Human Rights Campaign: Fighting hard for the Democratic Party

[Smoke]

... but not for gay folks.

Yet another instance of HRC doublespeak and kissassery.

Pam's House Blend:: HRC kisses WH posterior, attacks SU's Nicholson for DADT challenge to Valerie Jarrett

 

[Sunstone]

The two party system is evil. We need multiple viable parties so that more people actually get represented.

 

[Revoltingest]

The two party system is evil. We need multiple viable parties so that more people actually get represented.

Be careful what you wish for.
You might see Libertarians with wrecking bars in DC.
Although you'd also see more soldiers in gay bars in DC.

 

[dust1n]

Be careful what you wish for.
You might see Libertarians with wrecking bars in DC.
Although you'd also see more soldiers in gay bars in DC.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The two party system is evil. We need multiple viable parties so that more people actually get represented.

Well-said. The question is how to get there.

However, a two-party state is certainly better than a one-party state!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hmmmm, let me do the math here. Lets say we had 5 parties with equal followings.

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

 

[Gunfingers]

Hmmmm, let me do the math here. Lets say we had 5 parties with equal followings.

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

A leader with 21% of the vote has little popular support.

That leader will lack the political clout to accomplish much.

By extension, the government will accomplish little.

Most of the governments major activities are bad anyway.

So yes, i like a fairly unpopular leader.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hmmmm, let me do the math here. Lets say we had 5 parties with equal followings.

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

A leader with 21% of the vote has little popular support.

That leader will lack the political clout to accomplish much.

By extension, the government will accomplish little.

Most of the governments major activities are bad anyway.

So yes, i like a fairly unpopular leader.

That depends on which elected branch of government you're referring to--the legislative or the executive. Personally, I love the idea of having a Congress with a dozen or more parties fairly well represented. Hell if we were able just to get to three, or especially five, it'd be a fine start. I think this would be a lot easier to accomplish if we had proportional representation as opposed to the current system of plurality (winner-takes-all) representation.

I want to caution against this attitude of "government is always corrupt," however. If that were really true, then what's the point of complaining about government in the first place? Wouldn't we simply need to suck it up and deal with it?

 

[Gunfingers]

I want to caution against this attitude of "government is always corrupt," however. If that were really true, then what's the point of complaining about government in the first place? Wouldn't we simply need to suck it up and deal with it?

Allow me to explain.

The government is always corrupt. Corporations are always corrupt. Charities are always corrupt. Human rights organizations are always corrupt. Grassroots movements are always corrupt. This is true because individuals are always corrupt.
Human beings are selfish, amoral scumbags, the whole lot of you. Us. I mean us. You...*ahem*...we will always look out for our own best interest in every case.

The only reason we've been able to function as a society is because we constantly work against each other.

 

[Smoke]

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

Depends on who the 21% are.

But Obama's in fact got 53% of the popular vote, and his approval ratings are right around where Reagan and Clinton's were at this point in their administrations.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Allow me to explain.

The government is always corrupt. Corporations are always corrupt. Charities are always corrupt. Human rights organizations are always corrupt. Grassroots movements are always corrupt. This is true because individuals are always corrupt.
Human beings are selfish, amoral scumbags, the whole lot of you. Us. I mean us. You...*ahem*...we will always look out for our own best interest in every case.

Then what's the point of trying to improve?

The only reason we've been able to function as a society is because we constantly work against each other.

I strongly disagree. Societies of people or animals that work in cooperation achieve far greater success than those that are divided against themselves.

 

[Panda]

Hmmmm, let me do the math here. Lets say we had 5 parties with equal followings.

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

Multiple parties seems to work fine over here.

 

[Magic Man]

Multiple parties seems to work fine over here.

Oh, be quiet, you socialist!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmmm, let me do the math here. Lets say we had 5 parties with equal followings.

Is anyone saying they want to be represented by a leader with 21% of the vote?

