10 ms·

I think that focusing on the illusory party division is exactly the wrong approach to this. Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem, and both parties hav

by MadManE 12y ago

I think that focusing on the illusory party division is exactly the wrong approach to this. Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem, and both parties have essentially the same agenda. What needs to happen is the elimination of government interference, not calling out some perceived hypocrisy.

tormeh 12y ago
That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other time is solely with respect to the voting booth. And in the voting booth you can only choose between two parties. You either make the best out of it or you don't.
- MadManE 12y ago
  How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  @MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      "It's a bit less shitty" really doesn't help your argument all that much. I'd still rather not live there.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        And I'd rather not live in North Korea, even though it has a stable government. The fact that a place is both (more or less) stateless and a hard place to leave doesn't mean that the former necessarily causes the latter, any more than having a government necessarily means it'll be a murderous dictatorship.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        You have an interesting definition of "stable government" if North Korea is one. They're one death away from complete chaos - if Kim Jong-Un dies, it's probably all-out civil war.
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  You are correct but there are third party options. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is poisonous and the public should be made aware of third++ parties.
  - ufmace 12y ago
    They already are aware, and correctly dismiss them as pointless. Third parties cannot accomplish anything in a first-past-the-post election system like we have. Any vote for one will essentially be a vote for whichever big party you agree least with. Changing that would require changing the whole government over to a parliamentary system.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Yeah, what the US really need is a proportional voting system where x% of the federal/national votes means x% (+/- rounding error) of the parliamentary seats, with no voting districts or any other excuses. So what's needed is to convince the ruling classes that switching to such a system is worth potentially ruining their and their friends' careers. Luckily, this is not my problem, but it is pretty frustrating to hear Americans discuss politics.
      - ufmace 12y ago
        I wouldn't quite say that we really need to switch to proportional or something else just yet. These type of fundamental changes have the potential for huge unintended consequences, and need to be looked at carefully from every angle. One of the properties of our system the way that it is is that all "radical" elements, where radical is anything outside the national status quo, must join one of the big parties and appeal at least somewhat to all of the interests in that party to get anything done. Going to this sort of proportional system breaks that, for all such radical interests. Sure, being able to vote for a useful Libertarian party, or a tech and science party, sounds nice. But there would also be the radical Christian party, the drug warrior party, the foreign policy hawk party, the isolationist party, union party, big business party, etc, and none of them will be moderated by the need to appeal to the rest of a large party. I also think that everyone is justifiably worried about what a major rewrite of the US constitution, which is what doing that would require, would look like right now.
Tloewald 12y ago
We get the governments we elect. If we pick our candidates poorly, it's our own fault (including if we don't exercise our right to vote).
- pmorici 12y ago
  It most all cases though it is a heads I win tails you lose situation.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Do you have any idea how hard it is for non-major party candidates to get on the ballot.
  - sp332 12y ago
    This hard http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/illinois-gop-sends-armed-thugs-libertarians-homes/ http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/illinois-gop-...
- r00fus 12y ago
  That's great - when I actually get to pick my candidate. Most of the times, it's the party (or candidates' money) choosing for me - then I get to choose which of the parties' candidates I vote for. Third party candidate? Not going to ever work with FTTP [1] voting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - spinlock 12y ago
    You don't vote for a Third Party Candidate. You vote for a Third Party Platform. Once the Platform gains the support of a few percent of voters, it is adopted by the major parties. This is how every progressive agenda from the abolition of slavery to marijuana reform has gained traction. Since I don't live in a swing-state (or the swing-county of a swing-state) I feel like voting for Third Party Platforms is the best way to make my vote heard.
JustSomeNobody 12y ago
This. OMG 1000 times this. I simply cannot understand why so many intelligent people still allow themselves to be divided like this. How can they not see that the politicians are playing them?

by MadManE 12y ago

tormeh 12y ago

That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other time is solely with respect to the voting booth. And in the voting booth you can only choose between two parties. You either make the best out of it or you don't.

MadManE 12y ago
How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.
- tormeh 12y ago
  It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.
Tloewald 12y ago
@MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    "It's a bit less shitty" really doesn't help your argument all that much. I'd still rather not live there.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      And I'd rather not live in North Korea, even though it has a stable government. The fact that a place is both (more or less) stateless and a hard place to leave doesn't mean that the former necessarily causes the latter, any more than having a government necessarily means it'll be a murderous dictatorship.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        You have an interesting definition of "stable government" if North Korea is one. They're one death away from complete chaos - if Kim Jong-Un dies, it's probably all-out civil war.
TheHypnotist 12y ago
You are correct but there are third party options. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is poisonous and the public should be made aware of third++ parties.
- ufmace 12y ago
  They already are aware, and correctly dismiss them as pointless. Third parties cannot accomplish anything in a first-past-the-post election system like we have. Any vote for one will essentially be a vote for whichever big party you agree least with. Changing that would require changing the whole government over to a parliamentary system.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Yeah, what the US really need is a proportional voting system where x% of the federal/national votes means x% (+/- rounding error) of the parliamentary seats, with no voting districts or any other excuses. So what's needed is to convince the ruling classes that switching to such a system is worth potentially ruining their and their friends' careers. Luckily, this is not my problem, but it is pretty frustrating to hear Americans discuss politics.
    - ufmace 12y ago
      I wouldn't quite say that we really need to switch to proportional or something else just yet. These type of fundamental changes have the potential for huge unintended consequences, and need to be looked at carefully from every angle. One of the properties of our system the way that it is is that all "radical" elements, where radical is anything outside the national status quo, must join one of the big parties and appeal at least somewhat to all of the interests in that party to get anything done. Going to this sort of proportional system breaks that, for all such radical interests. Sure, being able to vote for a useful Libertarian party, or a tech and science party, sounds nice. But there would also be the radical Christian party, the drug warrior party, the foreign policy hawk party, the isolationist party, union party, big business party, etc, and none of them will be moderated by the need to appeal to the rest of a large party. I also think that everyone is justifiably worried about what a major rewrite of the US constitution, which is what doing that would require, would look like right now.

Tloewald 12y ago

We get the governments we elect. If we pick our candidates poorly, it's our own fault (including if we don't exercise our right to vote).

pmorici 12y ago
It most all cases though it is a heads I win tails you lose situation.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Do you have any idea how hard it is for non-major party candidates to get on the ballot.
- sp332 12y ago
  This hard http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/illinois-gop-sends-armed-thugs-libertarians-homes/ http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/illinois-gop-...
r00fus 12y ago
That's great - when I actually get to pick my candidate. Most of the times, it's the party (or candidates' money) choosing for me - then I get to choose which of the parties' candidates I vote for. Third party candidate? Not going to ever work with FTTP [1] voting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- spinlock 12y ago
  You don't vote for a Third Party Candidate. You vote for a Third Party Platform. Once the Platform gains the support of a few percent of voters, it is adopted by the major parties. This is how every progressive agenda from the abolition of slavery to marijuana reform has gained traction. Since I don't live in a swing-state (or the swing-county of a swing-state) I feel like voting for Third Party Platforms is the best way to make my vote heard.

JustSomeNobody 12y ago

This. OMG 1000 times this. I simply cannot understand why so many intelligent people still allow themselves to be divided like this. How can they not see that the politicians are playing them?