What did Democrats do wrong?

[mumblethrax]

Current efforts to corrupt national elections notwithstanding, the feds should definitely take over running elections, at least as far as is constitutionally permissible. It's bizarre that we still leave that to the states after the experience of Jim Crow.

 

[ahhell]

The advantage is that it makes a lot harder to actually corrupt. For the most part its not even the states that run elections, its counties. Theres's thousands of counties. I think it's a feature not a bug, good idea to have the feds as more independent watchdogs than running the elections.

 

[mumblethrax]

The advantage is that it makes a lot harder to actually corrupt.

I think it's tough to defend that view in light of the way states have corrupted elections throughout our history. Even today, as soon as the Supreme Court invalidates some portion of the Voting Rights Act with we're-not-getting-wet-so-why-the-umbrella logic, those states are ready to jump on the opportunity to corrupt their elections.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure lets just do away with our right to associate in groups we choose, and have the feds take over running elections.

That's an interesting jump. I don't think I suggested you can't associate in groups as you choose. But there are some definite drawbacks to political parties - they tend to flatten complex topics and to force-team things that a lot of people don't necessarily want to have lumped together. Independents have been a growing cohort over time, and the more flattened the Dems and Reps get, the more Indys there are. I'm far from alone on this - there are some topics that I think Reps have a better take on, some I think Dems have a better take on, and a whole lot of topics where I think they both have their heads up their backsides.

How exactly would elections look if there were no political parties? Ranked choice election for President with thousands of candidates to choose from?

Or phased runoffs. I'm sure we can come up with a hypothetical solution, we're all smart people. Well, okay, most of us are smart people.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's an interesting jump. I don't think I suggested you can't associate in groups as you choose.

If you're suggesting we ban political parties, you are going to run into freedom of association problems, because parties are fundamentally groups of people organized to some political end. It's notable that California's blanket primaries were invalidated by the Supreme Court back in 2000 because they could force parties to accept someone who wasn't a member (in any sense) as their candidate. If that doesn't fly, you can be confident that banning parties altogether won't, either.

 

[lobosrul5]

That's an interesting jump. I don't think I suggested you can't associate in groups as you choose. But there are some definite drawbacks to political parties - they tend to flatten complex topics and to force-team things that a lot of people don't necessarily want to have lumped together. Independents have been a growing cohort over time, and the more flattened the Dems and Reps get, the more Indys there are. I'm far from alone on this - there are some topics that I think Reps have a better take on, some I think Dems have a better take on, and a whole lot of topics where I think they both have their heads up their backsides.

Its not a jump at all. You stated: "I'd go a step further and just get rid of parties". A political party is an association of people who come together to further their collective political aims. The only way to "get rid of them", would be to make them illegal.

Or phased runoffs. I'm sure we can come up with a hypothetical solution, we're all smart people. Well, okay, most of us are smart people.

OK, hypothetically, Congress passes a bill completely banning political parties, and Trump signs it into law. The SCOTUS, for some reason, upholds the new law. How should the 2028 election be organized in your opinion?

Ohh, and please do note that I've been a registered independent since 2008, and that I do believe the primary system we have has caused increasingly worse candidates in recent years. But, thats because most people do not pay attention to them. Ergo, inattention and apathy by the public are why we keep getting two candidates that don't appeal to the mainstream and we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils in most elections.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How about we try to make it easy to exercise your right to vote?
Public holiday, loads more polling places, more time to count, harsh penalties for deceptive campaigning or voter disenfranchisement.
Gerrymandering based on maximizing voter power instead of minimizing it.

Maybe the system works if you let it work instead of kneecap it at every opportunity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you're suggesting we ban political parties, you are going to run into freedom of association problems, because parties are fundamentally groups of people organized to some political end. It's notable that California's blanket primaries were invalidated by the Supreme Court back in 2000 because they could force parties to accept someone who wasn't a member (in any sense) as their candidate. If that doesn't fly, you can be confident that banning parties altogether won't, either.

Its not a jump at all. You stated: "I'd go a step further and just get rid of parties". A political party is an association of people who come together to further their collective political aims. The only way to "get rid of them", would be to make them illegal.



OK, hypothetically, Congress passes a bill completely banning political parties, and Trump signs it into law. The SCOTUS, for some reason, upholds the new law. How should the 2028 election be organized in your opinion?

Ohh, and please do note that I've been a registered independent since 2008, and that I do believe the primary system we have has caused increasingly worse candidates in recent years. But, thats because most people do not pay attention to them. Ergo, inattention and apathy by the public are why we keep getting two candidates that don't appeal to the mainstream and we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils in most elections.

I get what you're saying, and you're probably right in terms of free speech impacts. That wasn't really my intent. Right now I think parties are a problem - not the concept, but the effect.

I'm very frustrated, because I'm not partisan and I've always been independent. I can't vote in primaries because I'm not registered with a party. In pretty much every cycle I can remember, there were candidates from each party that I thought would be good leaders, but they didn't make it through primaries. The reality is that a fairly large portion of Americans are politically homeless, and neither of the dominant parties are fielding candidates that meet the needs of normal citizens very well.

I think the system of political parties, and the way in which they're run and organized, is a barrier and a problem. I don't care if people associate, but I really dislike the closed off nature of parties, and the way in which they end up forcing people we don't like as the only choices.

FPTP is a HUGE part of that problem. Closed primaries is also a big part of the problem. I don't have a perfect solution, I just know that this isn't working very well.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm very frustrated, because I'm not partisan and I've always been independent. I can't vote in primaries because I'm not registered with a party. In pretty much every cycle I can remember, there were candidates from each party that I thought would be good leaders, but they didn't make it through primaries. The reality is that a fairly large portion of Americans are politically homeless, and neither of the dominant parties are fielding candidates that meet the needs of normal citizens very well.

I agree that's a problem, but I'd say that moving to a multi-party system is preferable to trying to eliminate parties altogether. That would give people a political home, and eliminate the threat of being "primaried", which exacerbates the current era of polarization.