It's better than being represented by a leader with 14% of the vote.

I think the real problem would be what's cropped up in Canada lately: when you have a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system based on electoral districts, it's a lot easier for a new third party to develop from a small regional basis.

If a new third party emerges in US politics, it's much more likely to be some sort of Texas Independence Party than it is to be a party with a wide, scattered (but larger) base of support like the Greens.

FPTP disproportionately favours parties that are strongly regional. Look at Canada: many times over the past few decades, our official oppositions have been either the Bloc Quebecois (a separatist party that doesn't run candidates outside Quebec) or the Reform Party (a right-wing party with its support base mostly in Alberta). The regional parties don't get quite enough seats to actually form a government, but they get a disproportionately large voice... large enough to often play the role of "spoiler", especially in a minority government situation.

 

[Gunfingers]

Then what's the point of trying to improve?

The fact that a situation sucks does not me that it cannot get better

I strongly disagree. Societies of people or animals that work in cooperation achieve far greater success than those that are divided against themselves.

The society i'm describing is not hypothetical, nor is it unique. It's every community that has ever existed, at least once it gets large enough for there to be a "them".

 

[Requia]

Well-said. The question is how to get there.

However, a two-party state is certainly better than a one-party state!

Apparently the dominant theory in political science is that you can't avoid two party systems unless you ditch first past the post or mandate no party can control more than x% of positions.

 

[Panda]

Apparently the dominant theory in political science is that you can't avoid two party systems unless you ditch first past the post or mandate no party can control more than x% of positions.

UK has FPTP and more than two parties. Political theory seems a bit off there.

 

[Tarheeler]

Depends on who the 21% are.

But Obama's in fact got 53% of the popular vote, and his approval ratings are right around where Reagan and Clinton's were at this point in their administrations.

And in keeping with low percentages, Obama's 53% of the popular vote only equates to 21.6% of the population thanks to our dismal voter turnout.

I would really like to see a proportional system developed that would be compatible with our form of government.

 

[Smoke]

And in keeping with low percentages, Obama's 53% of the popular vote only equates to 21.6% of the population thanks to our dismal voter turnout.

He still has approval ratings that are more than double that. Rick is attempting a little sleight of hand. He wants us to think that if only a fifth of people consider themselves liberals, it means only a fifth approve of Obama's performance, and that's demonstrably not true. Although why they approve isn't something I really understand, unless they're just still relieved he's not Bush.

I would really like to see a proportional system developed that would be compatible with our form of government.

So would I.

 

[Tarheeler]

He still has approval ratings that are more than double that. Rick is attempting a little sleight of hand. He wants us to think that if only a fifth of people consider themselves liberals, it means only a fifth approve of Obama's performance, and that's demonstrably not true. Although why they approve isn't something I really understand, unless they're just still relieved he's not Bush.


So would I.

I didn't read any of that into Rick's post though. If there are 5 parties, then the winning party could be victorious by only 1% of the vote which would make the total 21% of the ballots cast.

As far as approval ratings, they can be useful for looking at long term trends. For the short term, however, they vary greatly depending on who is doing the polling, how it's being done, and who is polled. Popular opinion can swing drastically and isn't always anchored to political situations.

Rasmussen's reporting that 28% strongly approve of Obama while 43% strongly disapprove.

If a guy has just been denied approval for a controversial medical treatment, he is likely to say he isn't happy with Obama even thought the decision had nothing to do with policy. I've spent the last 2 months working for local political campaigns, and I see it everyday. The main candidate I'm volunteering for is a democrat, and the people we're talking to are overwhelming democrats (go figure, huh?); I've ran across many who say they're either not voting or voting republican because they're "not happy with Obama". Ask them why, and they can't give a solid answer; they just describe how they are worse off than they were under Bush.

It's exactly the same situation as republicans supporting the Tea Party; they aren't happy and the sitting officials are bearing the brunt of it.