(07-24-2018 01:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, I tend to believe the country would be better off with more than two parties, but don't believe we are going to see it in the foreseeable future.

The two current parties have sufficiently rigged the system to make any group leaving so devoid of money and clout to pose much of a threat.

Unless you want to adopt a parliamentary system, there will never be more than two viable parties except for historic hiccups.

(07-24-2018 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 01:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, I tend to believe the country would be better off with more than two parties, but don't believe we are going to see it in the foreseeable future.

The two current parties have sufficiently rigged the system to make any group leaving so devoid of money and clout to pose much of a threat.

Unless you want to adopt a parliamentary system, there will never be more than two viable parties except for historic hiccups.

You may be correct, but the two parties in power right now have set the system up and passed enough laws to make it extremely difficult for any other "players in the game".

Face it, it takes a ton of people and money to approach any relevance on a national scale.

The parliamentary system on its face seems to allow for more players, but I really don't see those governments as being any more effective than ours...........I guess the nature of any government is to be inefficient, ineffective and prone to graft....

(07-24-2018 02:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 01:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, I tend to believe the country would be better off with more than two parties, but don't believe we are going to see it in the foreseeable future.

The two current parties have sufficiently rigged the system to make any group leaving so devoid of money and clout to pose much of a threat.

Unless you want to adopt a parliamentary system, there will never be more than two viable parties except for historic hiccups.

You may be correct, but the two parties in power right now have set the system up and passed enough laws to make it extremely difficult for any other "players in the game".

Face it, it takes a ton of people and money to approach any relevance on a national scale.

The parliamentary system on its face seems to allow for more players, but I really don't see those governments as being any more effective than ours...........I guess the nature of any government is to be inefficient, ineffective and prone to graft....

With multiple parties and a balanced electorate, you are most subject to the extremists. Israel is a prime example and the outsized influence of every religious splinter party. Beyond 4 parties and you just get a mess-bureaucratic inertia or rule by tiny minorities.

(07-24-2018 02:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 01:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, I tend to believe the country would be better off with more than two parties, but don't believe we are going to see it in the foreseeable future.

The two current parties have sufficiently rigged the system to make any group leaving so devoid of money and clout to pose much of a threat.

Unless you want to adopt a parliamentary system, there will never be more than two viable parties except for historic hiccups.

You may be correct, but the two parties in power right now have set the system up and passed enough laws to make it extremely difficult for any other "players in the game".

Face it, it takes a ton of people and money to approach any relevance on a national scale.

The parliamentary system on its face seems to allow for more players, but I really don't see those governments as being any more effective than ours...........I guess the nature of any government is to be inefficient, ineffective and prone to graft....

Didn't say anything about efficient.

The only benefits I would tender that the model offers would be:
1. When corruption or scandal is exposed, the governing coalition almost always collapses requiring new elections.
2. The variety of parties permits voters to cast a ballot for a party that more closely reflects their views and values, then if you vote for an also-ran party they may be needed to form a governing coalition and can hammer out essentially ironclad concessions (if you don't get the concessions you pull out of the coalition forcing new elections).

Belgium once went something like two years unable to form a governing coalition.

Whether it is a good or bad thing that little can be done when there is no national consensus is another debate, in general if there is no national consensus it can make our version of gridlock seem pretty easy to work with.

I’ve often thought of this too. Maybe we should have a coalition govt? Would a coalition govt. exacerbate the problem though? Making special interests King makers? I think we have two problems. Transparency and the corrupting influence of money in politics.

I think we had better choices when the party bosses picked the candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. Their number one concern was electability, so they would tend toward the middle. The parties were almost more social clubs than ideological entities. That has all changed with the primaries. Now the most extreme elements of each party dominate their respective primaries. I'm starting to think we need another model. I tend to like proportional representation, but that can lead to very fractured government. Maybe the jungle primary is the way to go. I would think that would tend to move things toward the center, since the losing candidates would probably tend to align more often with the less extreme candidate in the runoff, but it hasn't exactly worked that way in California. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm fairly certain what we have now isn't it.

I'm partial to IRV. With IRV the parties can go all over the map the ballot box will keep them firmly moored in reality.

(08-14-2018 01:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm partial to IRV. With IRV the parties can go all over the map the ballot box will keep them firmly moored in reality.

