|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43971 Posts
On July 27 2022 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 08:06 Zambrah wrote:
This sort of shit would be almost admirable if Hillary losing to Trump hadn't happened, unfortunately Hillary did lose to Trump and it really put a damper on this particular Democrat strategy. It did buy McCaskill 1 more term and an MSNBC job after she lost to an even more extreme and absurd Republican in her next election. That's the example they gave in the article of this strategy working... The presumption on my part is that people suggesting Democrats play hardball meant against Republicans, not against their own voters by paying for Republicans to threaten them harder.
Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes.
|
On July 27 2022 10:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2022 08:06 Zambrah wrote:
This sort of shit would be almost admirable if Hillary losing to Trump hadn't happened, unfortunately Hillary did lose to Trump and it really put a damper on this particular Democrat strategy. It did buy McCaskill 1 more term and an MSNBC job after she lost to an even more extreme and absurd Republican in her next election. That's the example they gave in the article of this strategy working... The presumption on my part is that people suggesting Democrats play hardball meant against Republicans, not against their own voters by paying for Republicans to threaten them harder. Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes.
People keep raising the point of 'popular vote' as if it means anything.
Going into the election everyone knew it was not a popular vote contest and campaigned with that in mind.
The presidential election is a race to win individual states, and until that is changed, popular vote does not matter no matter how much you want it to matter.
|
Just moved back to FL and bought enough land to make my vote count!
|
United States43971 Posts
On July 27 2022 10:52 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 10:05 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2022 08:06 Zambrah wrote:
This sort of shit would be almost admirable if Hillary losing to Trump hadn't happened, unfortunately Hillary did lose to Trump and it really put a damper on this particular Democrat strategy. It did buy McCaskill 1 more term and an MSNBC job after she lost to an even more extreme and absurd Republican in her next election. That's the example they gave in the article of this strategy working... The presumption on my part is that people suggesting Democrats play hardball meant against Republicans, not against their own voters by paying for Republicans to threaten them harder. Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes. People keep raising the point of 'popular vote' as if it means anything. Going into the election everyone knew it was not a popular vote contest and campaigned with that in mind. The presidential election is a race to win individual states, and until that is changed, popular vote does not matter no matter how much you want it to matter.
Any time someone suggests that Hillary was unpopular with voters it’s always worth reminding them that she was the most popular with the voters in that election. Obviously from a strategic point of view it matters which voters you’re popular with because not all votes have equal value but when we’re talking pure popularity, she won the popularity contest.
|
I suspect the reminder might have even less value here than winning the popular vote did in her election results.
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections.
Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh.
Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete.
I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable.
|
On July 27 2022 10:52 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 10:05 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2022 08:06 Zambrah wrote:
This sort of shit would be almost admirable if Hillary losing to Trump hadn't happened, unfortunately Hillary did lose to Trump and it really put a damper on this particular Democrat strategy. It did buy McCaskill 1 more term and an MSNBC job after she lost to an even more extreme and absurd Republican in her next election. That's the example they gave in the article of this strategy working... The presumption on my part is that people suggesting Democrats play hardball meant against Republicans, not against their own voters by paying for Republicans to threaten them harder. Daily reminder that Hillary got more votes. People keep raising the point of 'popular vote' as if it means anything. Going into the election everyone knew it was not a popular vote contest and campaigned with that in mind. The presidential election is a race to win individual states, and until that is changed, popular vote does not matter no matter how much you want it to matter.
In a sane system, it would mean something. That the US system is absurdly gamey and stupid is another problem altogether.
And i don't think this discharges that fact that a pretty large chunk of voters actually voted for Trump and his crazy.
|
The only reason why weed isn't legal in Minnesota is because Republicans funded third party weed legalization parties to draw votes away from them.
We managed to somehow legalize edibles now without the republicans knowing but it's a tactical move all sides have done before there were republicans and Democrats.
|
On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable.
I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous.
|
On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous.
You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is.
|
On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is.
It's not exactly the definition of democratic if it's wide open for saboteurs. Imagine if Russian trolls were allowed to vote in US elections.
|
|
|
On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is. In the rest of the democratic world its entirely normal that only actual paying members of a political party can vote for who should lead that party.
Nor can any random member simply declare they are running for political office on behalf of a party without that party having a say in it.
|
On July 28 2022 17:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is. In the rest of the democratic world its entirely normal that only actual paying members of a political party can vote for who should lead that party. Nor can any random member simply declare they are running for political office on behalf of a party without that party having a say in it.
In the rest of the democratic world there is also automatic funding for any political party that meets the minimum requirements. It isn't a huge amount, but it's enough to get their message out in a non-trivial way.
Moreover, political campaigning and advertising is heavily restricted, explicitly to prevent rich people from just spamming the airwaves.
