The Menace of Populist Authoritarianism

[boyst]

10 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

In order to have a multi-party system, every state would have to fundamentally re-write their electoral process.

 

We have a system of single member district plurality (with some requiring a majority following a run-off). You can't just get 50 states to completely change how elections are done, disregarding 230ish years of history. Amending the Constitution to force the issue isn't going to work either.

You'd think this would be obvious

 

Why would South Carolina want to re-write their electoral process to cater to a niche party or out of state interest?

 

Why would Rhode Island need its own party for socialism when they can run as a Democrat?  The Democrat in Iowa and Manhattan share almost no beliefs until served up on a national level where pressure causes there to be no individualism.

 

We already have countless parties.  What good is The Conservative Labor party going to make that the Green Party isn't?  What good is any of that?  There are reasons for some of these laws and if we only obeyed them correctly we would actually have a much better and less corrupt government.

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

In order to have a multi-party system, every state would have to fundamentally re-write their electoral process.

 

We have a system of single member district plurality (with some requiring a majority following a run-off). You can't just get 50 states to completely change how elections are done, disregarding 230ish years of history. Amending the Constitution to force the issue isn't going to work either.

  Still have not explained how having more parties will cause more gridlock than what we have today.  Politicians still have to reach out to other politicians that are not lock-in-step with them on major issues to get things done.  Nobody is talking about altering Constitutional provisions in regards to how Congress operates.  Why should elections in a given district be re-written by the state?  I have never implied or stated that a minor party should be given support by the state in order to survive.  As I said at the beginning the support should come from major financial players playing within the campaign donation rules.  As it stands today the major donors are firmly in the D or R camp.  It's going to take younger money that is willing to wait 20-25 years for a minor party to produce serious political fruit.  As it stands today most people do not achieve their wealth before their 50's and expect to be gone sometime in their 70's.  This is why most do not support minor parties as they want to see any benefits from their money to happen within their expected lifetime.

[boyst]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Still have not explained how having more parties will cause more gridlock than what we have today.  Politicians still have to reach out to other politicians that are not lock-in-step with them on major issues to get things done.  Nobody is talking about altering Constitutional provisions in regards to how Congress operates.  Why should elections in a given district be re-written by the state?  I have never implied or stated that a minor party should be given support by the state in order to survive.  As I said at the beginning the support should come from major financial players playing within the campaign donation rules.  As it stands today the major donors are firmly in the D or R camp.  It's going to take younger money that is willing to wait 20-25 years for a minor party to produce serious political fruit.  As it stands today most people do not achieve their wealth before their 50's and expect to be gone sometime in their 70's.  This is why most do not support minor parties as they want to see any benefits from their money to happen within their expected lifetime.

You really need to learn history and global politics. 

 

Part of the reason the EU and the authorization of the region happened was because of the weaknesses caused by the many factions of political parties.  

 

Go back in history, too.  It's never kind. 

[RochesterRob]

10 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

You'd think this would be obvious

 

Why would South Carolina want to re-write their electoral process to cater to a niche party or out of state interest?

 

Why would Rhode Island need its own party for socialism when they can run as a Democrat?  The Democrat in Iowa and Manhattan share almost no beliefs until served up on a national level where pressure causes there to be no individualism.

 

We already have countless parties.  What good is The Conservative Labor party going to make that the Green Party isn't?  What good is any of that?  There are reasons for some of these laws and if we only obeyed them correctly we would actually have a much better and less corrupt government.

  Who the F said states had to provide political support for small parties to exist?  I surely have not said that or implied it.  I will say that it will be up to contributors who have money and are fed up with what the D's and R's are doing.  Now if a state has a law that says a congressional candidate has to have 25,000 signatures on a petition to be on a ballot then that should be changed.

[boyst]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Who the F said states had to provide political support for small parties to exist?  I surely have not said that or implied it.  I will say that it will be up to contributors who have money and are fed up with what the D's and R's are doing.  Now if a state has a law that says a congressional candidate has to have 25,000 signatures on a petition to be on a ballot then that should be changed.

The states Constitution said it.  And then... Drum roll...

 

I stopped reading. You're obtuse.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

The states Constitution said it.  And then... Drum roll...

 

I stopped reading. You're obtuse.

  You do know that in quite a few instances that a given state's constitution can be amended?  

 

20 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

You'd think this would be obvious

 

Why would South Carolina want to re-write their electoral process to cater to a niche party or out of state interest?

 

Why would Rhode Island need its own party for socialism when they can run as a Democrat?  The Democrat in Iowa and Manhattan share almost no beliefs until served up on a national level where pressure causes there to be no individualism.

 

We already have countless parties.  What good is The Conservative Labor party going to make that the Green Party isn't?  What good is any of that?  There are reasons for some of these laws and if we only obeyed them correctly we would actually have a much better and less corrupt government.

  And snuffing out the individualism once a rep hits DC is the problem.  So if you are true to a certain set of beliefs and the major parties do not reflect them then why bother joining if none of your ideas have any chances of getting discussed on the floor of Congress?  Might as well sit at home and send E-mails to publications that reflect your views.

[boyst]

I'm not going to bother engaging you because you are not worthy. 

