REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

D R I

POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Thursday, November 22, 2018 21:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2807
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 15, 2018 8:13 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Its my opinion that We The People need to get rid uv both partyz, not just the GoP. Actually, all partyz.

But I think its going to be a long battle to do it, probably decadez, and thats if it can be dun at all.

A better idea coud be to add lawz that severely limit the power uv partyz. It coud take a constitutional amendment.

The fundamental problem iz that they divide the loyalty uv our reprezentativz. The Republicanz are not making any effort to hide the fact that their loyalty to the party outwayz everything else.

The Democrats are alot more variable, but still prioritize politics more than iz helthy for the Nation. It seemz to be mostly a reaction to the GoPs, and maybe nesusery, but how will they be in 10 yirz, or a sentury?

I'v wanted to put a paje up on my site about this for months, but I dont know enuf about wy partyz exist in every democratic nation. Iz it an unavoidabl fundamental fault?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 8:27 PM

WISHIMAY


Don't think political parties are going away, it's a religion to too many people. What else would they do all day?

At some point, voting in general is going to have to become far easier. Like I said, a device you carry with you that can instantly verify who you are would be good.
But since people are still bitching about ID cards...
Seriously need to put a time limit of complying with that. If you can't get an ID card in the next five years, probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Don't think political parties are going away, it's a religion to too many people. What else would they do all day?

At some point, voting in general is going to have to become far easier. Like I said, a device you carry with you that can instantly verify who you are would be good.
But since people are still bitching about ID cards...
Seriously need to put a time limit of complying with that. If you can't get an ID card in the next five years, probably shouldn't be voting anyway.



Wow. Every once in a while Wishy and I agree on something.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:31 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:

I dont know enuf about wy partyz exist in every democratic nation. Iz it an unavoidabl fundamental fault?

Political parties are a mental shortcut for deciding who to vote for. There were 200 names on my last ballot. Nobody but the Houston Chronicle even tried to know who all 200 people were. The Chronicle failed to interview or find by google about a dozen names and wrote an opinion about who is best in each race. That is why there are political parties. The average voter does not have the resources of the Chronicle but the voter can know something very solid and real about who those 200 are by which party they joined. The party is listed right there on the ballot, which makes the choice so much easier than bringing the Chronicle to the voting place.
www.harrisvotes.com/VotingInfo?lang=en-US#ElectionDay

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:34 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Wut about old weel chair grannyz way out in the sticks?

I'm for automatic rejistration. If you hav a SS number and are going to be 18 on election day, youre in!

A suprize to me sins Trump got elected iz that the minority party haz so little power. They cant subpeona, they cant form their own commissionz, they dont get to order investigationz.

I never really thot much about how congress & senate worked, but I had the impression that each reprezentativ coud do all sorts uv stuf on hiz own or team up with otherz to do thingz.

All it seemz they can do iz vote, and with the partyz having so much power, they rarely go agenst them.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:45 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:

I never really thot much about how congress & senate worked, but I had the impression that each reprezentativ coud do all sorts uv stuf on hiz own or team up with otherz to do thingz.

All it seemz they can do iz vote, and with the partyz having so much power, they rarely go agenst them.

Are you aware that humans form hierarchies, same as honeybees and lions? If humans weren't hierarchical, there would be 435 Speakers of the House and 100 Majority Leaders in the Senator, or maybe make that 100 Minority Leaders. Without an obvious structure, everybody is a minority of one, everybody goes in different direction, at least until they form into teams. Or should I say "Parties"?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


What is DRI? I know those initials as Desert Research Institute, but not what they are in non-geek parlance.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 1:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, we could get rid of political parties if we had direct democracy. Yanno, vote on the issues directly.

*****

The best suggestion I ever read was having a checkbox on your tax form where you could designate how much money you wanted to go to each program; i.e education. environment, war. Heck, if you could get direct control of your tax expenditures that way it might even make paying taxes popular. Or at least not as painful!

*****

Or we could have a multiplicity of parties, and the parties would have to form coalitions and compromise in order to get anything done.

