Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

What's with all the kooks running for office this year?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

This is a big problem with the primaries' system as it stands in the U.S. It leads to candidates who are a stain on the message and vision of the political their running for becoming the candidate *cough* Donald Trump *cough*. I think the U.S. needs more internally disciplined, consistent, and controlled nominations for it's political parties, but also more than viable parties, like most other nations with a functional, electoral, representative system in the world have. Then idiots like this would have to form fringe parties and be easily marginalized like, as I said, in most other nations with a functional, electoral, representative system in the world. Another big and crippling flaw in the American political party system detected. Thank-you, @NYrepublican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Lol

Yes, laugh it up, while the U.S. political culture and system become the biggest joke of the First World...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, laugh it up, while the U.S. political culture and system become the biggest joke of the First World...

What's your alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

What's your alternative?

I gave one in my first post on this thread, which you obviously didn't read, or just disregarded off-hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

I gave one in my first post on this thread, which you obviously didn't read, or just disregarded off-hand.

Y'know that such a system was abandoned for a reason right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

Y'know that such a system was abandoned for a reason right?

Was their a well-thought-out, articulated, stated, mulled over, and voted on reason with full consultation, research, and calculated prognostication of the results for and against abandoning it? I wasn't aware of such deliberate process and event around that ever happening in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Was their a well-thought-out, articulated, stated, mulled over, and voted on reason with full consultation, research, and calculated prognostication of the results for and against abandoning it? I wasn't aware of such deliberate process and event around that ever happening in the U.S.

It had been slowly abandoned as popular vote primaries gained traction in the '50's and '60's. By 1972 it was totally abandoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

It had been slowly abandoned as popular vote primaries gained traction in the '50's and '60's. By 1972 it was totally abandoned.

Then why not just have self-nominations, and open nominations directly by a candidate's own supporters, across the board for every elected office, without the need for the intermediary of political parties, if said political parties don't actually live up to the definition of a political parties in their positive aspects, but only function in their negative aspects (especially blocking up real choice of candidates for the voters and artificially stifling the national political debate and discourse)? I mean the U.S. Constitution doesn't once mention the existence of, or need for, political parties, and several notable Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Keene, and Benjamin Franklin, opposed their introduction into American politics from the only major source of inspiration at the time, the British Parliamentary tradition. I mean, why not just have open-ended nominations and not two parties which have become a farce as political parties are generally defined today. Besides, having separate primary, and then general elections, for every office is obviously causing more harm than good to the U.S. political culture and system, and the will of the voters' is very often not being reflected at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Patine said:

Then why not just have self-nominations, and open nominations directly by a candidate's own supporters, across the board for every elected office, without the need for the intermediary of political parties, if said political parties don't actually live up to the definition of a political parties in their positive aspects, but only function in their negative aspects (especially blocking up real choice of candidates for the voters and artificially stifling the national political debate and discourse)? I mean the U.S. Constitution doesn't once mention the existence of, or need for, political parties, and several notable Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Keene, and Benjamin Franklin, opposed their introduction into American politics from the only major source of inspiration at the time, the British Parliamentary tradition. I mean, why not just have open-ended nominations and not two parties which have become a farce as political parties are generally defined today. Besides, having separate primary, and then general elections, for every office is obviously causing more harm than good to the U.S. political culture and system, and the will of the voters' is very often not being reflected at all.

Are you gobsmacked and stumped for an answer there, @NYrepublican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Are you gobsmacked and stumped for an answer there, @NYrepublican?

There isn't much to say, you stated your opinion and I respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

There isn't much to say, you stated your opinion and I respect it.

But why do you think the current system in place is better, if indeed you still do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Patine said:

But why do you think the current system in place is better, if indeed you still do?

Because it's working unlike the NBA UNDER ADAM SILVER REEEEEEEEEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Because it's working unlike the NBA UNDER ADAM SILVER REEEEEEEEEE

I disagree that it's working. It's tearing apart American society and culture at the seams, promoting endless deadlock, putting up endless horrid candidates, stifling true political discourse and debate, robbing the voters of a true choice of candidates, and spiting the will of the voters again and again. I don't see that as a working system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

I disagree that it's working. It's tearing apart American society and culture at the seams, promoting endless deadlock, putting up endless horrid candidates, stifling true political discourse and debate, robbing the voters of a true choice of candidates, and spiting the will of the voters again and again. I don't see that as a working system.

Try finding a country without political parties. When you look at the list of countries that have political parties banned, you get countries like Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. The only exceptions to these are local territories within Democratic countries that have extremely tiny populations. Your idea is impossible on a federal level without corruption.

Besides, in the current system, an average every-day man could rise through the ranks of a political party and eventually run for President. Under your elitist system, only well-known people can have a realistic shot at making offices, even on state levels. The chance for corruption is too high under that system. The US government is built around checks and balances and political parties are a part of that (nb4 parties aren't in the Constitution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao, was looking at some thread from a while back and it appears that I have flip-flopped on this issue.

oops.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Try finding a country without political parties. When you look at the list of countries that have political parties banned, you get countries like Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. The only exceptions to these are local territories within Democratic countries that have extremely tiny populations. Your idea is impossible on a federal level without corruption.

Besides, in the current system, an average every-day man could rise through the ranks of a political party and eventually run for President. Under your elitist system, only well-known people can have a realistic shot at making offices, even on state levels. The chance for corruption is too high under that system. The US government is built around checks and balances and political parties are a part of that (nb4 parties aren't in the Constitution)

I'll actually list several functional, sovereign nations with stable, representative electoral politics without formal political parties - Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshal Islands, Kiribati, Western Samoa, and Nauru (the last is a bit iffy on it's functionality, as it's often accused of just being a sheepish puppet state of Australia, but my point is made).

As a counter-point to your second point, the elitism and corruption is NOT diminished with the presence of political parties. Every political party, while allowing some up-and-coming members for "new blood" for when the inevitable attrition of the "old boys/girls' club" occurs, with many have a few surprising and breakout nominations, are all, nonetheless, centred on their own elitist and, ultimately, to some degree or another, corrupt core of powerful, controlling, and coordinating high-level membership. The elitism and corruption is just visibly and overtly factionalized - you ask it for by name, label, and colour - and these parties can much more easily marginalize and hem out opposition from outside their number in a more organized and efficient way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Y'know that such a system was abandoned for a reason right?

Not a good reason.  It was abandoned to get George McGovern nominated.  The Democrats could have avoided another 1968-style debacle in a number of ways other than the one designed and recommended by the guy who benefited most from it in the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

I'll actually list several functional, sovereign nations with stable, representative electoral politics without formal political parties - Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshal Islands, Kiribati, Western Samoa, and Nauru (the last is a bit iffy on it's functionality, as it's often accused of just being a sheepish puppet state of Australia, but my point is made).

His point about those being comparatively small nations still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

His point about those being comparatively small nations still stands.

His point was not actually small nations, it was absolute monarchies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Patine said:

His point was not actually small nations, it was absolute monarchies.

Monarchies and small territories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Monarchies and small territories.

But just because of the current state of affairs in this regard, I'm not convinced a non-partisan system inherently CAN'T work, at all, under any circumstances, in a larger, more developed, and more complex governmental structures. A lack of firm examples in the last century or so is not, in my mind, inherently absolute evidence against the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×