[besson3c]

Jesse Ventura and Howard Stern are apparently going to run together for the next presidential election as independents. The whole independent thing has obviously been tried in the past, but this time around perhaps it stands a slightly greater chance given the state of politics in America, and the fact that the FCC doesn't regulate Sirius Satellite Radio which Stern controls. Neither Ventura nor Stern think that they will win, but they do believe they could really shake things up, and right now I can see their involvement as more than a completely insignificant thing. If they have even a modicum of success, perhaps this will pave the way for some changes...

One position Ventura has been really preaching lately is abolishing political parties altogether, starting with the names on the ballots being the names of the individuals rather than the parties they belong to. I think there is some merit to this idea. He supports political action committees, but he believes that tearing down the parties would be something to eliminate two political gangs competing against each other driven by bribery, as he would put it, and by having just the names of the people on the ballots people would have to do some research rather than just punching straight tickets.

Doesn't politics in America seem like some sort of really bad relationship, where the more stuff you say and do to try to deal with the mess the worst things get? It almost seems like some sort of clean slate would be a good idea.

Are political parties necessary? Helpful? Repairable?

I don't really have any strong opinions either way, this is just an open question...

[subego]

Something tells me we need more than a publicity stunt.

[andi*pandi]

I could appreciate them running as a protest to the party system, but despite his popularity not sure I'd vote for such a vain blowhard as Howard Stern.

Would it save a whole lot of effort if we reverted to the original method of electing president, top votes gets president, second votes gets Veep?

[ghporter]

Listing the names of candidates first, and eliminating the potential for using a single selection to choose all the candidates from a specific party (the "straight party ticket" option) would be a good start. It would make even the partisan die-hards have to think a little, particularly if the candidates' party affiliations were harder to locate on the ballot.

I am an independent voter, and I am careful about whom I select on a ballot. Here in Texas, it's possible to see a number of individuals running unopposed for various state offices; I NEVER vote for unopposed candidates. And if I don't have a real preference for a specific race, sometimes I don't vote in it, while other times I vote for "spoiler" candidates (a Green Party candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission - which has nothing to do with the railroads but everything to do with oil and utilities - was my choice a few years back for just that reason).

Instead of making it harder to vote, it should simply require more thought. Having to remember names of candidates might cut down on the hyper-devisiveness seen lately in most political diatribes discussions.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Instead of making it harder to vote, it should simply require more thought.

Heh, isn't that the same thing?

[The Final Dakar]

I'm fine with removing party affiliation on ballots, if in its place you provide information on the candidates position on relevant topics. Hell, I think Democracy would get a shot in the arm if when people went into the booth there was a guide listing each candidates stance on the topics.

[shifuimam]

Also, states shouldn't be allowed to require voters to declare a political party when they register to vote. Indiana does, and it's bullshit.

If you're a registered Democrat, you are flat-out not allowed to vote for any non-Democrat candidate during the presidential primaries. Same for Republicans.

I'm pushing hard to get people in VA to vote for Robert Sarvis. He's far more middle-of-the-road than both the GOP and DNC candidates, and he's a hell of a lot more sane. Unfortunately, because he's on a Libertarian ticket, people are less likely to vote for him out of "principle".

[subego]

Something seems off here... you can't switch parties?

[The Final Dakar]

I think she's complaining about closed primaries.

[subego]

Isn't that how it works in most places?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't that how it works in most places?

I'm not sure I follow your point.

[subego]

It's not specifically an "Indiana" issue.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not specifically an "Indiana" issue.

Define most. I can't find solid numbers but I just counted 20 states with open primaries.

[subego]

Ummm... 51%?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ummm... 51%?

That's not most, just a majority. I think people would take issue if you "most people voted for Obama in 2012".

Heading this off at the pass, there's a difference between 'most' and 'the most'.

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think she's complaining about closed primaries.

I think people in USA should be satisfied since they have a chance to vote, some places don't get to vote at all, and there is only one political party, independents doesn't exist at all

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by laughingbunny 

I think people in USA should be satisfied since they have a chance to vote, some places don't get to vote at all, and there is only one political party, independents doesn't exist at all

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

=__=lll .....yes?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's not most, just a majority. I think people would take issue if you "most people voted for Obama in 2012".

Heading this off at the pass, there's a difference between 'most' and 'the most'.

Let me put it this way, I don't see much of a difference between having to make the choice the day of the election, and making it a few days before. I can still only vote in one party's primary.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let me put it this way, I don't see much of a difference between having to make the choice the day of the election, and making it a few days before. I can still only vote in one party's primary.

