I read a post from Hayabusa Rider on political choice that got me wondering:

[Siddhartha]

What I was wondering, and would have been off topic to question in the thread in which it appeared, was whether you agree and if so do you think there is a remedy?

I recommend that, instead of complaining, he gets involve with the political process, by working for the candidates of his choice and actually run for office.

 

[Fern]

You are very lucky Fern. Most of us don't have that option. Anyone who wants to win needs to be a D or R. That means that they need to have general agreement with the philosophy of those parties.

Hmm?

Around here the local party stays out of the primary. They don't endorse or fund any candidate during the primary. The just hold forums where the various primary candidates can speak about issues etc.

Haha. In the last election the guy who won the Repub nomination HATED the the Repub party, both local and national. He basically said that they were traitors (not conservative enough, spending too much etc). He was really quite bombastic.

The party leaders here didn't like him either, and it was no secret.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fern is correct, a New England urban Republican or Democrat is vastly different from a rural Southern candidate of the same party. Each area and state tends to have two major party choices similar to what it prefers to elect, so in that sense we already have some of the effect of a parliamentary system but with fixed alliances. Third party candidates tend to cater to those to whom neither party has appeal, which makes it quite difficult to get traction since both parties are concerned with appealing to 50.1% of the relevant voters. The big problem is that voters tend to pay attention to what politicians SAY they want to do rather than to what they HAVE done outside of election season.

So what if one wants something other a New England or Blue Dog Dem? I lived in MA, and the number of offices which had a "D" alone would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Certainly there was considerable support for Dems, but there was a sense of resignation in that this is how it was, is and forever shall be. Now I'm sure this situation must exist with the parties reversed somewhere, but that's not the point. It's not who has the political monopoly but that one is allowed to exist to begin with.

As a people we have done a horrific job of understanding our own political system. There ought to be impressed on grade school students how things were originally meant to be for our nation, and a careful examination of where we succeed and fail and why. That needs to be a priority.

We tend to hold the opposition accountable, but circle up the wagons when it's our party.

No one ought to have a party. We ought to have values instead. That's not enough. We need to self examine and ask as honestly as we may why we think as we do, and if we are accepting something because it sounds good, and examine if it fulfills the expectation in fact. Drop the knee jerk "you are a X shill" and figure out if you know what you are talking about to begin with.

The Dems do it now with health care, and the Reps did it with Iraq, and there was never a choice between them.

Until we drop our own partisan attitudes and hold everyone equally accountable (and that includes ourselves in that we need to understand precisely what's at issue), we will forever be slaves. Slaves to partisan politics and our own ignorance, which controls us just as much as any chain.

 

[werepossum]

So what if one wants something other a New England or Blue Dog Dem? I lived in MA, and the number of offices which had a "D" alone would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Certainly there was considerable support for Dems, but there was a sense of resignation in that this is how it was, is and forever shall be. Now I'm sure this situation must exist with the parties reversed somewhere, but that's not the point. It's not who has the political monopoly but that one is allowed to exist to begin with.

As a people we have done a horrific job of understanding our own political system. There ought to be impressed on grade school students how things were originally meant to be for our nation, and a careful examination of where we succeed and fail and why. That needs to be a priority.

We tend to hold the opposition accountable, but circle up the wagons when it's our party.

No one ought to have a party. We ought to have values instead. That's not enough. We need to self examine and ask as honestly as we may why we think as we do, and if we are accepting something because it sounds good, and examine if it fulfills the expectation in fact. Drop the knee jerk "you are a X shill" and figure out if you know what you are talking about to begin with.

The Dems do it now with health care, and the Reps did it with Iraq, and there was never a choice between them.

Until we drop our own partisan attitudes and hold everyone equally accountable (and that includes ourselves in that we need to understand precisely what's at issue), we will forever be slaves. Slaves to partisan politics and our own ignorance, which controls us just as much as any chain.

I'm all for holding everyone accountable, but the very fact that only a Democrat candidate is running tells you that only a Democrat candidate can win. That's a fault of the electorate, not the system, as well as of the party electing not to compete. And I'm all for evaluating candidates on the basis of their values, but it's hard enough as it is trying to figure out if what the politicians say they are for or promise to do resembles what they do outside of elections, even within the framework of the parties. Without that framework I suspect we'd have no more than a beauty/magnetism/TelePrompter reading contest. That isn't to say that multiple parties couldn't work, just that a lack of parties would be difficult to make work. Washington's preference notwithstanding.

 

[Fern]

So what if one wants something other a New England or Blue Dog Dem? I lived in MA, and the number of offices which had a "D" alone would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Certainly there was considerable support for Dems, but there was a sense of resignation in that this is how it was, is and forever shall be. Now I'm sure this situation must exist with the parties reversed somewhere, but that's not the point. It's not who has the political monopoly but that one is allowed to exist to begin with.
-snip-

(Raises hand)

Around here everybody has an "R" after their name.

It's not a big deal though, the Dems who move here and wanna run for office just go switch over to an "R". Everybody knows it. But that's how we end up with a fairly broad range in candidates. The "D's" run as "R's" and so do the "R's". That pretty much makes a mockery of having a political monopoly.

You might look at your state rules. I noticed in that recent NY congressional race that the Repub party bosses had to power to pick the candidate. That's totally opposite to how it works down here. Under state law the parties don't have much power. Around here no one pays them much attention.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm all for holding everyone accountable, but the very fact that only a Democrat candidate is running tells you that only a Democrat candidate can win. That's a fault of the electorate, not the system, as well as of the party electing not to compete. And I'm all for evaluating candidates on the basis of their values, but it's hard enough as it is trying to figure out if what the politicians say they are for or promise to do resembles what they do outside of elections, even within the framework of the parties. Without that framework I suspect we'd have no more than a beauty/magnetism/TelePrompter reading contest. That isn't to say that multiple parties couldn't work, just that a lack of parties would be difficult to make work. Washington's preference notwithstanding.

Only a Democrat can win because the Democrats have complete control. It's been an ongoing situation for generations, to the point that people believe that the Democrats ought to win because they do not understand that a viable alternative ought to exist to begin with. That's the point. If we had a situation where other candidates had a chance to be heard without being utterly crushed from the outset, then there would be a choice.

It's hard to have a choice when choice is forbidden in practice. That being the case no one even tries. That's not how it is supposed to be.

 

[werepossum]

Only a Democrat can win because the Democrats have complete control. It's been an ongoing situation for generations, to the point that people believe that the Democrats ought to win because they do not understand that a viable alternative ought to exist to begin with. That's the point. If we had a situation where other candidates had a chance to be heard without being utterly crushed from the outset, then there would be a choice.

It's hard to have a choice when choice is forbidden in practice. That being the case no one even tries. That's not how it is supposed to be.

Agreed, that's not how it should be. That's why I absolutely oppose public funding of elections, which would hand the whole primary system to the parties.