Restricting party elections to curated candidates and paying members is not a solution in the US because there are insurmountable hurdles to saying "well then I'll just start my own party" that don't exist elsewhere.
That said, the bylaws of the party that govern their internal structure are entirely decided by the party themselves. So the Republicans (or Democrats) could literally decide to only allow paying members to vote in primaries and it'd be totally legal. They could also do away with primaries entirely. The only reason Trump could run as a Republican is because the Republican leadership decided he could.
|
On July 28 2022 18:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 17:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is. In the rest of the democratic world its entirely normal that only actual paying members of a political party can vote for who should lead that party. Nor can any random member simply declare they are running for political office on behalf of a party without that party having a say in it. In the rest of the democratic world there is also automatic funding for any political party that meets the minimum requirements. It isn't a huge amount, but it's enough to get their message out in a non-trivial way. Moreover, political campaigning and advertising is heavily restricted, explicitly to prevent rich people from just spamming the airwaves. Restricting party elections to curated candidates and paying members is not a solution in the US because there are insurmountable hurdles to saying "well then I'll just start my own party" that don't exist elsewhere. That said, the bylaws of the party that govern their internal structure are entirely decided by the party themselves. So the Republicans (or Democrats) could literally decide to only allow paying members to vote in primaries and it'd be totally legal. They could also do away with primaries entirely. The only reason Trump could run as a Republican is because the Republican leadership decided he could.
Also, the rest of the democratic would usually doesn't have a two-party system. This makes who those parties select less important.
|
On July 28 2022 14:48 plasmidghost wrote:
Holy shit. I actually never saw this coming. I'm still waiting for the catch or the gotcha to come, but if even Manchin got on board with $370 billion invested in benefitting the climate, maybe there's a sliver of hope for us. If this gets passed, Dems might actually have a great shot at surviving the midterms or even getting more seats in the Senate and keeping the House majority. I'll just come out and say that I will eat my words and take back every negative thing I've said about Biden if this bill passes and helps out Americans that are struggling
The "gotcha" is that it's naive to read this as "invested in benefiting the climate:"
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 invests in the technologies needed for all fuel types – from hydrogen, nuclear, renewables, fossil fuels and energy storage – to be produced and used in the cleanest way possible. It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels. It invests heavily in technologies to help us reduce our domestic methane and carbon emissions and also helps decarbonize around the world as we displace dirtier products.
Our persistent and increasing dependence on foreign energy and supply chains from countries who hate America represents a clear and present danger and it must end. The increased risk of geopolitical uncertainty demands that we turn our focus to increasing U.S. energy production and bringing good paying energy and manufacturing jobs back to America.
Sounds like another way of saying that coal is going to last a long time supported by some pretty words to make it sound environmentally friendly, and later in the statement there's a not-at-all uncertain rejection of a "green transition" type of approach.
Thankfully, that's actually a smart idea. Better that than paying more money because some greenwasher thought that windmills and solar panels were an actual strategy for energy security, and then realizing that it doesn't work that way. Glad to have a guy like Manchin keeping the utility bills in focus.
|
|
|
United States43971 Posts
On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is.
Party membership isn’t democratic and I don’t know that it should be. The problem, which is a recurring theme in the US, is that simple plurality voting has effectively made the two parties an extraconstitutional privately run part of the democratic process.
In the UK I was, for a time in my late teens and early 20s, a member of the Conservatives. I paid my dues and those dues supported the local offices, admin for the local org (meeting spaces, stationary etc.), and the national org. It was about £10/year if I recall correctly. For my £10 I got the right to vote for who the national party leader should be, to vote in local primary challenges, to attend internal primaries, to hold the local candidate to account. To me that seemed a very reasonable system.
The same historically applied to the Labour Party, though by tradition a lot of union members were also Labour Party members by default as the union paid their dues. And in return the unions were given a seat at the table within the Labour Party. It amounts to built in lobbying and pay to play but again, I don’t know that I object. Political parties are private social clubs that attempt to influence the democratic process through collective action. An individual may not make a difference but a group of aligned individuals with some organization may.
If anything I think the problem would be resolved with greater participation, not less. I think the Tea Party had the right idea, motivated individuals demanding that the club listen to them in exchange for their votes. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for a bunch of socialists to go join the Democratic Party but I would absolutely want them to organize to improve their bargaining power through collective action. If they can put together a material number of voters whose votes are, in effect, controlled by the organization then that would give them serious leverage in a close swing state.