*****

In any case, both the Dems and Repubs conspire to keep the choice between themselves. The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't some hoary ancient objective referee but controlled by the RNC and DNC to limit debates to candidates who poll more than 15% ... an unrealistic threshold which limits exposure to third-party Presidential candidates. This limit was put in (both both parties) after Ross Perot got a significant portion of the vote. Changing the limits would help increase exposure of third parties.

*****

So another option, and one which I like a whole lot, it to REQUIRE free time for political advertising from broadcast networks which have an FCC license. One of the reasons why money has such a huge influence on elections is because advertising is EXPENSIVE, so only the most well-funded candidates have a shot at getting the word out. If the broadcast networks are required to cough up the same amount of free prime time for any candidate who polls more than (say) 5%, then each candidate would be granted at least a minimum amount of "air time".

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 4:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What is DRI? I know those initials as Desert Research Institute, but not what they are in non-geek parlance.



Democrat Republican Independent?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 5:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So JO ... you've done more than most to get Americans to change their politics. You threw you hat into the ring, so to speak, and ran an internet-based campaign.

I know that (some) people believe that the internet would flatten the information hierarchy, but all it seems to have done was engender millions of hours of cat-videos and endless pictures of peoples' latest meal/ vacation/ shopping spree.

So what would you say was your biggest hurdle to overcome in getting votes, and how would you overcome it?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 8:42 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by second:Without an obvious structure, everybody is a minority of one, everybody goes in different direction, at least until they form into teams.


Thats the way it shoud be.

The way it iz now, only 1 state gets full reprezentation in the Senate - Kansas. Even that iz being jenerous kuz McConnellz main loyalty iz to hiz party.

If each congressman and senator cant ALWAYZ do wut they think iz rite for their voterz and the nation, the system iz broken. The agrigated will uv the peepl duznt move us in the direction we want.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 9:40 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, we could get rid of political parties if we had direct democracy. Yanno, vote on the issues directly.



The idea uv the founderz wuz that our wize reprezentativz woud be given the resoursez to make the best determinationz on all the myriad and complex issuez.

It makes sens sins not enuf uv the sitizenz woud take the time to lern about sumthing, so the vote woud usually be 'no' based merely on superficial factorz - mostly 'I dont want to spend a penny on that!'

But az we can see, the system can be derailed from square 1 (wize) then further degraded, diluted, warped or blokt, mostly due to partisan politics.

The Reps vs Demz gang war iz the main activity uv the goverment.

Quote:

The best suggestion I ever read was having a checkbox on your tax form where you could designate how much money you wanted to go to each program; i.e education. environment, war. Heck, if you could get direct control of your tax expenditures that way it might even make paying taxes popular. Or at least not as painful!


The obvious problem, az mentioned abuv, iz the uninformed voter. But I think this idea shoudnt be dismissed too hastily. Maybe sumthing involving a ranje uv spending that duznt include 0 or amounts that are less than the minimum needed to make wutever it iz functional?

Quote:

Or we could have a multiplicity of parties, and the parties would have to form coalitions and compromise in order to get anything done.


If there were lawz that forbade the individual congressmen and senatorz from acting in the interest uv their party over the interest uv the country or their constituents, the system can function properly.

Take Obamacare for example - it wuz based on a 'Republican' plan, so it woud hav been glaringly obvious that the GoPs fiting agenst it were only doing so to stop a Dem victory.

Insted, if each reprezentativ went by 'I like this idea, it will be good for my voterz' Obamacare woud hav passed eazily and be a much better system.

Quote:


In any case, both the Dems and Repubs conspire to keep the choice between themselves. The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't some hoary ancient objective referee but controlled by the RNC and DNC to limit debates to candidates who poll more than 15% ... an unrealistic threshold which limits exposure to third-party Presidential candidates. This limit was put in (by both parties) after Ross Perot got a significant portion of the vote.



Didnt no that. I thot it wuz just the network's desijun, wutever they felt like in each case.

Quote:

So another option, and one which I like a whole lot, iz to REQUIRE free time for political advertising from broadcast networks which have an FCC license....


I like that idea, but therez a practical limit on how much time they can spend
on thingz that dont make money.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 10:33 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:Without an obvious structure, everybody is a minority of one, everybody goes in different direction, at least until they form into teams.


