News Media: The Fourth Estate, The Printing Press, The Display Screen ... > "Info. War" ? Centralized Control Of The Messages

[sear]

"The worst part of our system is the political party that can select a candidate for the whole party without having majority consent." R5 #20

?
I suspect the distinction between party population, and national population is blurred here. Care to clarify?

"The solutions generally involve allowing more candidates on the final ballot." R5 #20

The superficial appeal of that idea wears thin quick. Reductio ad absurdum, if 3 is better than 2, and 7 is better than 4 then is 99 better than 56? Why not a million? Ideal ! Right?
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura was about the darkest horse I can recall in a political election. BUT !!
Because he ran 3rd party there were 3 candidates on the ballot. And as you know from having divided 100 by 3 in such electoral contest a candidate can win the vote / election
without obtaining majority support from the electorate.

Compounding this, though Governor Ventura seems to have served faithfully, honorably, his third party status disenfranchised him from his own legislature.
The result, Minnesota Governor Ventura's administration was little more than a place-holder, a pause on State governance until the duopoly kicked in again.

I welcome a diversity of candidates, and platforms.
This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate. If you'll pardon an inaccurate oversimplification:
40% die-hard Republicans vote reliably Republican.
40% die-hard Democrats vote reliably Democrat.
Therefore the outcome of our elections are decided by the remaining 20%, the so called "swing vote".

 

[Rigby5]

?
I suspect the distinction between party population, and national population is blurred here. Care to clarify?


The superficial appeal of that idea wears thin quick. Reductio ad absurdum, if 3 is better than 2, and 7 is better than 4 then is 99 better than 56? Why not a million? Ideal ! Right?
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura was about the darkest horse I can recall in a political election. BUT !!
Because he ran 3rd party there were 3 candidates on the ballot. And as you know from having divided 100 by 3 in such electoral contest a candidate can win the vote / election
without obtaining majority support from the electorate.

Compounding this, though Governor Ventura seems to have served faithfully, honorably, his third party status disenfranchised him from his own legislature.
The result, Minnesota Governor Ventura's administration was little more than a place-holder, a pause on State governance until the duopoly kicked in again.

I welcome a diversity of candidates, and platforms.
This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate. If you'll pardon an inaccurate oversimplification:
40% die-hard Republicans vote reliably Republican.
40% die-hard Democrats vote reliably Democrat.
Therefore the outcome of our elections are decided by the remaining 20%, the so called "swing vote".

Political parties are not bound by laws or rules, and can select candidates that did not win the primary vote.
Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate.

Political parties actually add nothing to the election, are not sponsored by any law, and should just be totally eliminated.
The duopoly is a bad idea and parties should not exist at all.

 

[Shiftless2]

This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate.

Definitely not the case - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants.

As Rigby points out

Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate.

In short, the DNC was so determined to make Hillary the next President that they gamed the system to ensure that she ended up as the Democratic candidate.

A different discussion but she was a terrible candidate with an unpleasant public persona. One who came to the election with far too much baggage from her husband's time in office. And she ran a terrible campaign. It didn't help that the media kept predicting she'd easily win the election so a lot of people who probably would have voted for her figured that there was no need to vote so they didn't bother coming out. The end result was Trump 45.

 

[sear]

"Political parties are not bound by laws or rules, and can select candidates that did not win the primary vote." R5 #22

That needs clarification.
U.S. federal government leaves much electoral administration to the States. Thus basic standards vary widely from one State to another. Example:
in New York State a voter must register as a Democrat or Republican to vote in that party's primary.
In some other States primaries are open, allowing for example a Republican to vote in a primary for a Democrat candidate.

"Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate." R5 #22

For most of my life, on principle, I agreed with you. My opinion was that the U.S. political tradition of the "smoke-filled room" making important electoral decisions beyond public view was sinister. BUT !

Then the invincibly ignorant reality show huckster shyster TV host D. Trump seized control and is inflicting extensive mess around the planet. The occupants of the Republican's smoke-filled room did NOT want Trump.
And if the smoke-filled room tradition had prevailed in that case, Trump would not have made it to 1600 Penn. Ave as anything other than a visitor.

"Political parties actually add nothing to the election" R5 #22

Probably factually false. Their contribution may seem, may indeed be meager by significant criteria. "Nothing" seems to over-state the case.

"are not sponsored by any law, and should just be totally eliminated." R5 #22

It's clear to me that would be a substantial change.
It is not clear to me that would be a substantial improvement.

"The duopoly is a bad idea and parties should not exist at all." R5 #22

Weren't there political parties at the U.S. Founding?

