- 40,772
- 172,912
That may be true, but two parties amplifies differences and doesn't allow different groups to work together toward common goals.
- 3
Politics, civility, and you!
- Thread starter a_skeleton_03
- Start date
That may be true, but two parties amplifies differences and doesn't allow different groups to work together toward common goals.
Srathor
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 1,846
- 2,965
I have thought for a long time our biggest issue is the fact that we rarely elect a non-politician. We have a class of people now who never work in the private sector, who only know how to shmooze and fundraise, and who all owe each other countless "favors" that they trade and barter with for the rest of their lives.
We need to make people in these positions accountable again. Term limits, strict accounting for anyone around them to prevent "favors" and torch any and all lobbyist actions or tendencies.
"Cleaning up corruption" and wiping out "waste and fraud" has sent more people to the halls of power than anything else on this planet, are they all incompetent or were they just sucked into the seedy underbelly of power.
We need to get rid of the lawyer/politician overclass altogether then start chipping away at the permanant swinging door of big money lobbyists.
And people need to be prosecuted on the laws we have already. All of the laws. Don't like the law get rid of it, we have entirely too many laws and regulations to hamstring anyone who pisses off the "lawyers"
We need to make people in these positions accountable again. Term limits, strict accounting for anyone around them to prevent "favors" and torch any and all lobbyist actions or tendencies.
"Cleaning up corruption" and wiping out "waste and fraud" has sent more people to the halls of power than anything else on this planet, are they all incompetent or were they just sucked into the seedy underbelly of power.
We need to get rid of the lawyer/politician overclass altogether then start chipping away at the permanant swinging door of big money lobbyists.
And people need to be prosecuted on the laws we have already. All of the laws. Don't like the law get rid of it, we have entirely too many laws and regulations to hamstring anyone who pisses off the "lawyers"
- 8
So two parties doesn't give you common ground but 14 would?
- 2
- 40,772
- 172,912
It would force you to work with at least some of the other parties to accomplish any task.
- 2
Screamfeeder
The Dirtbag
- 13,309
- 11,209
Kinda. Depends on the actual constituent strength of those parties. If you had two strong parties and one fluid third party with enough numbers to make the other two court them, it would ideally work.
- 2
Which basically then boils down to them all combining to be two parties. Like I said, I have never heard an intelligent argument for more than two parties.
- 2
- 40,772
- 172,912
No, it absolutely doesn't. It means more perspectives are forced to compromise and work together. That doesn't turn it in to a two party system, it forces people to compromise.
- 2
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,355
- 33,417
No, it turns it into an unstable two party system where the two parties are made up of ever-changing coalitions at any time.
There's no magical compromise that occurs when you have a bunch of different special interests because at the end of the day all they can do is vote yes or no on a particular bill/issue.
- 3
Screamfeeder
The Dirtbag
- 13,309
- 11,209
This. You are either for an issue with all it entails, or you are against an issue for parts of what it entails. A semi strong third party is again a viable solution, but it must be fluid enough to cater to BOTH sides of the spectrum.
- 2
Scoresby
Trakanon Raider
- 783
- 1,436
With the latest trend in government (both sides stonewalling the other), the 3rd party then becomes the most powerful as they are the only ones getting anything done! It's not an easy nut to crack, but I do think it would be nice to have more people thinking for themselves rather than joining a "side". I haven't found a politician I agree with 100%, but I do appreciate someone who will stand up for what they believe is right and not just join a crowd.
Here are some things I feel would be interesting in government:
1) Better application of technology to engage people in the legislative process. I am not advocating for an outright democracy, but there is the potential now for us to be much more engaged in policy making than we currently are.
2) At the federal level, have representatives be regional rather than state; vote them into office in groups of 10 (regions would have to be sized accordingly...10 is somewhat arbitrary but it does need to be a relatively small number) where the 10 elected are by average rank after votes are tallied. This way you could end up with some very interesting individuals who maybe weren't your 1st or 2nd choice, but bring some valuable thoughts to the table and if enough others felt the same way...they get a seat. Today the odds of that are diluted and favor biparisan politics.
3) Eliminate electoral college; I think you'd see a much more accurate reflection of who the country wants as President if contrarians in deeply red or blue states had a snowballs chance in hell for their vote counting.
4) Some degree of vetting on who can vote. I know this is a big change (hello 15th amendment), but there is some merit to the idea that voting carries responsibility and I do not get the impression the average voter is deeply informed in what they vote for nor has the capacity to think of what is better for the country vs their own personal interests.
Edit...I also like the idea to have laws have an expiration date where they have to be reviewed and voted on again. Times change and the laws should be scrubbed to keep up with it. I'm pretty anti-law at heart (we just have way too many of them) and feel this might force us to have less bullshit laws in place and actually (maybe) think up a more efficient solution the first time. Akin to writing code that is a dozen lines long vs the same functionality in two.