Thats the way it shoud be.

The way it iz now, only 1 state gets full reprezentation in the Senate - Kansas. Even that iz being jenerous kuz McConnellz main loyalty iz to hiz party.

If each congressman and senator cant ALWAYZ do wut they think iz rite for their voterz and the nation, the system iz broken. The agrigated will uv the peepl duznt move us in the direction we want.



So far, having fewer parties is probably the only/best possible way to give voice to "the will of the people" without it devolving into a chaos of voices. Imagine 200 candidates for president. It would take 2 years just to whittle it down and maybe more to understand what each candidate stands for. It does say something if you are able to make it through the testing grounds of each party's nomination, and in some ways each contender brings their own version of the party's platform. You can make a great argument for partys having too much power, but that just leads to change. Or Trump breaking his party with a lying stone mallet. Hmmmm...

Plus, if you got rid of official parties it would just mean there would be unofficial parties working in the background without even less openness. That way lies even more corruption imho.

I can see a third or 4th party - we definitely deserve more choice - but I don't know how you could mandate that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 6:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


In general, I think a theoretical flaw to even direct democracy is 'the tyranny of the majority'. What's to keep 50.01% of the population from voting to make 49.99% of the population their permanent slaves? Another problem is that even if everyone is in agreement, the plan might not be wise. For example, 100% of the people might agree to strip the country bare and live like kings for 20 years, and to hell with the future ... and the next generations.

So democracy per se, even direct democracy with people in total control, doesn't by itself guarantee a result we might find preferable. There needs to be democracy + other things. Democracy + protection from the majority. Democracy + a sense of conservatorship. Democracy + an ability to look at a larger national interest.


OTOH whenever you have a small group with more power than everyone else, as in a representative democracy, there's always the possibility that that small group will use their power run the system to benefit themselves, or to benefit the people who can benefit them. In this case the parties benefit the power-group individuals with backing and support. And 'people' - wealthy real people or corporations - benefit them with money.

I find parliamentary systems to be more accountable. That's because the minute the government starts to deviate from what the people want, there's the potential for them to be voted out of office. That keeps people more attuned to what's going on, since their opinion matters more. It also makes third parties more viable, since they can swing a snap election by creating or denying a majority to a major party. That makes for more nuanced election choices.

That's not to say that things always work out well in parliamentary systems. For example, despite 67% opposition to the Iraq War https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/iraq-last-pre-war-polls , Tony Blair remained in office for quite some time (possibly because the opposition couldn't put forward a credible candidate). And Israel's Likud party lead by Netanyahu has been the ruling party since 2009 despite Netanyahu's own corruption scandal, charges of Israeli war crimes with the ICC, and scores of UN Human Rights mandates against the country.

And then, there's the problem of the media in bed with either the formal elected government or the (unelected) bureaucratic power structure, telling us what the government wants us to hear, censoring what it wants hidden. And there's the problem of the internet, also being censored by (unelected) corporate gatekeepers. And the echo-chamber problem, where people repeatedly go the the sources that support their viewpoints.

The problem of the vested media controlling the 'narrative' and denying us the information we need to make good decisions is, I feel, a global problem not limited to 'the west', or to democracies. But the way it seems to be running even in democracies, you'd almost think that even the democracies don't want us to have a say in what they're doing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 8:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oh! JO - I completely forgot to add - my hat's off to you for taking a run at taking a run!

KUDOS

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 9:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh! JO - I completely forgot to add - my hat's off to you for taking a run at taking a run!

KUDOS



Yeah. You might have won if Pritzger didn't pay back all that property tax money he got caught stealing.

Illinois Democrats are subhuman.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 10:11 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know that (some) people believe that the internet would flatten the information hierarchy, but all it seems to have done was engender millions of hours of cat-videos and endless pictures of peoples' latest meal/ vacation/ shopping spree.



Therez definitely an unspoken rule agenst directly benefitting from your postingz outside uv dedicated money begging sites. (not to mention actual rulez in most forumz) So foir sumthing to go viral its tricky to hav it actually connected to a product or a political campane.