If you require the winner to have 50% +1 to win, then IRV would be a good choice.

In 2016 electoral votes for Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine (at-large), Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska (2nd District), Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin were all awarded without a majority.

That's nearly 30% of all electoral votes awarded based on achieving less than 50% support in a state.

Under Condorcet voting (if there are six candidates you rank 1-6 and first gets six votes, second gets 5 and so on). Vox calculated that Gary Johnson would have won in 2016 had there been a national Condorcet vote rather than by electoral college.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...oting-2016

I couldn't find the link on a quick search but there was a blog that went through the less than 50% electoral votes and allocated a large percentage of Stein votes to Clinton and a bit more than half of Johnson votes to Trump and most McMullin votes to Trump to allocate what an instant run off would have looked like and concluded Trump would have won by a handful of electoral votes.

Nerd stuff out of the way.

I'm with GTS on ranked choice instant run-off.

Living in Arkansas I knew there was no doubt about the outcome of our six electoral votes and I had no qualms voting my conscience voting for McMullin.

If I had been in Arizona or Utah where the polls were shakier I would have struggled with my decision. But if I had been in those states with Instant Run-off I would have put McMullin 1, Johnson 2, Castle 3 and then figured it out after that probably Trump but could have voted my preference without any strong worries.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37856.html

Editorial by a proponent of change, so you have to take it as propaganda, but there is some hard data in here.

"Fixated as they are (sometimes legitimately) on scandals, tweets, protest marches, Russia and rumors, the U.S. media are missing the growth of a movement that has the potential to be as momentous as turn-of-the-last-century progressivism, women’s suffrage or civil and gay rights.

It’s the political reform movement, grounded in the well-documented fact that American voters are fed up with the way the Democratic and Republican parties are failing to serve the public interest and address its chronic problems....


Polling this year shows that the Republican Party has an average favorability rating of 35 percent (up from 30 percent last year) and the Democratic Party, 37.6 (down from 39 in 2017).

Gallup’s most recent monthly survey shows that only 26 percent of voters identify as Republicans, 30 as Democrats and 41 percent as independents. Voters haven’t split evenly between categories since 2010.

Last year, Gallup found that 61 percent of voters think that a third major party is needed, the highest number ever, including 49 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of independents...."

(08-22-2018 10:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37856.html

Editorial by a proponent of change, so you have to take it as propaganda, but there is some hard data in here.

"Fixated as they are (sometimes legitimately) on scandals, tweets, protest marches, Russia and rumors, the U.S. media are missing the growth of a movement that has the potential to be as momentous as turn-of-the-last-century progressivism, women’s suffrage or civil and gay rights.

It’s the political reform movement, grounded in the well-documented fact that American voters are fed up with the way the Democratic and Republican parties are failing to serve the public interest and address its chronic problems....


Polling this year shows that the Republican Party has an average favorability rating of 35 percent (up from 30 percent last year) and the Democratic Party, 37.6 (down from 39 in 2017).

Gallup’s most recent monthly survey shows that only 26 percent of voters identify as Republicans, 30 as Democrats and 41 percent as independents. Voters haven’t split evenly between categories since 2010.

Last year, Gallup found that 61 percent of voters think that a third major party is needed, the highest number ever, including 49 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of independents...."

Third party won't happen. The structural system of US elections will always coalesce into two parties no matter what you do.

But people shift and slide between the parties when they get pissed.\

If the Democrats had any clue about marketing and messaging they'd run the current Republican party off the field like the GOP was an FCS Homecoming opponent.

Environment? Few people care whether or not the spotted owl exists. They don't like government land but they like land that the people own. Shut the hell up about saving some animal few people have ever seen and talk about how the blood of patriots bought much of the land and the people bought the rest and some fat cats want to take your land or use it below cost to get richer and steal from the people and boom you've got environment voters.

Single payer? Just keep pushing stories about a $30 drug costing $200 with insurance and the abuses and excesses. Talk about how private insurance makes it harder for American businesses to compete and gives them an incentive to move jobs to cheaper places.

Race and religion? Quit phrasing everything in the rights of the minority race, ethnicity, religion, and talk about those rights have to be protected for all Americans.

