- #1,086
Art
Reminds me of the Enid Blyton character, Noddy, who wanted to build the roof of his house before the walls in case it rainedjimmysnyder said:Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.
Reminds me of the Enid Blyton character, Noddy, who wanted to build the roof of his house before the walls in case it rainedjimmysnyder said:Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.
Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.Art said:I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.
And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.jimmysnyder said:Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.
How about it turbo, will you vote for independents for congers?Art said:And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.
It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.
Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.Art said:I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.
Not only should a party build from the bottom up, but they should have a controlled growth. For several years, the Libertarian Party engaged in an undisciplined 'body count' approach. Anyone could be a Libertarian candidate as long as they ran for an office that didn't already have a Libertarian candidate running. They tended to attract a lot of flakes who's only qualification was having a lot of time on their hands.jimmysnyder said:I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up.
Why should a party build from the bottom up?BobG said:Not only should a party build from the bottom up.
Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from thisjimmysnyder said:Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.
I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies.[
Art said:Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.
A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution
In a parliamentary form, how do local politicians fare when the populace is fed up with the PM?turbo-1 said:We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.
How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?turbo-1 said:We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions. ...
Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.mheslep said:How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?
I was curious as whether you had considered the pros and cons of your proposal.turbo-1 said:Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.
turbo-1 said:We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.
It could be arranged that way. I would prefer to see a large number of parties, in which our candidates for representative, etc would contend in a general election, with the the two candidates with the most votes would have a run-off for a final selection to represent their district. When the elected officials convene they would have to form alliances with the officials of other parties and elect a prime minister. There could still be a bicameral legislative body, but the dilution of party power would mean that no one party could cram legislation down the throats of the others. I dislike the winner-take-all system. In the Republican Party this year, it mooted the campaigns of some candidates who might have emerged as quite superior to McCain, and given us a better choice in the general election.quadraphonics said:That would have more to do with a proportional representation form of election than with parliamentarism as such, no? I.e., it's the winner-take-all form of our elections that reinforces the two-party system, not the relationship between the executive and legislature (which is what distinguishes a parliamentary republic from a presidential republic). Proportional representation tends to coincide with parliamentarism in Continential Europe, but there are plenty of parliamentary republics with winner-take-all elections, and they tend to produce distributions of partisan power that are similar to the United States.
For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law" [Broken].
There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.jimmysnyder said:But how are you going to get the kind of change you want if you vote for Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from winning, or vice versa?
I like that!quadraphonics said:My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates.
We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.turbo-1 said:What's hard to understand? Give a list of candidates, and have people pick from favorite to least favorite. If they want to cast a vote for only one candidate, so be it.
But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?turbo-1 said:There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.
I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.jimmysnyder said:But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?
So what? It is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it. Are you suggesting that he not vote for what he wants, and vote for something he doesn't want? Turbo wants, needs, out of the 2-party system. For fear of giving pleasure to the Republican enemy he should vote for the Democratic enemy? That's rich.Art said:I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.
There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?Art said:get your best achievable result.
Art said:We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.
If the 'need' is to get Nadar elected then yes that need is unachievable.jimmysnyder said:There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?
When one looks at Italy with it's proportional representation resulting in about a zillion gov'ts since WW2 each one lasting for what seems like 5 minutes then yes there is a major problem with a myriad of small parties.quadraphonics said:Yeah, it's not going to eliminate party politics; the idea is simply to break the hold that the two party system enjoys in winner-take-all elections. Even if all you end up with is a small (but significant) third party, you've still eliminated most of the downsides of two-party politics. For that matter, I'm not sure it's such a great goal to have too many parties anyway. It seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction, although much would depend on how the executive and legislature were related. Many people consider the decisiveness of winner-take-all systems to be an advantage (although it should be mentioned that many people cite the same property as an advantage of authoritarian rule over republican principles).
Art said:My main problem with party politics is the loyalty of the politicians is focused on their party rather than the country or their constituents but it's hard to think of a workable alternative.
US Presidential Primaries are a series of state-level elections held by political parties to determine their respective nominees for the upcoming presidential election. These primaries are used to select delegates who will then attend the party's national convention and vote for their preferred candidate.
The 2008 US Presidential Primaries were held between January and June of 2008. The first primary was held in Iowa on January 3rd, and the last primary was held in Montana on June 3rd.
The main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential Primaries were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party, and John McCain for the Republican Party. Other notable candidates included Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.
Delegates are allocated to candidates based on the results of each state's primary election. The number of delegates each state has is determined by its population and its historical support for the party. Some states also have a winner-takes-all system, while others allocate delegates proportionally.
US Presidential Primaries are important because they allow for the selection of the major party nominees for the upcoming presidential election. They also provide an opportunity for candidates to gain media attention, fundraise, and build momentum for their campaigns. Additionally, these primaries allow for the voices of individual voters to be heard in the selection of the next US President.