I didnt plan it, but there iz a cat (PaNDORU) in my GUVNR753 video. Unfortunately she wuznt vizable enuf to work that cat majik.

Quote:

So what would you say was your biggest hurdle to overcome in getting votes, and how would you overcome it?


Clearly, it wuz the lak uv awareness uv my existens amongst the electorate. Sum sort uv publisity stunt big enuf to get on the newz mite hav helped.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2018 10:36 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
So far, having fewer parties is probably the only/best possible way to give voice to "the will of the people" without it devolving into a chaos of voices.



I think that a bunch uv independent candidates competing iz better than a handful preselected by $ and partyz.

Voterz woud prezumably be lissening to more candidates, rather than only thoze uv the party they like. Theyd narrow it down to a few based on actual substans insted uv the familiarity created by massiv advertizing.

Quote:

Imagine 200 candidates for president. It would take 2 years just to whittle it down and maybe more to understand what each candidate stands for.


It duznt hav to take very long. Look at how many contestents show up for singing competitionz, American Ninja Warrior, etc., yet the seazon iz only 2 or 3 months and the finalists are usually the best.

Quote:

You can make a great argument for partys having too much power, but that just leads to change. Or Trump breaking his party with a lying stone mallet. Hmmmm...


That woud be sumthing if it turned out Trump's plan all along wuz to destroy the Republican party.

Quote:

Plus, if you got rid of official parties it would just mean there would be unofficial parties working in the background without even less openness. That way lies even more corruption imho.


Alwayz a possibility. But having openly existing partyz duznt mean there arent secret wunz rite now. Or that the public fase uv the partyz are a cover for their real ajenda and activity. With the number uv GoP skandlz ALWAYZ in the newz, a revelation that they are part uv the World Crime League woudnt be such a big suprize.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 4:05 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
In general, I think a theoretical flaw to even direct democracy is 'the tyranny of the majority'. What's to keep 50.01% of the population from voting to make 49.99% of the population their permanent slaves? Another problem is that even if everyone is in agreement, the plan might not be wise. For example, 100% of the people might agree to strip the country bare and live like kings for 20 years, and to hell with the future ... and the next generations.



Good points. Theoreticly well considered and delt with by the framerz uv the constitution. But they failed to do anything about the potential problemz political partyz coud cauze.

If the reprezentativez are not wize and well informed, the same dizasterz can happen.

If they are beholden to a tyrant just kuz he wearz their brand name, the same dizasterz can happen.

If their party loyalty iz greater than their patriotizm, the same dizasterz can happen.

The Republicanz continue to prove the danjer iz real. We hav been living with the consequensez uv a toxic parasite party latched onto the goverment and its fite agenst another parasite all along.

Quote:

So democracy per se, even direct democracy with people in total control, doesn't by itself guarantee a result we might find preferable. There needs to be democracy + other things. Democracy + protection from the majority. Democracy + a sense of conservatorship. Democracy + an ability to look at a larger national interest.


Thats the plan. Even tho its possible for partyz to go along with this plan, they can get too powerful and greedy for even more power and defeat the plan.

The GoPs hav been ignoring their dutyz and their oath uv offis for decadez, and lately, openly acting to subvert the constitution.

Quote:

I find parliamentary systems to be more accountable...

That's not to say that things always work out well in parliamentary systems. For example, despite 67% opposition to the Iraq War...



Your examplz prove the point. Partyz can goof up the basic prinsipalz even if there are a bunch uv them.

Divide & conquer iz much eazier wen there are existing fault linez to expand.

How hard woud a forin adversary hav to work if he needed to identify sum bone uv contention and tie a major fraction uv the independent reprezentativez to it befor he coud start to divide a nation? So much eazier to hav 2 opponents alredy in a caje match over 1 or more issuez.

Quote:

And then, there's the problem of the media in bed with either the formal elected government or the (unelected) bureaucratic power structure, telling us what the government wants us to hear, censoring what it wants hidden. And there's the problem of the internet, also being censored by (unelected) corporate gatekeepers. And the echo-chamber problem, where people repeatedly go the the sources that support their viewpoints.