Drug abuse? Why did the need for treatment become less important as the crack epidemic faded into the meth epidemic and that into opioids? Why isn't the need to help the addicted a bigger issue now that it is rural America that has the higher addiction rate instead of urban America. Where the hell is the concern that farming is now one of the highest risk occupations for suicide? Democrats support programs that would be helpful but who the hell has seen a Democrat out talking to rural voters and farmers about those programs and how important those programs are for their neighbors in trouble?

They really really SUCK at messaging and think they can fart around and wait for demographic changes to win elections for them.

(08-22-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Third party won't happen. The structural system of US elections will always coalesce into two parties no matter what you do.
But people shift and slide between the parties when they get pissed.
If the Democrats had any clue about marketing and messaging they'd run the current Republican party off the field like the GOP was an FCS Homecoming opponent.
Environment? Few people care whether or not the spotted owl exists. They don't like government land but they like land that the people own. Shut the hell up about saving some animal few people have ever seen and talk about how the blood of patriots bought much of the land and the people bought the rest and some fat cats want to take your land or use it below cost to get richer and steal from the people and boom you've got environment voters.
Single payer? Just keep pushing stories about a $30 drug costing $200 with insurance and the abuses and excesses. Talk about how private insurance makes it harder for American businesses to compete and gives them an incentive to move jobs to cheaper places.
Race and religion? Quit phrasing everything in the rights of the minority race, ethnicity, religion, and talk about those rights have to be protected for all Americans.
Drug abuse? Why did the need for treatment become less important as the crack epidemic faded into the meth epidemic and that into opioids? Why isn't the need to help the addicted a bigger issue now that it is rural America that has the higher addiction rate instead of urban America. Where the hell is the concern that farming is now one of the highest risk occupations for suicide? Democrats support programs that would be helpful but who the hell has seen a Democrat out talking to rural voters and farmers about those programs and how important those programs are for their neighbors in trouble?
They really really SUCK at messaging and think they can fart around and wait for demographic changes to win elections for them.

It's more than a messaging issue. Both parties suck at it. Democrats are big at identifying problems, but their solution to every problem is expanding government power, which never works. And wen it doesn't work, expand it some more. Republicans are okay with big government for their own purposes, but their only answer to democrats is to deny the problems. How about some party (republicans, democrats, whoever) saying okay we have these problems, so let's find a solution that actually works.

Environment. Take a conservation approach instead of the current command-and-control approach. There are all sorts of economic incentives that can be put in place to influence behaviors toward conservation and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

Health Care. Yes, our current system has its problems. So do single-payer and single-provider systems. The one approach that performs best by addressing both universal care and solutions to wait times is Bismarck. So put together some adverts and other materials comparing the various approaches and pointing out why Bismarck works best.

Race and religion. Focus on protecting the rights of all Americans, as you note. The negative impact of the welfare plantation should be a gimme to document, but nobody seems able to do it, or to propose a fix. Remember that the 1st Amendment prohibits not only the establishment of a national religion, but also efforts to prevent the free exercise thereof. Support initiatives for the expression of all religions.

Drugs. Legalize or decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs, and tax them. Remove the prohibitions against hemp, which make no sense.

Both R's and D's seem to think that their bases win elections for them. It's not, it's the undecideds in the middle. You have your base, if you get a majority of the rest you win. So find ways to appeal to them.

It’s worth noting that the last time the two-party system got overturned, the catalyst-issue was slavery, and that was 160 years ago. As much as I like most of the libertarian-message, and as much as I dislike most of the current D/R-duopoly, I think we’re kidding ourselves if we really believe the issues of our time are going to create a new two-party system to replace the current one.

(08-22-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the Democrats had any clue about marketing and messaging they'd run the current Republican party off the field like the GOP was an FCS Homecoming opponent.

If only there were some people in the marketing/messaging industries — film/television, social media and professional “journalism” (so-called), advertising/publishing, the academic community, some areas of law/lobbying — that could help the poor Dems get their true message out to the people!!

(08-26-2018 06:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the Democrats had any clue about marketing and messaging they'd run the current Republican party off the field like the GOP was an FCS Homecoming opponent.

If only there were some people in the marketing/messaging industries — film/television, social media and professional “journalism” (so-called), advertising/publishing, some areas of law/lobbying — that could help the poor Dems get their true message out to the people!!