Here are some things I feel would be interesting in government:
1) Better application of technology to engage people in the legislative process. I am not advocating for an outright democracy, but there is the potential now for us to be much more engaged in policy making than we currently are.
2) At the federal level, have representatives be regional rather than state; vote them into office in groups of 10 (regions would have to be sized accordingly...10 is somewhat arbitrary but it does need to be a relatively small number) where the 10 elected are by average rank after votes are tallied. This way you could end up with some very interesting individuals who maybe weren't your 1st or 2nd choice, but bring some valuable thoughts to the table and if enough others felt the same way...they get a seat. Today the odds of that are diluted and favor biparisan politics.
3) Eliminate electoral college; I think you'd see a much more accurate reflection of who the country wants as President if contrarians in deeply red or blue states had a snowballs chance in hell for their vote counting.
4) Some degree of vetting on who can vote. I know this is a big change (hello 15th amendment), but there is some merit to the idea that voting carries responsibility and I do not get the impression the average voter is deeply informed in what they vote for nor has the capacity to think of what is better for the country vs their own personal interests.
Edit...I also like the idea to have laws have an expiration date where they have to be reviewed and voted on again. Times change and the laws should be scrubbed to keep up with it. I'm pretty anti-law at heart (we just have way too many of them) and feel this might force us to have less bullshit laws in place and actually (maybe) think up a more efficient solution the first time. Akin to writing code that is a dozen lines long vs the same functionality in two.
Last edited:
- 1
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 40,923
- 102,711
3 - Absolutely not. You do realize that HRC's entire 2.5M+ voting margin came from California alone right? Do you want the United States of California?
4 - Absolutely agree, but won't happen if number 3 happens. Because it is extremely beneficial to have a shaky ass voting system. California's is EXTREMELY ripe for exploitation.
- 2
Scoresby
Trakanon Raider
- 783
- 1,436
I want a country that elects people who fairly represent the population. I do not agree that the popular vote in the current election system is the same as the popular vote without it.
Voter registration vs participation...trend is down (we are around 60% participation)
How many Americans actually, you know, vote?
Electoral vote per population
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297
The issue you make is a deeper one (can't have more of those people voting) and I personally feel the biggest risk is immigration politics and the lack of integration into American society. If you have a political party that accommodates and advocates for immigration, then immigrants (and their families) have an incentive to support this group. It isn't a racial issue (it could be European or Chinese immigrants for that matter), but one of cultural acceptance. Are these people actually American or are they colonist? Odds are they will be more than happy to jump on the chance to vote as that's what makes America a great country right? Too bad the rest of the country is tending to ignore that right.
Too address California directly...how many (non) hardcore Republicans voted? Do you concede that their vote was probably suppressed by the fact (essentially) that California would swing blue?
Also weird that there is a majority House and Senate with all these damned Democrats out there?
Voter registration vs participation...trend is down (we are around 60% participation)
How many Americans actually, you know, vote?
Electoral vote per population
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297
The issue you make is a deeper one (can't have more of those people voting) and I personally feel the biggest risk is immigration politics and the lack of integration into American society. If you have a political party that accommodates and advocates for immigration, then immigrants (and their families) have an incentive to support this group. It isn't a racial issue (it could be European or Chinese immigrants for that matter), but one of cultural acceptance. Are these people actually American or are they colonist? Odds are they will be more than happy to jump on the chance to vote as that's what makes America a great country right? Too bad the rest of the country is tending to ignore that right.
Too address California directly...how many (non) hardcore Republicans voted? Do you concede that their vote was probably suppressed by the fact (essentially) that California would swing blue?
Also weird that there is a majority House and Senate with all these damned Democrats out there?
- 1
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 40,923
- 102,711
The entire point of the electoral college is that no, you cannot ignore Wyoming despite it having like 100k people in it only. It is a state of our union. The voting ID is fine but what California does is auto-register anyone that has a driver's license to vote (this is good). However they also allow illegals have driver's licenses and unless an illegal alien states on the driver's license form that they're not a resident. California presumes that they are and thus registers them to vote.
Doesn't take an idiot to see how that's abused. I don't care who people vote for, only that they are actual citizens voting.
- 2
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
The primary problem with the electoral college system is that it turns 40v60 votes into 100% electoral votes, such as California. It works when you have minimal-normal sized populations that skew generally towards one side, where 2-3 electoral votes aren't that big of a deal in general. But when 20+ votes are effectively switched because the entire state is counted as one entity, that's a problem.