We're living it, man!

Quote:

The problem of the vested media controlling the 'narrative' and denying us the information we need to make good decisions is, I feel, a global problem not limited to 'the west', or to democracies. But the way it seems to be running even in democracies, you'd almost think that even the democracies don't want us to have a say in what they're doing.


No information iz bad enuf, but we hav unrestricted false information! Its like not just being starved, but also poizoned!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:34 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to keep representative government, but we vote on them 'American Idol' style - as individuals with ideas, rather than as party members.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:45 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


The funny thing, JO, is that everything you say about the Republicans in the last post is something that a lot of people think about the Democrats. Every single one of them.

I won't even deny that half of what you say about the GOP is true or at least could be. The frustrating thing to me is that you don't really see it when you look at Democrats.

It doesn't bother me when stupid people don't see it (about either party). I expect this from stupid people. I just don't understand when people who are obviously smart pick sides and stick with them. Especially when you've paid attention long enough that you can witness the sides actually bleeding into each other or even outright flip around like they have over the last decade and a half.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 7:52 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to keep representative government, but we vote on them 'American Idol' style - as individuals with ideas, rather than as party members.



No. Sorry, I gess I got off trak from wut I really wuz thinking. Altho therez much to be critisized about our electionz, its wut they do after taking offis thats ruining the country.

Maybe az 2nd sez, political partyz are unavoidable and even helpful for the election, but wut I'm propozing iz a set uv lawz that prevent the reprezentativz from making or voting for or agenst lejislation based on considerationz for the benefit uv their party.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"wut I'm propozing iz a set uv lawz that prevent the reprezentativz from making or voting for or agenst lejislation based on considerationz for the benefit uv their party."

I don't know how it's possible to enforce that, except through empathic mind-probe. Which means - not at all! If you intend to do something to - say, benefit your party - and party benefit is illegal, well you just use a different set of words to create the same result.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The Founding Fathers on political parties

Quote:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. - John Adams


Quote:

The alternate domination of one faction [party] over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.- George Washington


So, the beginnings of a two-party system, which sounds a lot like today!

Quote:

Washington, a thin-skinned chief executive, only decided to stay on for a second term to prevent his lieutenants [Jefferson and Hamilton] from, as he feared, splitting the country into two parties. To him, political parties spelled disunion. Eventually, Jefferson and Hamilton both resigned from Washington’s Cabinet to lead the two parties’ attacks on each other, using anonymous surrogates to write vitriolic columns for their thrice-weekly party newspapers.

To suppress the challenge of a second party, Washington’s successor, Federalist John Adams, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a federal crime to criticize the president or his administration’s policies.

Supreme Court justices became circuit-riding inquisitors, trying, fining and imprisoning some 25 editors and printers who subscribed to the Jeffersonian party line.


Religious groups blessed their favorite candidates and condemned opponents. In the 1804 campaign, the Congregational clergy of New England ganged up on candidate Jefferson in sermons reprinted in Federalist newspapers, branding him an atheist at a time when four out of five American newspapers were Federalist-owned.

In his turn, when Jefferson became president he ... he fired half of all federal officeholders, the top half. He kept Federalists only in low-level clerical, postal and customs service jobs. Jefferson effectively deprived the Federalists of any chance of rebuilding a power base by excluding them not only from the federal payroll but from political and administrative experience. The Federalists never won another election. Their party died.





-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ok, so what is a "political party"?

I think at its base, a political party is what we'd call a "brand name". If you get your party's endorsement, it's like getting a license to use a "brand name" (or wear the team jersey) ... and of course whatever money the party's backing means to you.

So how can we break this "brand name" thinking and the monetary backing that goes with it?

Maybe simply prohibit candidates from having a "D" or an "R" or ANYthing that represents "political party" after their name? In other words, make EVERY race non-partisan. Yanno, a little like blind-tasting wines: take off the label.

The political parties could still exist, they could have platforms/ advocate for a series of policies, and they could still back candidates with money, they could even endorse them in party fliers, but there wouldn't be any "partisan" primaries or "official" party candidates; EVERY primary would be an open primary and the primary would simply be to whittle down to the top 10 (5?) candidates? As a voter, you couldn't register under any party, either.

