385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
385 points (91.8% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1380 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Are the Democrats EVER prepared though?
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers, 1879-1935
"Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they’d be Republicans." - Will Rogers, 1879-1935
TIL you guys have been stuck with the same two political parties since the 1850s. No wonder they've gone a bit corrupt.
To be fair, the parties themselves have changed significantly since then.
To be fair, no two-party system is a healthy democracy, and the way our elections are designed it’ll stay that way.
Our election system is generally bad. Elections aren't controlled by the federal government, even for federal elections, they are run by counties (or whatever the locality calls a county - in Louisiana they are parishes) and each county runs their elections differently unless the state steps in and regulates it. Some states have mail in voting, some make you stand in line on election day. Some counties have FPTP voting, others might have STAR or RCV.
The only way I see things changing at all are two fold: publicly funded elections with no private money at all AND abandoning FPTP voting for a broader method with an added benefit of potentially eliminating primaries. I know parties would complain, but things would be much more democratic.
This is entirely correct. The only way to heal the nation is to take steps forward, not relying on an archaic system that ‘works’ and building out something that actually works.
We won't get rid of FPTP or gerrymandering so long as we elect our representatives from geographically defines districts. We should empanel state congressional delegations in statewide elections, rather than by districts.
In a state with 20 congressional seats, any party that wins at least 5% of the vote should have a seat. A party that wins 10% of the vote should have 2 seats.
Which means, get worse
Yep, as it has been since the 1850s
Yeahhh, you may find some people disagree with you on that one. I hear some stuff happened in 1861-1865 or something, for example.
America's founders biggest fear were political factions forming. But when they were concerned the voters were all landowning men, how could people with shared economic interests ever form factions?
That's what happens with a first past the post voting system. A ranked choice would open things up quite a bit, but that would require the people elected by the first past the post voting system to change it or mass revolution.
Someone call the French and let them know we actually do need them again.
Americans are perfectly capable of manufacturing guillotines domestically.
Yeah, but the French guillotines have that certain je ne said quoi.
It must be a proportional system. No other system produces viable 3rd parties.
American's lack of knowledge about Canada never ceases to amaze me.
Canada has effectively the same system as the UK, both being based on fptp, are you suggesting that fptp is fine in a preliminary system?
I've campaigned for an NDP candidate who was against fptp as many of us are, even our current PM ran on replacing fptp which never happened of course... however we have more than 2 "viable" parties despite not having proportional representation. You can apply definitions to "viable" at your will but they have won provinces quite recently and have many seats in federal and provincial government.
I looked over and the trend is away from two parties as well.
God damn it. It's been true that long?
It's almost like individual people have different opinions and want different things.
...yeah...but also, we all need to want Republicans to lose spectacularly.
It increasingly feels like that's the single unifying trait holding the democratic party together. That's the sole reason you see people telling everyone to get out and vote.
It's not "We need to get young people to vote because they care about progressive policies, and we can elect a candidate who will align with their views", it's "We need to get young people to vote because we can't let Trump win another term."
Because it is the only trait. The Democrats know it. As long as they act slightly more progressive they can enjoy massive corporate and AIPAC bribes just like the Republicans do.
Nothing will change if people vote Democrat this time. In 2028 some other Republican (or Trump again) will run and the Dems will go "Vote for us or we're going to get Genocided for real this time unlike the other 150 last years whenever a Republican won"
The Democrats are actually way more internally organized now. About 30 years ago during the 90s both parties reached almost unanimous internal ideological consensus' and essentially all vote as a single blocks. The state we're in now with this polarization is part of this, and an example of the increased factionalization of US politics.
It's crazy to think how there were staunch segregationist Democrats in to the 70s even as the party as a whole had been (successfully) catering to younger urban demographics that came alongside industrialization. We can't really imagine something like that occurring now. Even Biden was opposed to bussing and a lot of his "across the aisle" examples even today involve working with segregationist Democrats, not "across the aisle" as we interpret it now.
I actually like that about the Democrat Party. Shows how ideologically diverse it is because tolerance is a bedrock of the party ever since the two parties switched from being conservative and liberal. The GOP flipped within four years from being neocons to isolationists, and anyone who disagrees with the current identity is a RINO
"Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right when it affects them personally.' - Phil Ochs, 1966
Democrats and Republicans swapped ideologies and beliefs around 1936