The democrats' messaging problem is that their message sucks. You can't clean up Ocasio-Cortez and make it play.

Republicans don't have a messaging problem because they don't have a message.

Best thing I can say for republicans is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had a stronger enemy.

(08-26-2018 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The democrats' messaging problem is that their message sucks. You can't clean up Ocasio-Cortez and make it play.

And she’s actually one of the more socially-presentable members of the left-fringe. There are plenty of people who are even further “Out There” than her.

Quote:Republicans don't have a messaging problem because they don't have a message.

Pretty much, yeah.

I guess you could say that in the Age of Trump, the GOP message is:

1. Lower taxes; less regulation on business.
2. Enforce the national borders.
3. Judicial-selection and confirmation of judges like Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.
4. Diplomatic affinity with Israel.
5. Pro-police, anti-BLM and similar social movements.
6. Distrust of most professional media.
7. Uphold 2nd Amendnent.
8. Selective use of tariffs against nations with trade-imbalances.

(08-26-2018 06:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The democrats' messaging problem is that their message sucks. You can't clean up Ocasio-Cortez and make it play.

And she’s actually one of the more socially-presentable members of the left-fringe. There are plenty of people who are even further “Out There” than her.

Quote:Republicans don't have a messaging problem because they don't have a message.

Pretty much, yeah.
I guess you could say that in the Age of Trump, the GOP message is:
1. Lower taxes; less regulation on business.
2. Enforce the national borders.
3. Judicial-selection and confirmation of judges like Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.
4. Diplomatic affinity with Israel.
5. Pro-police, anti-BLM and similar social movements.
6. Distrust of most professional media.
7. Uphold 2nd Amendnent.
8. Selective use of tariffs against nations with trade-imbalances.

Is that the republican message or the Trump message?

I'd say that's consistent with what Trump has done, but I haven't seen republican messaging to that effect.

(08-26-2018 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The democrats' messaging problem is that their message sucks. You can't clean up Ocasio-Cortez and make it play.

And she’s actually one of the more socially-presentable members of the left-fringe. There are plenty of people who are even further “Out There” than her.

Quote:Republicans don't have a messaging problem because they don't have a message.

Pretty much, yeah.
I guess you could say that in the Age of Trump, the GOP message is:
1. Lower taxes; less regulation on business.
2. Enforce the national borders.
3. Judicial-selection and confirmation of judges like Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.
4. Diplomatic affinity with Israel.
5. Pro-police, anti-BLM and similar social movements.
6. Distrust of most professional media.
7. Uphold 2nd Amendnent.
8. Selective use of tariffs against nations with trade-imbalances.

Is that the republican message or the Trump message?

I'd say that's consistent with what Trump has done, but I haven't seen republican messaging to that effect.

1. Republicans pretty much agree on this.
2. Republicans outside DC agree on this.
3. Republicans agree with this.
4. Republicans pretty much agree on this.
5. Pro police yes. Rest is variable.
6. That's not a policy
7. Definitely.
8. Party split on this.

(08-26-2018 08:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 06:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I guess you could say that in the Age of Trump, the GOP message is:
6. Distrust of most professional media.

6. That's not a policy

Aye — but it is a “message”.

(07-24-2018 02:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would hazard to guess with the leftward shift in the Democrats under Obama, there has been a more than decent amount of self-immolation of centrists in that party.
I can’t think of more than 2 or 3 national figure Democrats that could be even labeled anywhere near moderate or centrist.

I can think of one, maybe—Joe Manchin. Who would be your others?

If we are just talking about the Senate, Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Jones voted with Trump/GOP 50% or more in this Congress.

In the House, Cuellar(TX), Peterson(MN), Lamb(PA), Gottheimer(NJ), O'Halleran(AZ), and Sinema(AZ) have voted with Trump/GOP 50% of the time.

On the GOP Senate side, no GOP senator has against the GOP/Trump line more than 26%(Rand Paul). Susan Collins is next at 21.1%

For the House, Walter Jones(FL) has voted against the GOP/Trump over 50% of the time. Justin Amash was close at 46.7%

I would contend that, minus a few more here or there, that this is the moderate caucus in the Congress. Maybe a dozen total from both parties in both houses. That's sad.