What do you think?


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2018 10:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


That needs too much thinking for tonight!

But I do want to point out that parliamentary systems tend towards 2 more significant parties, oftentimes neither of which holds the majority, plus a vibrant crucial slate of other parties.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 18, 2018 12:00 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Thats sum scary stuff there, Sig. Az bad az it seemz now, there iz kaos & rancor to be found in every era. Its a miracle that The United States uv America made it thru the first few decadez.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

I don't know how it's possible to enforce that, except through empathic mind-probe. Which means - not at all! If you intend to do something to - say, benefit your party - and party benefit is illegal, well you just use a different set of words to create the same result.



In the current situation its not much uv a challenj to see that its going on, but youre rite - if such lawz were enacted, the partisanz woud just try to do the same thingz dressed up with 'reazonz' wy its in the best interest uv the nation. They sorta do it now, but only haf-assed kuz they no their voterz want to beleev the liez.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 18, 2018 12:20 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So how can we break this "brand name" thinking and the monetary backing that goes with it?



Part uv the brand from the voter'z perspectiv iz a quik way to pik candidates that will be in favor uv the polisyz she likes and agenst the party that haz polisyz she iz agenst.

Duznt seem to be an inherently bad thing.


Quote:

Maybe simply prohibit candidates from having a "D" or an "R" or ANYthing that represents "political party" after their name? In other words, make EVERY race non-partisan. Yanno, a little like blind-tasting wines: take off the label.


that woud fors voterz to take a close look at all the candidates. Or not bother to vote!

To counteract that, we coud copy Australia'z manditory voting.

Quote:

The political parties could still exist, they could have platforms/ advocate for a series of policies, and they could still back candidates with money, they could even endorse them in party fliers, but there wouldn't be any "partisan" primaries or "official" party candidates; EVERY primary would be an open primary and the primary would simply be to whittle down to the top 10 (5?) candidates? As a voter, you couldn't register under any party, either.


Voterz woud just go by wich candidates their favored party iz backing. I think trying to reduse the partyz to a Good Housekeeping Seal uv Approval woudnt work too well. There are zillionz uv social organizationz offering up their endorsements, even wen it spesifically verboten.


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The problem, JO, is that there's no way to to force people to vote with the good of the nation in mind, over the interests of their party - especially when they "belong" to that party.

The only way I can think of to reduce rabid partisanship is to break the link between the parties and the politicians.

The only thing that I can think of to legally prevent being "partisan" is the MECHANICS of voting ... how voter rolls and handled and cleaned, voting and vote-counting security, boundaries, etc. In other words, instead of making the politicians non-partisan; putting certain FUNCTIONS in the hands of non-partisan non-politicians.

Overall, I like my solution better; I think it's more complete.

*****

Quote:

Part uv the brand from the voter'z perspectiv iz a quik way to pik candidates that will be in favor uv the polisyz she likes and agenst the party that haz polisyz she iz agenst. Duznt seem to be an inherently bad thing.
I think that's part of our problem. Remember the "vote Democrat" sign?

Quote:

Voterz woud just go by wich candidates their favored party iz backing. I think trying to reduse the partyz to a Good Housekeeping Seal uv Approval
Uh, that's not what I suggested
Quote:

woudnt work too well. There are zillionz uv social organizationz offering up their endorsements, even wen it spesifically verboten.
Ok, I think we're not communicating. I agree that party endorsements would still be available, and most people would probably still shortcut the thinking process. But as you said, there are many endorsements out there and I rarely look at the Democratic Party endorsements; for environmental issues for example I usually look to the Sierra Club and Friends of the River.

But here's the other part: If VOTERS can't register under a party either, the political parties don't know who to target, they have to speak to EVERYONE. If PEOPLE don't know which party their compatriots belong to, they have to speak to them AS PEOPLE. I think there might be some good social effects from de-identifying everyone as belonging to a "party", as well as good political results. I hope.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 19, 2018 1:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So as I was listening to NPR talk about whether Nancy Pelosi would get the House Speakership (yes) it occurred to me that there would be ANOTHER benefit to de-identifying politicians from parties:

There wouldn't be committees under the control of a specific party. There's be no such thing as a Committee Chair (of the in-power party) and the Ranking Member (of the out-of-power party). HOW they'd decide committee chairs and membership would be a whole 'nother story, but it wouldn't be automatic on the basis of party.