You've lost me. What happens a few days before?

[subego]

Maybe I've lost some of the subtleties here, but an open primary is where you walk in and pick which primary you want to participate in.

In a closed primary, you have to vote in the primary of the party to which you belong, but AFAIK, there's nothing stopping you from changing parties at some point before the actual primary.

I don't see a huge difference.

[The Final Dakar]

You don't see having to constantly change your party affiliation to vote as a problem?

You know in PA I'm not allowed to vote in primaries because I have no-affiliation.

I think I've heard of this system being used on some local races, but they should pool all the candidates into a big primary and top two should go to the general. It'd certainly eliminate those crazy ass (surprise!) voters who think voters from the opposite party will somehow vote their weakest candidate in during open primaries.

[subego]

Serious question:

If you don't belong to a party, why should you get to vote in their primary?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Serious question:

If you don't belong to a party, why should you get to vote in their primary?

Because I'm interested in one of their candidates? You make it sound like crossing a party line never happens.

[Laminar]

How would you account for voters from the "other" party coming in and supporting their weakest potential opposition?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

How would you account for voters from the "other" party coming in and supporting their weakest potential opposition?

20 states have open primaries. Wouldn't it have come up by now if it was a real problem?

A. I don't think this that likely. Yes, primary voters are crazy so its more likely than it should be, the but the hilarious part is if this actually happened wouldn't both sides screw themselves over (i.e. Dems voting in the R primarys, Repubs voting in D primary)?

Do you think this would happen to in any meaningful way? (And yes, I seem to recall Rush encouraging this a few years back)


B.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think I've heard of this system being used on some local races, but they should pool all the candidates into a big primary and top two should go to the general. It'd certainly eliminate those crazy ass (surprise!) voters who think voters from the opposite party will somehow vote their weakest candidate in during open primaries.

[Laminar]

How about a voting system where you can pick your top two or three candidates? You can pick an "independent" candidate as your top because that's who you really want to vote for, then you can pick a "main party" candidate as your second, so that you feel that your vote doesn't go to waste.

Or in a country that can barely handle voting for a single president, would ranking be much too difficult? No Voter Left Behind.

[The Final Dakar]

Runoff voting?

[subego]

@Dakar,

Where do you get the idea I think no one crosses the lines?

We're both talking about crossing the lines, the question is procedure and deadline.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Dakar,

Where do you get the idea I think no one crosses the lines?

We're both talking about crossing the lines, the question is procedure and deadline.

Your questions project a rigid sacrosact view of party lines:

Why should you get to vote in their primary?

Isn't the important part the vote, not the party identification?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's why we never get new people around here, you know.

Welcome laughingbunny person! Feel free to be snarky, if the mood strikes you. Most of the people here are okay, they just don't eat enough fiber.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Your questions project a rigid sacrosact view of party lines:

Isn't the important part the vote, not the party identification?

For a general election? Sure.

For a party's primary? The party identification defines what it is.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Define most. I can't find solid numbers but I just counted 20 states with open primaries.

In order to vote in a primary in Texas, you have to declare a party affiliation. You don't have to "prove membership" membership in that party, just say "I want to vote in the X primary" and they stamp your voter registration card with the appropriate party name, which you can do AT the polling place, and you can change affiliations for the next primary. Texas does not require any other mention of affiliation in voter registration. (Surprisingly, the "republican" state government hasn't managed to pervert that yet.)

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why we never get new people around here, you know.

Welcome laughingbunny person! Feel free to be snarky, if the mood strikes you. Most of the people here are okay, they just don't eat enough fiber.

Thanks! This is my first time on a English forum, I'm so excited, my English is not very good, so if I have any grammar mistake or my sentence is weird please let me know. (so far I feel it's not too bad, I check my spelling too)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

For a general election? Sure.

For a party's primary? The party identification defines what it is.

So what's your opinion of states with open primaries? Are they missing the point?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In order to vote in a primary in Texas, you have to declare a party affiliation. You don't have to "prove membership" membership in that party, just say "I want to vote in the X primary" and they stamp your voter registration card with the appropriate party name, which you can do AT the polling place, and you can change affiliations for the next primary. Texas does not require any other mention of affiliation in voter registration. (Surprisingly, the "republican" state government hasn't managed to pervert that yet.)

That's a disturbingly good system.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why we never get new people around here, you know.

