US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by GDB

Which gains you... what? Are you in an open primary state? Because otherwise you basically chose to not participate in primaries for no actual gain.

I'm against both parties. I've been supporting third party candidates for a long time now in the hopes that some of them get their acts together and build support locally so that someday in my lifetime, they can take on the big two.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'm against both parties. I've been supporting third party candidates for a long time now in the hopes that some of them get their acts together and build support locally so that someday in my lifetime, they can take on the big two.

And proceed to become one of the big two?

[Reckoner]

To get rid of the 2 party system you need to get rid of the electoral college. If only presidents were decided by popular vote :-/.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

To get rid of the 2 party system you need to get rid of the electoral college. If only presidents were decided by popular vote :-/.

Fortunately the electoral college isnt going anywhere. It's what guarantees the smaller states still have a say.

America is not a Democracy afterall.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

To get rid of the 2 party system you need to get rid of the electoral college. If only presidents were decided by popular vote :-/.

not the electoral college but congressional district. When congressional seats are divided by the proportion of votes party receive then it will be the end of the 2 party system.

[Ithekro]

The Electoral College follows (usually) what the majority of their population base vote for in a Presidental election. Third party candidates have been voted for by electors in the past, but that was before my lifetime (late 1960s and early 1970s), with the last ones being the Southern Segregationists supporting a third party against Johnson or Nixon. When the South voted third party against the Civil Rights Movement.

California has made attempts to remove our gerrymandered districts with third party oversight committees and the like for local politics. But after so many generations of people being Republican or Democrat, or since 2001 Red or Blue....things are getting tough to break, as it is starting to sound like sport team loyalists rather than polices that matter. I've seen both sides on Facebook and it is getting nasty both ways and both side declare the other to be idiots, uneducated, or should be sterilized for the good of the future. It is getting bad.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The Electoral College follows (usually) what the majority of their population base vote for in a Presidental election. Third party candidates have been voted for by electors in the past, but that was before my lifetime (late 1960s and early 1970s), with the last ones being the Southern Segregationists supporting a third party against Johnson or Nixon. When the South voted third party against the Civil Rights Movement.

California has made attempts to remove our gerrymandered districts with third party oversight committees and the like for local politics. But after so many generations of people being Republican or Democrat, or since 2001 Red or Blue....things are getting tough to break, as it is starting to sound like sport team loyalists rather than polices that matter. I've seen both sides on Facebook and it is getting nasty both ways and both side declare the other to be idiots, uneducated, or should be sterilized for the good of the future. It is getting bad.

My family isnt exactly speaking to each other very well either. They are divided into two camps essentially. I doubt mine's the only one that has had this happen.

[Reckoner]

It's definitely not good. I don't tend to air out my political views to most people so I don't get caught in it but its incredible how my social circles think of other people on the other side whether or not they're liberal/conservative. Most of it isn't even based on substance, just cultural differences.

[risingstar3110]

I know there is a divisive in opinions. But I actually only experienced how serious this problem is in US when Irenicus lost his shit over me suggesting immigrant detention camp could be an option. Weird thing because generally we had quite a lots of common opinions over a range of issues

But I actually know where he came from honestly. A case of culture shock really. For example, it will also freak the crap out of me if a relative tells me that he has a handgun in his locker for self-defense (what kind of maniac do that!!!), despite clearly it won't be even a story in US.

That's when I realise that the divisiveness in US was not a liberal vs conservative thing, more like a specific US political culture thingy.

Another example: A guy living in US once told me that "you are not a true progressive if you are not progressive in every issues". Which really baffled me. Like, can't I completely support LGBT rights, completely anti-war, completely for climate change, while in the same time think feminists should be listed as radical terrorists organisations and banned in public?
(...just saying)

And it was on mainstream media as well. I think Bill Maher recently called the GOP candidate hypocrites as some of them only support gay right because they have gay children, or only support Mexican immigration because they marry to one. Wasn't that completely normal? Like you only have a true diversified society if you have various opinions due to your family background and upbringing? Otherwise if everyone have to pick between progressive or conservative and follow the exact same line of thoughts every time. Then where could new ideas come from?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

And it was on mainstream media as well. I think Bill Maher recently called the GOP candidate hypocrites as some of them only support gay right because they have gay children, or only support Mexican immigration because they marry to one. Wasn't that completely normal? Like you only have a true diversified society if you have various opinions due to your family background and upbringing? Otherwise if everyone have to pick between progressive or conservative and follow the exact same line of thoughts every time. Then where could new ideas come from?

This is almost certainly due to the Two Party system. Basically the Two Parties means you could only win elections if you rope as many people into your camp as you can, and as such the voting population ended up getting changed over time to suit the political system. Since you can only have two parties, you can only have two views. Deviation is not allowed.

In Australia we have preferential voting, instead of First Past the Post. This means no one ever had to be exactly the same politically as each other. This allows a more diverse selection of views for each person because you don't have to agree with everything that a party stand for, to prefer them over another.

Political parties are suppose to reflect the views of the people, but give it enough time and the parties would shape the people instead.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not the electoral college but congressional district. When congressional seats are divided by the proportion of votes party receive then it will be the end of the 2 party system.

^This. See Duverger's "law". Despite the pressures toward two-party competition in electoral systems where plurality voting is used, countries like Britain and Australia show that smaller parties can still survive. The party system in the United States is ideally suited to fulfilling the requirements of this "law," with little representation based on religion, nationality, or language. We don't have equivalents to the Scottish National Party.