There wouldn't be a House Speaker or Senate Majority leader based on party membership either. Maybe these positions would have to be filled by a vote of the whole House and the whole Senate, not just some internal dogfight within a party leadership.

The problem with the current system is that it invests far too much power in "party", which determines which positions on which committees its member will get, and rewards "party loyalty" over wise decision-making.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 19, 2018 11:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So JO, KIKI ... I'm anxious to hear what you think of my suggestion!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 19, 2018 11:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem, JO, is that there's no way to to force people to vote with the good of the nation in mind, over the interests of their party - especially when they "belong" to that party.



A perfect example of this will be G admitting that he's very happy with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez having outsted a long term Democrat and taking over that spot even though she's a Communist that calls herself a "Democratic Socialist". In his own words:

Quote:

I'm very happy - she's a quality human from everything I can see.



I found it very funny that she was tweeting that she didn't have money for apartment rent before she started getting those big government bucks.

Quote:

My friend the Communist, hold meetings in his office. I can't afford his gas, so I'm stuck here watching TV. ~Sheryl Crow


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:22 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Still thinking ...

I think people would self-identify as belonging to a particular party, even if the people don't get a party tag and even if the politicians don't get one either. Look at sports. There are a bazillion teams in any one sport. Most people identify with teams based on something as meaningless as being in the same city, or at least geographic area. Even when teams move people break and make those bonds with the old team moving out and the new team moving in, or even when team members change, and even if not one single team member comes from the locale they're based in. Somehow the team de jour is 'my team' and the teams elsewhere are the bad other teams. I think brand loyalty might be another example of how people attach themselves to meaningless distinctions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2018 4:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, people would still identify with parties, but just think of all the things that COULDN'T happen if politicians and voters and political parties were separated:

1) There wouldn't be any party primaries. Why do we even have "primaries" anyway? Why do we have party conventions? What is all the hoopla about? It's not REALLY part of the voting process; isn't it just for the two major parties to winnow their own candidates? Can't we just skip the whole "party" business and winnow the candidates to the top 5 (10?) by general vote, and then hold a final vote (basically a runoff) in November?

2) IF the voters weren't registered with any "party" it would be IMPOSSIBLE to gerrymander on the basis of "party" because the voter rolls wouldn't indicate "party".

4) It would also be a lot more difficult to skew polling results because the pollsters wouldn't be able to select their sample based on "party"

5) Without referencing "party", the House and Senate would have to find a whole new way of choosing committee members and committee chairs. It would rob the GOP and Dem hierarchy of its ability to reward or punish party members with committees and chairs. Of course I'm sure there would still be factions in Congress, but I believe that they'd be a lot more fluid and responsive to the issues.

6) The only way that political parties could still influence either the popular vote or Congressional votes would be via contributions, logistical help, or endorsement of specific candidates, But without that "team jersey" even an officially-endorsed candidate would be less beholden to the party because (1) they would be less-identified by the public as "belonging" to a specific party and (2) the difficulty of rewarding a specific politician with committee membership in a more-dynamic Congress.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2018 7:55 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, people would still identify with parties, but just think of all the things that COULDN'T happen if politicians and voters and political parties were separated:

1) There wouldn't be any party primaries. Why do we even have "primaries" anyway? Why do we have party conventions? What is all the hoopla about? It's not REALLY part of the voting process; isn't it just for the two major parties to winnow their own candidates? Can't we just skip the whole "party" business and winnow the candidates to the top 5 (10?) by general vote, and then hold a final vote (basically a runoff) in November?

2) IF the voters weren't registered with any "party" it would be IMPOSSIBLE to gerrymander on the basis of "party" because the voter rolls wouldn't indicate "party".