I read the politics thread a lot, and post occasionally when I see something silly in the current trends. The dogpiling has been consistent since its inception; it's part of the entire atmosphere. There's a fair amount of mob mentality combined with more than a couple of trolls, but it is generally a lot of well read or mostly well read folks debating minutia because that's what min-maxing former mmo players do. The current minority group has the unpleasant habit (much like the hardcore reps did during the obama days) of flying in for meme or un-researched stance, getting absolutely shit on, and then leaving. Instead of actually debating a point or posting facts, they ride the "TRUMPS A RACIST LOL" retard bandwagon. Just like our truly red posters did during the obama days.
Same shit, different president. The vast majority of this forum probably rides the middle with a leftist leaning. Not a modern leftist stance, however, but a "use federal money to help Americans" and "don't let big business control basic healthcare and rights" type stance. The modern leftist, especially the fly by night shit posters who drop one liners and then wing back to Planet Faggot, argue more for the social issues that pertain to extreme outliers and that stance just isn't something the average Rere poster cares about. Except trannies; Rere is a tranny cornucopia.
I read the politics thread a lot, and post occasionally when I see something silly in the current trends. The dogpiling has been consistent since its inception; it's part of the entire atmosphere. There's a fair amount of mob mentality combined with more than a couple of trolls, but it is generally a lot of well read or mostly well read folks debating minutia because that's what min-maxing former mmo players do. The current minority group has the unpleasant habit (much like the hardcore reps did during the obama days) of flying in for meme or un-researched stance, getting absolutely shit on, and then leaving. Instead of actually debating a point or posting facts, they ride the "TRUMPS A RACIST LOL" retard bandwagon. Just like our truly red posters did during the obama days.
Same shit, different president. The vast majority of this forum probably rides the middle with a leftist leaning. Not a modern leftist stance, however, but a "use federal money to help Americans" and "don't let big business control basic healthcare and rights" type stance. The modern leftist, especially the fly by night shit posters who drop one liners and then wing back to Planet Faggot, argue more for the social issues that pertain to extreme outliers and that stance just isn't something the average Rere poster cares about. Except trannies; Rere is a tranny cornucopia.
- 4
- 25,389
- 37,457
This is huge and it was never intended to be this way with how our system was set up. It was always supposed to be people stepping into gov from the pivate sector, doing their just time in the public sector, then stepping back out to public sector and continuing their regular business/whatever careers. They way our system is now, its literally created a new class of worker which his nothing but politicians. Mostly fucking lawyers too, which know nothing about finance, business, foreign matters, industry, health....etc... none of that shit. They step into public service and remain there for life, by either serving an elected role, or some cabinet position or lobbyists or whatever. also congress and house definitely need term limits. There needs to be some fresh blood in there from time to time, instead of some lifers spending their entire adult life there.
- 2
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,430
- 2,213
You think this because you've been told it all your life, but there's no rational basis for it. There are not two kinds of people that are bound to have certain opinions by their very nature. Right wingers and left wingers agree with each other for practical reasons, not rational ones. The idea that if you are in favor or abortion, you also must believe in gay marriage and gun control is nonsense. These things have nothing to do with each other. In reality, most people are not informed enough to make a decision on things like foreign policy or taxes. They have the views that they do because they picked a side and followed their side on every issue.
When people are faced with a decision that they don't have the knowledge to make, they look to their "tribe" to make it. The reason that people are willing to ignore facts and scientific data that oppose their views is because their views were not formed based on facts and data, they were formed based on their tribe, and thus telling them they are wrong is not an attack on their ideas, it's an attack on their friends.
The idea that a regular person who is not involved in politics should consider themselves a member of a party is ridiculous to me. A political party is a group that nominates people for office, it's not an identity to people like you and me. Having more parties would allow both politicians and voters to take nuanced views on issues, as opposed to the current situation where you have to check all the boxes based on how you checked the first one.
- 1
- 1
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,850
- 137,944
That's the party system, originally the votes were broken up inside the state, but as parties control states they made it in what they perceived their favor.
- 1
Look at the microcosm that is our forum and the voting for moderator. Highly fragmented because there are too many options available.
Nobody is saying because you are right wing you must believe in everything they do. I am very pro taxes but conservative. I have no current issues with gay marriage, still conservative. The party hits more on my list than it misses. If you split it up into 12 parties in the conservative half then sure I will find the exact one for me. Which will pretty much just trickle up to whomever is the biggest candidate that is on my half of the spectrum.
Think of it like candy. This is an analogy I love. Your favorite candy is Skittles, your favorite Skittles are red and yellow. The rest you aren't fond of but they are still Skittles and you eat the whole bag. If it comes down to a survey between M&M's and Skittles you are going to vote for Skittles as a whole and not 'red Skittles" only. You might even see how M&M's are a good candy but just not your preference. They still get the job done but chocolate is a melty mess you don't want to deal with all the time.
Politics is like picking candy.
- 2
- 1
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,430
- 2,213
Again, there is no rational reason outside of tradition that these "halves" of the spectrum exist.