His argument was basically I shouldn't complain about having food because people are starving. I'm not going to feel bad because I'm looking for ways to improve our political system when other countries have none.

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

His argument was basically I shouldn't complain about having food because people are starving. I'm not going to feel bad because I'm looking for ways to improve our political system when other countries have none.

Oh, I see, so my sentence are ok. hum... I guess it's normal to complain about it in some places, it's just amusing to see people complain about abolishing political parties because the forums I went on people are still arguing about wither it's good to have the freedom to choose political parties (some people think it's a waste of energy to vote...)

[laughingbunny]

...did I just sound offensive again?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by laughingbunny 

Oh, I see, so my sentence are ok. hum... I guess it's normal to complain about it in some places, it's just amusing to see people complain about abolishing political parties because the forums I went on people are still arguing about wither it's good to have the freedom to choose political parties

I didn't even say I wanted to abolish political parties.

Originally Posted by laughingbunny 

(some people think it's a waste of energy to vote...)

That's a problem everywhere.

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't even say I wanted to abolish political parties.


That's a problem everywhere.

True, I got lost in the development of the conversation

Yeah, especially in Asia

and your other post is quite humorous

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what's your opinion of states with open primaries? Are they missing the point?

If I was a party operative, I'd say yes.

Since I'm not, I sorta don't give a shit, but I'm sympathetic to the idea of "our dance, our rules".

Now, in a general election, it's a totally different ball of wax. That's not a party function, it's a state function.

[subego]

I think "function" was the term I was looking for.

A primary is a party function. This is the source of my rigid definition.

[The Final Dakar]

From wikipedia:

A primary election is an election that narrows the field of candidates before an election for office.

I see nothing about political parties there. (Yes it follows in the next sentence, but its not the core of the definition, is it?) I don't know the history of primaries, but isn't it possible that political parties highjacked the process to increase their influence and control?

Edit: It looks like this is what I'm proposing. DO you have a problem with this? Do you think this is better or worse than the current system?


Addressing the OP, I don't think political parties need to be abolished, but diminishing their influence over the electoral process would be helpful. I would think the NBP wold be a step in that direction. Until we find better or more reliable ways to quickly communicate or disseminate the general stances of a candidate, party identification will be a valuable metric by which people can quickly appraise a candidates stances and values.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

From wikipedia:


I see nothing about political parties there. (Yes it follows in the next sentence, but its not the core of the definition, is it?) I don't know the history of primaries, but isn't it possible that political parties highjacked the process to increase their influence and control?

Edit: It looks like this is what I'm proposing. DO you have a problem with this? Do you think this is better or worse than the current system?

I'll consider it (pressed for time at the moment), but I have a hard time buying you don't get that when you vote in the Democrat primary, or the Republican primary, the definition of primary isn't what's causing the rigidity.

[The Final Dakar]

See you Monday

[subego]

Not if I see you first!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not if I see you first!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Addressing the OP, I don't think political parties need to be abolished, but diminishing their influence over the electoral process would be helpful. I would think the NBP wold be a step in that direction. Until we find better or more reliable ways to quickly communicate or disseminate the general stances of a candidate, party identification will be a valuable metric by which people can quickly appraise a candidates stances and values.

What is the NBP, and do you think there is a downside to providing the electorate these sort of quick shortcuts?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a disturbingly good system.

It works well, despite the tendency for primaries to be participated in overwhelmingly by "true believers" of either party, rather than most voters. The bad thing about the system, which doesn't show in the basic "this is how primaries work in Texas" is that in almost all cases, the primary for the incumbent's party winds up being the election that actually decides the "general election." And booting incumbents, or electing someone to an open seat from a different party from its previous resident isn't particularly common in Texas.

Texas may hold a unique distinction: the home of the most flagrant election fraud ever seen in U.S. politics (like the infamous "box 13" which saw LBJ elected to the Senate), and the most flagrant and widespread efforts at voter suppression imaginable, including our voter ID law, the tortuously gerrymandering of Congressional districts, etc., both of which having been challenged in Federal court for their impacts on inclusive voting...

[subego]

We have the same system in Chicago, and an extreme example of what you're talking about with the primary turning into the general.

If I don't vote in the Democratic primary, I have lost all say in local politics. You can maybe get elected here as a Republican if you run for county sheriff, or county treasurer. That's it. Every other position is filled by who wins the Democratic primary. Half the time they run uncontested in the general.

The problem here is I ain't a Democrat.