TLDR: Simple plurality sucks but parties are good when used right. Individual voters have no power compared to large donors or corporate propaganda networks. Collective voters have power.
|
United States43971 Posts
On July 28 2022 23:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 14:48 plasmidghost wrote:Holy shit. I actually never saw this coming. I'm still waiting for the catch or the gotcha to come, but if even Manchin got on board with $370 billion invested in benefitting the climate, maybe there's a sliver of hope for us. If this gets passed, Dems might actually have a great shot at surviving the midterms or even getting more seats in the Senate and keeping the House majority. I'll just come out and say that I will eat my words and take back every negative thing I've said about Biden if this bill passes and helps out Americans that are struggling https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1552402537025884161 The "gotcha" is that it's naive to read this as "invested in benefiting the climate:" Show nested quote +The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 invests in the technologies needed for all fuel types – from hydrogen, nuclear, renewables, fossil fuels and energy storage – to be produced and used in the cleanest way possible. It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels. It invests heavily in technologies to help us reduce our domestic methane and carbon emissions and also helps decarbonize around the world as we displace dirtier products.
Our persistent and increasing dependence on foreign energy and supply chains from countries who hate America represents a clear and present danger and it must end. The increased risk of geopolitical uncertainty demands that we turn our focus to increasing U.S. energy production and bringing good paying energy and manufacturing jobs back to America. Sounds like another way of saying that coal is going to last a long time supported by some pretty words to make it sound environmentally friendly, and later in the statement there's a not-at-all uncertain rejection of a "green transition" type of approach. Thankfully, that's actually a smart idea. Better that than paying more money because some greenwasher thought that windmills and solar panels were an actual strategy for energy security, and then realizing that it doesn't work that way. Glad to have a guy like Manchin keeping the utility bills in focus.
If ever I found myself agreeing with a single one of your takes I would treat that as a red flag that I should reconsider. Somehow you manage to always find the polar opposite of correct. It is, in its own way, quite impressive. Like getting 0 on a multiple choice test, you can only do it if you always know what the right answer is.
|
On July 29 2022 00:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2022 11:58 StasisField wrote:On July 28 2022 10:46 gobbledydook wrote:On July 27 2022 13:13 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2022 09:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2022 08:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2022 08:22 WombaT wrote:
It’s not particularly admirable but it’s a rare strategically intelligent move Is it tho? Helping the crazies on the other side win to make them look less palatable requires them being crazy to be a bad thing to voters. I don't think you can look at the last 6 years of American politics and conclude a significant part of the country isn't happy with crazy. Heck you could make good arguments that the opposite would be much more effective, push for traditional republicans and get the crazies to not come out and vote in the general election. Republicans can't win without the crazies, that is why they still keep appealing to them. It's a good strategy if the average voter can overlook the contradiction of saying these fringe candidates are a threat to our democracy and will lead us to fascism while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to help them win elections. Depends how many voters are even aware of it, was certainly news to me. Surprised more abuse of the opposition’s primary isn’t already standard practice tbh. Now we just need the MAGA crowd to start funding progressive candidates to own the libs and the circle is complete. I mean it doesn’t align with my politics or moral compass, but as a proven milquetoast centrist party that has no balls this is a pretty smart move to remain relatively palatable. I think you should at least have to pay members fees to become eligible in primary voting. The current system of self declaration is ridiculous. You want to fix the current system by making it even more anti-democratic than it already is. + Show Spoiler +Party membership isn’t democratic and I don’t know that it should be. The problem, which is a recurring theme in the US, is that simple plurality voting has effectively made the two parties an extraconstitutional privately run part of the democratic process.
In the UK I was, for a time in my late teens and early 20s, a member of the Conservatives. I paid my dues and those dues supported the local offices, admin for the local org (meeting spaces, stationary etc.), and the national org. It was about £10/year if I recall correctly. For my £10 I got the right to vote for who the national party leader should be, to vote in local primary challenges, to attend internal primaries, to hold the local candidate to account. To me that seemed a very reasonable system.
The same historically applied to the Labour Party, though by tradition a lot of union members were also Labour Party members by default as the union paid their dues. And in return the unions were given a seat at the table within the Labour Party. It amounts to built in lobbying and pay to play but again, I don’t know that I object. Political parties are private social clubs that attempt to influence the democratic process through collective action. An individual may not make a difference but a group of aligned individuals with some organization may. If anything I think the problem would be resolved with greater participation, not less. I think the Tea Party had the right idea, motivated individuals demanding that the club listen to them in exchange for their votes. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for a bunch of socialists to go join the Democratic Party but I would absolutely want them to organize to improve their bargaining power through collective action. If they can put together a material number of voters whose votes are, in effect, controlled by the organization then that would give them serious leverage in a close swing state. TLDR: Simple plurality sucks but parties are good when used right. Individual voters have no power compared to large donors or corporate propaganda networks. Collective voters have power.
One problem is that whenever that has been attempted (outside of groups like the Tea Party that were funded by billionaires) both parties (and the feds) align to crush them with no holds barred.
Not to mention the chorus of ostensible allies insisting that the rational choice is to unconditionally surrender such leverage long before it changes policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
