (ex.: total spending must be cut in half, but nobody is going to make such draconian across-the-board cuts and survive). Something has to break to disrupt that equilibrium, something like defaulting on debt maintenance or onset of hyperinflation. Yes, we're stuck in a rut. There comes a point where you have to get out of the car and start walking, leaving the driving paradigm behind.
- theklub 13y ago
  I wish I had some numbers but I can't look them up right now. How many American's are currently not even voting? I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another. Perhaps engaging them could be a good first step. And also a huge shift in party power could take a lifetime but does that mean it shouldn't be attempted?
  - untog 13y ago
    I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another. I bet most of them are people who don't care about politics. Good luck trying to engage them, people have been trying to do so for decades and have failed. The simple reality is that life is comfortable enough for most. Few are starving, few are persecuted- if you're earning enough to live a relatively comfortable life, why bother voting?
    - ledge 13y ago
      Speaking only for myself, as a young person who does not vote, it's not a lack of interest in politics or the state of world affairs. I'll vote only once the electoral process is significantly reworked, until then I have better ways to engage civically.
  - 13y ago
genwin 13y ago
ctdonath has it right. Because of a flaw in our system there can be only two viable political parties. Congress must agree to fix the flaw to get it done within our system, and Congress has the incentive to never fix. The fix is instant run-off voting, like Australia has.

by theklub 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago

Please share your vision of that party's platform.

m_myers 13y ago
In multiparty systems, it is possible to have a single-issue party which is actually electable (see the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany). But in the US, any party must have a completely defined platform which is acceptable to a majority - or at least a plurality - of voters. That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
- Androsynth 13y ago
  it doesnt have to be a national party initially. If you took a pro-privacy, socially-liberal, fiscally conservative platform you could make a strong push in large urban centers across the nation. I know that the bay area would be accepting of this (accepting != elected, but it wouldnt get laughed at by the voters, only by the national media). you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
theklub 13y ago
The vision that I have includes allowing web based voting on party issues for party members. Complete financial transparency. Debate and decide what the party should support from within. Decide what issues are most important and attempt to tackle those first. I think the platform is that there is no real platform and the members decide what is important. Forget about gay marriage there are real problems in America. (education, war, privacy) I could go on and on about what I think are the issues in America but the point is we need to have a place to discuss these issues and have a group of people that can decide what should be done and then do something about it. Leaving it to a group of old men who are constantly lobbied is no longer an option.
- pstuart 13y ago
  That's not a party, that's more about process (which I do agree with, btw). A party has to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes. It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.
nullc 13y ago
> Please share your vision of that party's platform. "It's like libertarianism meets communism but with promiscuous transparency and cryptography instead of classlessness. Get ready people, Libercommusharepunkism is about to disrupt!"
- pstuart 13y ago
  I've progressed from Liberal to Liberaltarian.

tim_hutton 13y ago

This. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/02/does-america-need-a-pirate-party/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/0... (Local discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 ) Lawrence Lessig for President?

podperson 13y ago

An insurgency within one of the two big political parties is probably more likely to work than a third (or nth) party given how broken the US electoral system is. And of course it's the super-low-turnout primaries where we can really make a difference.

Osiris 13y ago
Broken is a strong word. I studied comparative politics in college include a variety of different election system. It turns out that each system has it's own pros and cons. For example, proportional representation systems end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power because of the 50+% vote requirement to pass a bill. The smaller party can throw its weight around and create a coalition with one of the bigger parties, thus getting more of their agenda passed than they should be able to. So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I think that the un-broken version of our system is one where votes are still for particular candidates directly but tallied via approval or range voting. What objections do you have to such a system, that make it look comparably broken to the current one?
  - Osiris 13y ago
    Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates. My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage. Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.
    - dllthomas 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

The two viable dominant parties have very similar voter counts. Starting a new political party requires taking voters away from the one dominant party closest to the new party's position, rendering both impotent and handing control to the party you least want to have it. The political equilibrium keeps things as they are. Those in power can't do what needs doing because they'll get thrown out for it (ex.: total spending must be cut in half, but nobody is going to make such draconian across-the-board cuts and survive). Something has to break to disrupt that equilibrium, something like defaulting on debt maintenance or onset of hyperinflation. Yes, we're stuck in a rut. There comes a point where you have to get out of the car and start walking, leaving the driving paradigm behind.

theklub 13y ago
I wish I had some numbers but I can't look them up right now. How many American's are currently not even voting? I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another. Perhaps engaging them could be a good first step. And also a huge shift in party power could take a lifetime but does that mean it shouldn't be attempted?
- untog 13y ago
  I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another. I bet most of them are people who don't care about politics. Good luck trying to engage them, people have been trying to do so for decades and have failed. The simple reality is that life is comfortable enough for most. Few are starving, few are persecuted- if you're earning enough to live a relatively comfortable life, why bother voting?
  - ledge 13y ago
    Speaking only for myself, as a young person who does not vote, it's not a lack of interest in politics or the state of world affairs. I'll vote only once the electoral process is significantly reworked, until then I have better ways to engage civically.
- 13y ago

genwin 13y ago

ctdonath has it right. Because of a flaw in our system there can be only two viable political parties. Congress must agree to fix the flaw to get it done within our system, and Congress has the incentive to never fix. The fix is instant run-off voting, like Australia has.