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in factor principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull;
it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

 

[Rigby5]

That needs clarification.
U.S. federal government leaves much electoral administration to the States. Thus basic standards vary widely from one State to another. Example:
in New York State a voter must register as a Democrat or Republican to vote in that party's primary.
In some other States primaries are open, allowing for example a Republican to vote in a primary for a Democrat candidate.


For most of my life, on principle, I agreed with you. My opinion was that the U.S. political tradition of the "smoke-filled room" making important electoral decisions beyond public view was sinister. BUT !

Then the invincibly ignorant reality show huckster shyster TV host D. Trump seized control and is inflicting extensive mess around the planet. The occupants of the Republican's smoke-filled room did NOT want Trump.
And if the smoke-filled room tradition had prevailed in that case, Trump would not have made it to 1600 Penn. Ave as anything other than a visitor.


Probably factually false. Their contribution may seem, may indeed be meager by significant criteria. "Nothing" seems to over-state the case.


It's clear to me that would be a substantial change.
It is not clear to me that would be a substantial improvement.


Weren't there political parties at the U.S. Founding?

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in factor principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull;
it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

All election regulations are supposed to be left to the states by the Constitution.
And there is not supposed to actually be any government involvement in any primary at all.

You do not want to have a gazillion candidates on a ballot, but it should never be dictated there can only be 2, as it is now.
There is no reason to allow the party to arbitrarily dictate who gets to be on the ballot.
The party is controlled by the wealthy elite who contribute the most money, and it should instead be decided by the voters.

And I disagree on the "smoke-filled rooms", as I think they are who selected Trump, based on pre-election negotiations and promised pay-backs.

And no, there originally were no political parties or primary elections.
{...
The first federal elections were held in the United States following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788. In the elections, George Washington was elected as the first president and the members of the 1st United States Congress were selected.

Formal political parties did not exist, as the leading politicians of the day largely distrusted the idea of "factions." However, in the years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress would become broadly divided by the economic policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, with the Pro-Administration faction supporting those policies. Opposing them was the Anti-Administration faction, which sought a smaller role for the federal government.[3] In these elections, the Pro-Administration faction won majorities in both houses of Congress.

Meanwhile, General George Washington was elected as the country's first president, while John Adams, who finished with the second largest number of electoral votes, was elected as the first vice president.
...}

 

[sear]

"... the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

clarification: "required"?
I don't recall having asserted such requirement.

" - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

True but irrelevant.
I will exclude the notable complication of the electoral college, not to dismiss its impact. Very serious! BUT !
Instead to cite the basics of the democratic process:

most adult citizens in the U.S. are eligible to vote, unless for example eligibility has been forfeit by conviction of felony.

"- the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

If you have persuasive evidence a significant segment of U.S. primary voters do NOT vote in their own enlightened self-interest,
I urge you to post it here.

Until you do I'll continue to believe most U.S. voters cast their ballots in accordance with their preference.
The Democrat primary voters choose the candidate they most prefer. The candidate with the most votes in that State wins in that State.

" - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

By process described above the Democrats choose their party's candidate for the general election.
Same deal for Republicans. The result?

The Democrat primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The Republican primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.

The party's candidate nominated by primary is NOT necessarily chosen by a democratic majority of the party's registered members within that voting district.
Instead it is chosen by those among that party's registered members that actually vote in the primary.

 

[Shiftless2]

To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so they gamed the system to obtain the results they wanted. Had nothing to do with what the party as a whole wanted.

BTW, the Electoral College only comes into play with the actual Presidential election - after all, it's the College that elects the POTUS, not the voters.

 

[Rigby5]

clarification: "required"?
I don't recall having asserted such requirement.


True but irrelevant.
I will exclude the notable complication of the electoral college, not to dismiss its impact. Very serious! BUT !
Instead to cite the basics of the democratic process:

most adult citizens in the U.S. are eligible to vote, unless for example eligibility has been forfeit by conviction of felony.


If you have persuasive evidence a significant segment of U.S. primary voters do NOT vote in their own enlightened self-interest,
I urge you to post it here.

Until you do I'll continue to believe most U.S. voters cast their ballots in accordance with their preference.
The Democrat primary voters choose the candidate they most prefer. The candidate with the most votes in that State wins in that State.


By process described above the Democrats choose their party's candidate for the general election.
Same deal for Republicans. The result?

The Democrat primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The Republican primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.

The party's candidate nominated by primary is NOT necessarily chosen by a democratic majority of the party's registered members within that voting district.
Instead it is chosen by those among that party's registered members that actually vote in the primary.

I totally disagree.