Our politics does follow what I'll call the "Lemieux-Powell rule" based on conversations I once had with my colleague G. Bingham Powell who also studied comparative politics: "It's always different in the south."

[Xellos-_^]

however too many parties isn't a good idea either.

when the electoral is too fragment small parties like Shas can blackmail major party for benefits for support.

as for the SNP, maybe i read too much economist, but i don't think US needs a SNP type party. We already have enough political parties more interested in scoring political points then govern.

[Ithekro]

We have a lot of third parties, but only two have enough reach to even have a chance to get the vote of a elector. This is because they do not show up on the ballots in all 50 states.

There are presently 538 electors. 270 are needed to win the Presidency.

The Green Party has access to 296 electoral votes. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin)

The Libertarian Party has access to 325 electoral votes. (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming)

Of the remaining third parties we have this:

The Constitution Party has access to 133 electoral votes. (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming)

America's Party has access to 84 electoral votes. (This is California and Florida)

The Peace and Freedom Party has access to 84 electoral votes. (This is California and Florida)


The Party for Socialism and Liberation has access to 29 electoral votes (this is only Florida)

The Prohibition Party has access to 21 electoral votes (Arkansas, Mississippi, and Colorado)

The Independent American Party has access to 18 electoral votes (New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon)

The Nutrition Party has access to 9 electoral votes (Colorado)

The Veteran's Party of America has access to 6 electoral votes (Mississippi)

The American Freedom Party has access to 6 electoral votes (Mississippi)

The Socialist Party USA and Workers World Party are listed but have no access to electoral votes.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Naming third parties means nothing if you have first past the post. What matters is the ability to vote third party as your first choice without "wasting" it, by having a preferential system. Strategic voting is bad, because then people just don't vote for who they really want to support. Preferential voting is just more accurate in judging the views of a nation.

[Ithekro]

If one goes to the voting booth in Mississippi, you will have eight parties on the ballot.


If you got you got to the voting booth in California you will have six parties on the ballot.

Go to New York and you will have three parties.

But go to Virginia and you will have two parties, and only two parties.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Naming third parties means nothing if you have first past the post. What matters is the ability to vote third party as your first choice without "wasting" it, by having a preferential system. Strategic voting is bad, because then people just don't vote for who they really want to support. Preferential voting is just more accurate in judging the views of a nation.

That's also why "new" parties in Europe have trouble getting into parliaments, because a lot of countries have a "5% threshold". When people vote for a non-established party, their votes, as you mentioned, can be easily "wasted" in the end, which often leads to voters to go for the "least bad" established party instead.

This flaw in the system keeps established parties strong and non-established parties weak. It's quite an unfair aspect of most 1st world representative election systems. I'd personally go as far as to say that "representation" alltogether can hardly be called "democracy" in the first place, because the people can only excercise their "sovereign power" once in 4 or so years and very rarely in referenda. And then there is also that "flaw" described above pushing it down even further.

[solomon]

Their systems still seem more fair than ours where the two party mafia effectively legislates the non DEM and GOP parties out of the playing field. Particularly through crazy hard to overcome ballot access laws amongst other things.

THis was documented in the book Grand Illusion; The fantasy of voter choice in a two party system.

Many parties for many stripes, thats what facinates me about other countries even if the field still is somewhat centered around two to three main parties.

Listen to this interview about the evolving voter constituencies in US state of VA. Note relevant stuff starts 20 minutes in.

http://www.hearsay.org/post/A-Common...Contrasts.aspx

especially interesting are some of the callers in, I love the super gun rights progressive dude for one. An example of how much more varied the political spectrum is and how parties are not doing a good job speaking to a lot of the new independent voters.

as pointed out in this article

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...-turned-voters

couple of other great articles on that page as well, talking about why participation is so low in America. Apparently we make it much harder than it need be, along with general political jadedness.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by solomon

Apparently we make it much harder than it need be, along with general political jadedness.

What surprised me is the regular comments I keep hearing from Americans, who insist that it is a good thing most people don't vote. Along the lines of saying most people are too stupid anyway and that it is a good thing they are left out of the political process by their own foolishness.

Guess that logic makes sense if you understand that the one speaking is a voter, and it is in his best interest that less people vote, because the more people vote the less his own personal vote matter.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

What surprised me is the regular comments I keep hearing from Americans, who insist that it is a good thing most people don't vote. Along the lines of saying most people are too stupid anyway and that it is a good thing they are left out of the political process by their own foolishness.

Guess that logic makes sense if you understand that the one speaking is a voter, and it is in his best interest that less people vote, because the more people vote the less his own personal vote matter.

It's because Representation makes people "lazy" on political matters, because all you have to do is pick the person or party who is the most sympathetic to you and/or has the most handsome/pretty face and/or has perhaps one certain policy that you really like.

If it was a "Direct Democracy", then people would pay much, much more attention to political matters and the issues themselves, instead of just candidates and parties like we have now.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

It's because Representation makes people "lazy" on political matters, because all you have to do is pick the person or party who is the most sympathetic to you and/or has the most handsome/pretty face and/or has perhaps one certain policy that you really like.

If it was a "Direct Democracy", then people would pay much, much more attention to political matters and the issues themselves, instead of just candidates and parties like we have now.

To vote without thinking is lazy, yes. But to not vote at all is beyond that. To not vote at all is not laziness, but the belief that politics doesn't matter to them in the slightest. Which is entirely factually wrong.