US Politics: Happy Anniversary.

[Zorral]

https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/01/14

 

[Zorral]

We can't ever say we didn't know, or that They didn't intend, back in 2022, 2023, 2024, what we get in 2025.

https://www.project2025.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Who is advocating for this? 
. 

Scot

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Who is advocating for this? 

Also, watching MTP, Joni Ernst is a fucking coward. 

Me.  
 

I think fully open primaries would force candidates to the center early because they’d be competing for the complete pool of voters rather than the party loyalists.

Edited January 14 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Me.  
 

I think fully open primaries would force candidates to the center early because they’d be competing for the complete pool of voters rather than the party loyalists.

But specifically voting in both primaries? 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

A small moment of levity by means of schadenfreude:

https://www.salon.com/2024/01/13/bill-oreillys-own-books-swept-up-in-book-ban-he-supported/?in_brief=true

[TrackerNeil]

On 1/13/2024 at 3:31 PM, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

A lot of people don't register for a party even if they always vote for it. Likewise some places only have one party that can win so voting for the least bad option makes sense. 

Probably, sure. If those people want to choose a party's nominee, however, they can join that party. If not, they can choose between the candidates the parties serve up.

Edited January 14 by TrackerNeil

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

A small moment of levity by means of schadenfreude:

https://www.salon.com/2024/01/13/bill-oreillys-own-books-swept-up-in-book-ban-he-supported/?in_brief=true

Burn them! 

[ThinkerX]

7 hours ago, Ormond said:

If you are still going to have separate primaries, I certainly do NOT think people should be able to vote in more than one. It sort of defeats the purpose of having parties at all.

'...defeats the purpose of having parties at all...' - that would be a good thing. 

Large numbers of leftist types voting in republican parties would choose candidates that are either sane - aka people that could at least be worked with - or so completely insane that they can't win elections. Works both ways, of course.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But specifically voting in both primaries? 

Yes.  I, as a taxpayer, am paying for both primaries.  Why shouldn’t I (and all other voting taxpayers) get a say in who the two major parties nominate if they leave that choice up to the voters and get public funding to hold that primary?

If every registered voter could vote in both primaries that would change the calculus of primary voting.

[Wilbur]

From a theoretical standpoint, the two-party system is sub-optimal, so anything that reduces the stranglehold of the duopoly is probably good.

From a practical standpoint, the political outcomes over the last couple of decades have been so poor that trying something different, AKA allowing open primaries for any registered voter, cannot possibly be worse.

[Durckad]

I'm finding myself intrigued by Scot's proposal.

Hypothetically, what could be the problem with allowing people to vote in both primaries? 

Because personally, political parties suck. They're an unfortunate necessity, ie they're always going to be a thing no matter what we do, but they suck as things currently stand. So what is the worst case scenario for allowing voters to vote in both (or preferably in the future, all) primaries?

The worst I can think of is members of the other party intentionally spoiling the primaries by regularly choosing suboptimal candidates. But that would require quite a bit of coordination amongst voters so I'm not sure how realistic it would be.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  I, as a taxpayer, am paying for both primaries.  Why shouldn’t I (and all other voting taxpayers) get a say in who the two major parties nominate if they leave that choice up to the voters and get public funding to hold that primary?

If every registered voter could vote in both primaries that would change the calculus of primary voting.

It wouldn't, it doesn't, and primaries don't really matter that much. It definitely doesn't make the more centrist candidate- whatever that means - get more votes. What ends up happening js that the people from the other side vote for the person who is least electable, which tends to get the more extremist people more votes. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

From a theoretical standpoint, the two-party system is sub-optimal, so anything that reduces the stranglehold of the duopoly is probably good.

If you want multiparty elections you don't start with giving the two parties more power and legitimacy. You start by giving all parties the ability to choose their candidates and then put them up for a general vote. You abolish primaries.

And then make it so you get proportional representation based on the voting numbers for each party and eliminate winner take all.

 

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  I, as a taxpayer, am paying for both primaries.  Why shouldn’t I (and all other voting taxpayers) get a say in who the two major parties nominate if they leave that choice up to the voters and get public funding to hold that primary?

You also pay for public schools, but that doesn't mean you can just stroll into such a school and take a seat in a science class.  You also fund the military, but that doesn't mean you can access a naval base whenever you feel like it. You subsidize the White House, but that's mostly off-limits too. Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean it must be 100% available to the public, all the time.

[ThinkerX]

41 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

You also pay for public schools, but that doesn't mean you can just stroll into such a school and take a seat in a science class.  You also fund the military, but that doesn't mean you can access a naval base whenever you feel like it. You subsidize the White House, but that's mostly off-limits too. Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean it must be 100% available to the public, all the time.

The difference is that those elections determine who will represent the area the voter lives in. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

You also pay for public schools, but that doesn't mean you can just stroll into such a school and take a seat in a science class.  You also fund the military, but that doesn't mean you can access a naval base whenever you feel like it. You subsidize the White House, but that's mostly off-limits too. Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean it must be 100% available to the public, all the time.

I do see the distinction.  Elections aren’t those things.  They are intended for the public to participate.  As such, I want to broaden such participation.

@Kalbear

I acknowledge that is possible.  I have spoken out against people doing things like that for years because while… sometimes it works… sometimes you end up with Trump in the White House while Democrats were laughing with glee all summer of 2016 at the prospect of Trump being the Republican nominee.  

It is always better to try for the best from a bad group.

[fionwe1987]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is always better to try for the best from a bad group.

Well, if you're going to build your system on the assumption that people will do what is better, you'll deserve what you get.

I think America would be best served by switching from a first past the post election system, more than anything else. Whether in primaries or the general, if you have to keep seeking votes till 50% have really said "you're better than whatever remains of the competition", that does a lot of the heavy lifting of keeping away extremists of any kind. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Well, if you're going to build your system on the assumption that people will do what is better, you'll deserve what you get.

I think America would be best served by switching from a first past the post election system, more than anything else. Whether in primaries or the general, if you have to keep seeking votes till 50% have really said "you're better than whatever remains of the competition", that does a lot of the heavy lifting of keeping away extremists of any kind. 

Why suggest something that has a 0% chance of ever happening? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Well, if you're going to build your system on the assumption that people will do what is better, you'll deserve what you get.

I think America would be best served by switching from a first past the post election system, more than anything else. Whether in primaries or the general, if you have to keep seeking votes till 50% have really said "you're better than whatever remains of the competition", that does a lot of the heavy lifting of keeping away extremists of any kind. 

I’d love to see the US eliminate single member districts and elect House members in State wide proportional representation elections.  I’d also like to greatly increase the size of the HoR.  

If we are going to continue to restrict participation in Primaries I’d rather they stop and just let the major parties pick their nominees internally.