First of all, parties violate the whole concept of free choice voting.
I at first declared myself to be with the Green Party since I liked their environmental stance.
But the reality was that by doing that, all I accomplished was to prevent myself from being allowed to vote in the primary at all.

Second is that primary voters do NOT at all get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The win of Hillary over Bernie Sanders in the primary proved that.
Parties are not at all bound by any law or regulation to select candidates with the most primary votes.

Third is that you are forgetting about how candidates with the most bipartisan appeal who would have easily won in a general election, are eliminated by the extremely partisan primaries.

 

[sear]

"To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so ... S2 #27

I'm not sure that's the most precise description.
Seems obvious to me they didn't want to lose the general election to the Republican.
I suspect any of the top 5 or so Democrats in the primary would have received DNC preference over the Republican. BUT !

S a v v y electoral political operatives understand the consequences of running their dream candidate in the primary only to lose the general election to the opposing party candidate.
Knowing that, experienced partisan political operatives may attempt to influence the outcome of the primary, to result in the party nominating a candidate THAT CAN WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

"To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so ... S2 #27

I suspect the true nature of the Democrat's desperation in that race was to prevent TV host Trump from becoming president. iirc Trump lost the 2016 popular vote. Right?

" they gamed the system to obtain the results they wanted. Had nothing to do with what the party as a whole wanted. " S2 #27

I sense you think this refutes a position I've taken / posted.
I've never denied the DNC & RNC have at least the potential to put their thumb on the scale. The primary voters get to cast their ballot.
What their party does with the outcome of that primary vote is a separate issue. Consequential? Extremely! BUT !
At very least the primary vote is democratic, within the subset of the population registered to vote in that party. Right?

The name that actually ends up with the party's endorsement on general election day not necessarily the same, your intended point I imagine.

"BTW, the Electoral College only comes into play with the actual Presidential election - after all, it's the College that elects the POTUS, not the voters." S2 #27

I've read a variety of explanations for the existence of the Constitution's electoral college. wad ev
I'm opposed to it. BUT !
The Republicans have benefited mightily over recent decades, and so seem exceedingly unlikely to participate constructively in its repeal. BUT !

I suspect it might not take much more than a single heartbreaker of an election wherein the wildly adored Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but loses the election to the Democrat because of the electoral college.
In that event, if the Democrats are smart enough, agile enough, competent enough to strike while the Iron is hot, (a dubious premise) we may have a glimmer of hope in getting rid of the electoral college.

Of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said: "Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."
Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not sure that's the most precise description.
Seems obvious to me they didn't want to lose the general election to the Republican.
I suspect any of the top 5 or so Democrats in the primary would have received DNC preference over the Republican. BUT !

S a v v y electoral political operatives understand the consequences of running their dream candidate in the primary only to lose the general election to the opposing party candidate.
Knowing that, experienced partisan political operatives may attempt to influence the outcome of the primary, to result in the party nominating a candidate THAT CAN WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.


I suspect the true nature of the Democrat's desperation in that race was to prevent TV host Trump from becoming president. iirc Trump lost the 2016 popular vote. Right?


I sense you think this refutes a position I've taken / posted.
I've never denied the DNC & RNC have at least the potential to put their thumb on the scale. The primary voters get to cast their ballot.
What their party does with the outcome of that primary vote is a separate issue. Consequential? Extremely! BUT !
At very least the primary vote is democratic, within the subset of the population registered to vote in that party. Right?

The name that actually ends up with the party's endorsement on general election day not necessarily the same, your intended point I imagine.


I've read a variety of explanations for the existence of the Constitution's electoral college. wad ev
I'm opposed to it. BUT !
The Republicans have benefited mightily over recent decades, and so seem exceedingly unlikely to participate constructively in its repeal. BUT !

I suspect it might not take much more than a single heartbreaker of an election wherein the wildly adored Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but loses the election to the Democrat because of the electoral college.
In that event, if the Democrats are smart enough, agile enough, competent enough to strike while the Iron is hot, (a dubious premise) we may have a glimmer of hope in getting rid of the electoral college.

Of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said: "Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."
Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005

There are many huge problems with partisan primaries.
The party extremists actually force the least likely candidate in the primary.
That is because the most likely candidate in the final election will be more bi-partisan or at least more neutral.

If you look at Bernie Sanders, he had much higher bi-partisan ratings since he was such a fiscal conservative.
Hillary was not popular with those of either party due to her "Arab Spring" support for illegal wars.

As far as the Electoral College, I am in full favor of it.
Why is that the high population centers, like NYC, LA, etc., I think are crazy, greedy, and totally manipulated by propaganda.
The lower population areas are far more rational and have better values.