4) It would also be a lot more difficult to skew polling results because the pollsters wouldn't be able to select their sample based on "party"

5) Without referencing "party", the House and Senate would have to find a whole new way of choosing committee members and committee chairs. It would rob the GOP and Dem hierarchy of its ability to reward or punish party members with committees and chairs. Of course I'm sure there would still be factions in Congress, but I believe that they'd be a lot more fluid and responsive to the issues.

6) The only way that political parties could still influence either the popular vote or Congressional votes would be via contributions, logistical help, or endorsement of specific candidates, But without that "team jersey" even an officially-endorsed candidate would be less beholden to the party because (1) they would be less-identified by the public as "belonging" to a specific party and (2) the difficulty of rewarding a specific politician with committee membership in a more-dynamic Congress.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876





Since there is a presedence of shooting down attempts to get rid of primaries (I believe California is one of the states that have done so), I'm taking up a new tactic in the future.

I've never voted in a primary before because they record what party you vote for. I'm only going to vote in Democratic primaries in the future. This way I show up on idiots phone apps as "one of the good guys", and I will also be voting for the most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance. There's no laws saying you can't do that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Since there is a presedence of shooting down attempts to get rid of primaries (I believe California is one of the states that have done so), I'm taking up a new tactic in the future.

I've never voted in a primary before because they record what party you vote for. I'm only going to vote in Democratic primaries in the future. This way I show up on idiots phone apps as "one of the good guys", and I will also be voting for the most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance. There's no laws saying you can't do that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:30 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.



lol. I don't believe that you believe this.


However, I do believe this is how New York got Ocasio-Cortez. Good point. Maybe this isn't a good plan. Some people will vote "D" in the general, no matter who's running, no matter how bad the outcome is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.


lol. I don't believe that you believe this.


However, I do believe this is how New York got Ocasio-Cortez. Good point. Maybe this isn't a good plan. Some people will vote "D" in the general, no matter who's running, no matter how bad the outcome is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If you jot down the prior candidates, you can safely write-in for every race.
I only had 2 write-ins this month.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 22, 2018 4:28 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The most incompetent Democrat on the ticket that wouldn't stand a chance is how we got Clinton and Obama.


lol. I don't believe that you believe this.


However, I do believe this is how New York got Ocasio-Cortez. Good point. Maybe this isn't a good plan. Some people will vote "D" in the general, no matter who's running, no matter how bad the outcome is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If you jot down the prior candidates, you can safely write-in for every race.
I only had 2 write-ins this month.




Yeah. My voting style has evolved over the years, but there's always room for improvement.

For any judges, or local things like school board stuff I just voted against the incumbent when possible, or if they didn't have any opposition I didn't vote.

Any state position that had a libertarian candidate I voted for them, otherwise I didn't vote.

I voted Republican for US Senate and House.

It was a good call for the Senate seat. A wasted opportunity to write in or vote Libertarian on the House though. There was absolutely no way that the Republican was going to win with Gary's "Vote Democrat November 6th" signs everywhere.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 22, 2018 6:28 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There wouldn't be committees under the control of a specific party. There's be no such thing as a Committee Chair (of the in-power party) and the Ranking Member (of the out-of-power party). HOW they'd decide committee chairs and membership would be a whole 'nother story, but it wouldn't be automatic on the basis of party.



Thats wun uv the main thingz bugging me. That the GoPs were able to suppress the Russia investigation kuz Nunes wuz the committee chair. There are many storyz to be found about committee memberz having no qualificationz at all, if not outrite DISqualificationz (such az Nunes) for the subject uv the committeee.

Quote:

There wouldn't be a House Speaker or Senate Majority leader based on party membership either. Maybe these positions would have to be filled by a vote of the whole House and the whole Senate, not just some internal dogfight within a party leadership.


Definitely!


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:04 PM

BRENDA


In Canada on the Federal level you have Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, the Bloc, Greens and a few independents.

But even in parliamentary system like we have in Canada we can get what is called a minority government. That means that none of the major parties got enough seats in Parliament to form a government. So we have had Liberal/Conservative or Conservative/NDP. At the outset this seems okay but these kinds of coalitions can fall because neither party wants to give in certain areas. Then you are sending the public back to the polls.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL