What is your political affiliation?

[Patine 444]

40 minutes ago, pilight said:

The same benefit as declaring yourself members of a party you can vote for...

I think you've confused the terms 'member" and "outside supporter," there.

[pilight 232]

47 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think you've confused the terms 'member" and "outside supporter," there.

I'm saying there's no real value in being a member of a party unless you're running for office

[Patine 444]

4 hours ago, pilight said:

I'm saying there's no real value in being a member of a party unless you're running for office

Well, there's also the ideologues, doctrinaires, strategists, advertising promoters, fundraisers, and those who manage the party bureaucracy and machinery, but I do see the tenor of your point.

[IonicAmalgam 0]

I've taken a 12-axis political spectrum test before and I don't really fit on left or right. I would say the left represents me more in the US from a fiscal perspective (simply due to the right constantly increasing deficits and my disagreement that their policy proposals is what a free market economy means) but the right (or rather libertarians) are closer to my social views.

[Patine 444]

9 hours ago, IonicAmalgam said:

I've taken a 12-axis political spectrum test before and I don't really fit on left or right.

It kind of bites when that happens to you in the United States, doesn't it. But yet I get ridiculed by many on these forums and elsewhere for saying the U.S. DESERVES and would be BETTER OFF WITH a true, viable, multi-party system instead of a corrupt, complacent, duopoly that effectively rigs elections and cheats, fails, and lies to the American people and again and again with the smug feeling of invulnerability in the knowledge that the voters will have come crawling back to one or the other, begging for another term of abuse, or "throw their vote or sit at home." And this wretched political is fervently defended by so many - a lot even seeing it as the best and greatest political party system and culture in the world. It beggars the imagination that a nation of 300 million with strong opinions and freedom of speech, the press, and conscience effectively lack such political choice in their leaders and a comprehensive, multi-faceted political dialogue.

[ZedWilliamsR 0]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

It kind of bites when that happens to you in the United States, doesn't it. But yet I get ridiculed by many on these forums and elsewhere for saying the U.S. DESERVES and would be BETTER OFF WITH a true, viable, multi-party system instead of a corrupt, complacent, duopoly that effectively rigs elections and cheats, fails, and lies to the American people and again and again with the smug feeling of invulnerability in the knowledge that the voters will have come crawling back to one or the other, begging for another term of abuse, or "throw their vote or sit at home." And this wretched political is fervently defended by so many - a lot even seeing it as the best and greatest political party system and culture in the world. It beggars the imagination that a nation of 300 million with strong opinions and freedom of speech, the press, and conscience effectively lack such political choice in their leaders and a comprehensive, multi-faceted political dialogue.

I like to think of our two parties as two coalitions with the different caucuses in the party representing what would in most European countries be individual parties. I support replacing FPTP with proportional representation, likely for a different reason than you, but I don't believe that the two party system prevents outside viewpoints from being heard. DemSocs and SocDems fit into the Democratic party, nationalists fit into the republican party. I'd argue the main reason you don't see as many socialists in the U.S political sphere would be our history and a general lack of interest in actual socialist policies. 

When a congressional district or a city wants socialists in power there is no barrier in place stopping them from getting that.

Democrat Coalition -

Progressives

New Democrats

Blue Dogs

 

Republican Coalition - 

Freedom Caucus & Tea Party

Tuesday / New England Republicans

Republican Study

Maybe libertarians?

 

I would like to add that we would see similar coalitions in a multi-party system. If we split these caucuses into individual parties I am not sure that anything would really change. They'd probably just coalesce again to find a majority.

[Patine 444]

13 minutes ago, ZedWilliamsR said:

I like to think of our two parties as two coalitions with the different caucuses in the party representing what would in most European countries be individual parties. I support replacing FPTP with proportional representation, likely for a different reason than you, but I don't believe that the two party system prevents outside viewpoints from being heard. DemSocs and SocDems fit into the Democratic party, nationalists fit into the republican party. I'd argue the main reason you don't see as many socialists in the U.S political sphere would be our history and a general lack of interest in actual socialist policies. 

 

Democrat Coalition -

Progressives

New Democrats

Blue Dogs

 

Republican Coalition - 

Freedom Caucus & Tea Party

Tuesday / New England Republicans

Republican Study

Maybe libertarians?

Perhaps, but in French and Polish Presidential elections (I exclude the others, because they mostly have ceremonial, powerless Presidents or Constitutional Monarch - France and Poland have powerful Presidential to make my point), there is not just one candidate for President of a "left-bloc" and a "right-bloc" selected from all the like-minded parties, and some fringe candidate - each party puts their own candidate forward directly. Likewise, in an election for a seat in European national parliaments, you don't vote for a single candidate for a "left' and "right" coalition, and then some fringe candidates - each party runs for each separately. The problem with this perceived U.S "coalition" system is the primaries (which, I might add, are not a Constitutionally supported, mandated, or defended institution at all) that bottlenecks that choice. So, if you're "sub-party" or "camp" loses a primary battle to actually RUN in a given general election for any particular office, and who don't like or agree with (or indeed, even detest) who got the nomination, but the other "coalition' is ideologically unthinkable, you are screwed over. And that feeling of being of cheated by the primaries seems quite common in the U.S. It doesn't seem rare. In the given European countries, you just outright vote for your favoured party, and all the numbers come in on election night.

[ZedWilliamsR 0]

50 minutes ago, Patine said:

Perhaps, but in French and Polish Presidential elections .... there is not just one candidate for President of a "left-bloc" and a "right-bloc" selected from all the like-minded parties, and some fringe candidate - each party puts their own candidate forward directly. 

I can't talk about Poland because I don't know how Polish elections work, but France absolutely creates a left-bloc and a right-bloc because basically every Presidential election will go to a second round where just two candidates are participating. I'd argue that the 1st round of voting is analogous to a 'second' primary. The first primary is to select a party's nominee (US equivalent is a caucus) then that nominee tries to get enough votes to represent their respective bloc. The major difference would be that it won't always be left vs. right, but you can sometimes see far-left vs. center or far-left vs. far-right, etc. etc. 

https://imgur.com/a/Ekct4Ff The end result is entirely something we could see in the U.S, and once again if you look at the U.S caucuses as individual parties then the potential difference between who leads each block in France is virtually the same as the possible differences in who will lead the U.S blocs. Socialists just aren't as popular in the U.S as they are in France.

Quote

 Likewise, in an election for a seat in European national parliaments, you don't vote for a single candidate for a "left' and "right" coalition, and then some fringe candidates - each party runs for each separately. 

Sure, with proportional representation there are a lot more parties represented.

Quote

The problem with this perceived U.S "coalition" system is the primaries (which, I might add, are not a Constitutionally supported, mandated, or defended institution at all) that bottlenecks that choice. So, if you're "sub-party" or "camp" loses a primary battle to actually RUN in a given general election for any particular office, and who don't like or agree with (or indeed, even detest) who got the nomination, but the other "coalition' is ideologically unthinkable, you are screwed over. 

You're not 'screwed over' if you lose your party's nomination. If we're talking about a specific seat being up for grabs (like an election for mayor) then the only other result would be someone splitting their bloc's vote and costing their side the election. However in an election with multiple seats being filled there is a possibility to have more parties represented. I'm not sure if this is a good thing however. Proportional representation lowers the barrier to entry and allows extremists into office, maybe if you believe in a fringe ideology this may sound nice but I don't want any more white nationalists in positions of power.

Quote

And feeling of being of cheated by the primaries seems quite common in the U.S. It doesn't seem rare. In the given European countries, you just outright vote for your favoured party, and all the numbers come in on election night.

Plenty of people feel upset when their party doesn't make it past the 1st round in France. If you want people to be able to vote for their favored party why not support ranked choice voting? It gives people more freedom in voting and won't break a bloc when they're voting for who will win an individual seat.

[Edouard 121]

I become Minarchist...

 

[Rarename91 0]

i am a right wing populist not a republican i am considering joining just to vote for trump in the primarys but i got plans to vote for Constitution or libertarian if the the Constitution party isnt on the ballot in 2022 against toomey.

[ZedWilliamsR 0]

18 hours ago, Rarename91 said:

i am a right wing populist not a republican i am considering joining just to vote for trump in the primarys but i got plans to vote for Constitution or libertarian if the the Constitution party isnt on the ballot in 2022 against toomey.

Why are you a right wing populist? 

[Patine 444]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 9:13 AM, Rarename91 said:

i am a right wing populist not a republican i am considering joining just to vote for trump in the primarys but i got plans to vote for Constitution or libertarian if the the Constitution party isnt on the ballot in 2022 against toomey.

I don't think you have the charisma, captivating quality, fiery-speaking, vitriolic attacks on political enemies and targeted demographics, and real quotable zingers to be a populist. Though you're platform is just as vapid and empty of substance as some. Because, of course, you DO know that being a populist is not, as a term, one who follows the ideology, beliefs, and platform of someone who stands up and makes those rants and screeds, and votes for them, and supports them - a populist is ACTUALLY one of those individuals. A Trump SUPPORTER is NOT right-wing populist - ONLY Trump is THE right-wing populist in the whole actual affair. It's the same with Bolisario, Erdogan, La Pen, Gauland, Orban, Putin, Erodgan, Modi, and Di Maio (conflicted opinions on whether the last one is "right-wing" ideologically, or not), as well as the Fascist leaders (both those who came to power in their respective countries, and those who didn't) in the 20' to 40's - in all cases, only the leader of those movements was, or is, by definition, the "populist." The followers and supporters are not actually the populists, by definition.