[RochesterRob]

   

3 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

This is a complete post of jibberish displaying no level of critical thinking on foresight.

 

6 parties would do what was done to Europe. A small minority fringe party would cripple the US similar to the Tea Party, Freedom Cockus, or Socialist/Col. Sanders do with their threats to shut down government and disrupt the Republic.

  By the way the Tea Party is not its own party but a branch of the Republican Party so your example is not apt.  The same with Bernie Bro's or whatever you want to call them.  If a handful of third party reps get in and fail because they failed to work with the large blocks then they would be rightly voted out if their prior supporters so chose in the next election.  Nobody is calling for any party to have a permanent seat at the table for the sake of doing so.

Edited December 11, 2018 by RochesterRob

[boyst]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  By the way you know that you are in trouble if Tiberius gives you a thumbs up.  Tiberius should know that his boss Soros' grand vision will never be enacted the way things are in DC at the present.  Soros' best chance at disrupting the 

  By the way the Tea Party is not its own party but a branch of the Republican Party so your example is not apt.  The same with Bernie Bro's or whatever you want to call them.  If a handful of third party reps get in and fail because they failed to work with the large blocks then they would be rightly voted out if their prior supporters so chose in the next election.  Nobody is calling for any party to have a permanent seat at the table for the sake of doing so.

Again, you're an idiot so I won't bother replying.  

[Warren Zevon]

If there were 6 equally represented parties, how could one win the 270 electoral votes needed to be president without being chosen by the House of Representatives?

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  You do know that in quite a few instances that a given state's constitution can be amended?  

 

  And snuffing out the individualism once a rep hits DC is the problem.  So if you are true to a certain set of beliefs and the major parties do not reflect them then why bother joining if none of your ideas have any chances of getting discussed on the floor of Congress?  Might as well sit at home and send E-mails to publications that reflect your views.

I don't have the time to write a dissertation on this but I would suggest you read up on coalition governments, which your proposal would surely bring about. Focus on the many compromises that would be required to effectively govern under this type of system.  Remember, compromise is not always a good thing.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, peace out said:

If there were 6 equally represented parties, how could one win the 270 electoral votes needed to be president without being chosen by the House of Representatives?

  For Pete's sake follow the discussion if you can.  Not one person said that there should 6 equally represented parties in Congress by law.  The 6 parties is purely hypothetical in its existence never mind how it would be in operation.  In THEORY with 270 electoral votes required would mean in a situation where there would be more than two parties viable on the Congressional level many voters would have to support a candidate outside of that party presumably a Democrat or Republican on the Presidential level.

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

   

  By the way the Tea Party is not its own party but a branch of the Republican Party so your example is not apt.  The same with Bernie Bro's or whatever you want to call them.  If a handful of third party reps get in and fail because they failed to work with the large blocks then they would be rightly voted out if their prior supporters so chose in the next election.  Nobody is calling for any party to have a permanent seat at the table for the sake of doing so.

There is no Tea Party. It is a bunch of Tea Parties that are conservative in nature and take no stance on religious or social issues.

2 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  For Pete's sake follow the discussion if you can.  Not one person said that there should 6 equally represented parties in Congress by law.  The 6 parties is purely hypothetical in its existence never mind how it would be in operation.  In THEORY with 270 electoral votes required would mean in a situation where there would be more than two parties viable on the Congressional level many voters would have to support a candidate outside of that party presumably a Democrat or Republican on the Presidential level.

It's probably best not to respond to that idiot. He gets his ass handed to him so often that he feels he needs to slink away and come back with another screen name.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

There is no Tea Party. It is a bunch of Tea Parties that are conservative in nature and take no stance on religious or social issues.

  I just said that the Tea Party is in fact not its own party.  Not sure what direction you are trying to go in responding to me.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  I just said that the Tea Party is in fact not its own party.  Not sure what direction you are trying to go in responding to me.

I'm not trying to go in any specific direction but just responding to your posts. The Tea Parties are not a branch of the Republican Party.

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, peace out said:

If there were 6 equally represented parties, how could one win the 270 electoral votes needed to be president without being chosen by the House of Representatives?

 

An alternative choice electoral system rather than first-past-the-post.

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm not trying to go in any specific direction but just responding to your posts. The Tea Parties are not a branch of the Republican Party.

  Not a sanctioned branch of the Republican Party and did not intend to imply that they were.  In the world of sets and subsets a Tea Party person would belong to the Republican Party but a Republican would not necessarily subscribe to the Tea Party and quite a few did not.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Not a sanctioned branch of the Republican Party and did not intend to imply that they were.  In the world of sets and subsets a Tea Party person would belong to the Republican Party but a Republican would not necessarily subscribe to the Tea Party and quite a few did not.

I agree. They're sort of like the Freedom Caucus.

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

An alternative choice electoral system rather than first-past-the-post.

  That would require a change in the Constitution which I do not see coming any time soon and do not see the need for a change.  

[KD in CA]

23 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Liberals are generally more educated, tolerant and in possession of human capital than Conservatives. Why wouldn't you want the betters to vote? 

 

Agree 100%.  So from now on only those who graduated high school and pay taxes should be allowed to vote, correct?