talkpolitics | Entries tagged with parties

I was watching a news article on this and found it interesting. This party is neither Democrat nor Republican but they do have the ability to affect the 2024 election. This really depends on whether they choose a Democrat or Republican as the leader of their party.

It could actually take votes from either party. We could laugh this off, but Ross Perot received almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992. If they chose someone like Liz Cheney or Chris Sununu it could take votes away from Republicans. However, if they chose a strong Democrat it could take votes away from Democrats. Bottom line is that they don't want to see another Trump vs Biden match:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3992472-a-no-labels-presidential-candidate-cant-win-but-could-determine-who-does/

kiaa

A global map with all subdivisions marked by the dominant - or if applicable, officially elected - political parties, which are colour-coded according to their official position on the political spectrum as of June, 2020.

Source: I Fucking Love Maps

mahnmut

...Should we eliminate party designation on all ballots for all offices?

Some say it would hurt the GOP more than Dems. In order to combat this, GOTV would be used, Dems give their list at the polls, Republicans theirs. Except remember, Dems are all in a concentrated area. Far easier for them to get around such a restriction.

However, I don't really care which party it would hurt. I think it would lead to politicians that are more transparent, present their beliefs and promises clearly and concisely, allow (require) voters to educate themselves, and would quickly make political parties less powerful... both of them. It would make each politician run on their own identities... not just as poster children of a party.

In all fairness, the opposite argument says that removing parties will actually make the existing problem worse. At least with parties, people somewhat get judged for their convictions. When you are just a name, you're now a life story, which makes voting less about anything that matters and more about personality. Possibly leading to more guys like Trump.

Personally, I think belonging to a political party is just admitting publicly that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. My fave DailyQuote on this community ever was by Foreverbeach, who once said, "See? See what happens? This is what happens when you pick a political team and then support it. You're forced to defend it. It's a shitty position to be in, because it's like choosing not to call the cops on your abusive spouse. It never ends well. They will always hurt you. Never support a politician or political party. Never. It makes you a useful idiot."

luzribeiro

For elites, politics is driven by ideology. For voters, it’s not.

"One consistent finding in Kinder and Kalmoe’s research is that party identification bests ideological identification. Most people are a Republican or a Democrat before they are a conservative or a liberal. And most people will stick with their party long after they’ve abandoned their ideology."

Well, isn't it nice to see someone stumbling upon something you thought was patently obvious for years. Now sure, obviously this focuses on US politics, but it's also something that probably applies beyond the US of A and to ideologies beyond liberalism. If you want to change someone's mind, infiltrate their social group.

( Read more... )

ddstory.livejournal.com

Consider this party platform and tell me what you think:

- direct democracy
- a new national constitution
- public vetoes over new laws
- greater scrutiny of the workings of government
- strict safeguards for individuals’ online and offline privacy
- public ownership of the country’s natural resources

Sounds commie? Populist? Utopian? Well, these are the proposed policies of the Pirate Party (yeah you heard me) of Iceland. We've talked about Iceland's experience (or experiment) in direct democracy a while ago here - now here's the logical outcome. Since the first two mainstream parties failed to form a government after the latest snap election in Iceland, now the Pirate Party is moving from the fringes into the spotlight:

Iceland's radical Pirate Party asked to form its next government

( Sounds nuts? )

oportet.livejournal.com

In any given American political debate - both parties are somewhat full of shit - but usually they at least try to hide the fact. But occasionally, the hypocrisy is so thick - covering it up is useless. Now is one of those times.

Republicans don't think a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his term, unless that President is Republican.

Democrats absolutely believe a President should be allowed to fill a vacant seat, as long as that President is a Democrat.

When the situation suits them, one party will cite the constitution, and the other will cite an unwritten rule.

With video evidence of almost every major political figure in the country arguing the exact opposite point they're arguing now when the roles were reversed - whether they are full of shit isn't really in question - but you have to wonder why neither side has the tact to present a better argument than 'they did it so we can do it too'.

I really don't know much about this Garland fella (I suppose I could google him but my ignorance will make the post seem more genuine - maybe I'll look into him more after I send this through).

He seems nice - obviously qualified - and gracious for the opportunity. Shame on both sides - those who refuse to even consider him given his service so far, and those who threw him into the spotlight as a political statement already knowing the outcome - apparently giving more of a shit about a line in the middle their legacy than the first paragraph of his.

Even though I know it isn't true, I'd like to at least be able to pretend I'm naive enough to think the Supreme Court is distinguished, somehow separated from and above all the day-to-day Republican vs. Democrat bullshit we pay attention to.

If you're on the right - would you rather take Obamas pick, or take your chance with Hillary or Trumps pick? If you're on the left - pretend you're on the right and answer the first question - or fast forward to maybe 4 or 8 years from now when the tables are turned and convince me you'll want to end the cycle of following unwritten rules over written ones.

icecharcoals.livejournal.com

As I am entering into my last semester of what has been a rollercoaster of a college career, I feel that I have plenty of experience as to how the business and politics of higher education “works” in America, the ridiculous nature of the student climate, and more. Therefore, I do not believe that the conclusions I am about to draw are anywhere near blasphemous- but you tell me.

( Read more... ).

nairiporter.livejournal.com

Guys, I have an inquiry. Mostly to our American friends here. I have done some research on the issue, but I am still not sure that I have a conclusive explanation of the question why the Democratic party is symbolised by the blue colour and the Republican party by the red colour. I mean, we have been seeing this distinction virtually on every political analysis where visual means are used: graphs, charts, cartoons, you name it.

As much as I could gather, it must have started fairly recently. Back in the 70s when Carter was running against Ford, the original colour scheme was still based on UK's political system, where red was the colour of the liberal party and blue of the conservative party. But then things changed. Sometime in the 2000, the New York Times and USA Today used a reversed version of these colours for their election maps (that was one very long and tedious election, which left a deep mark in American society).

I guess my question is why. What caused that shift, and how come it was so quickly and easily adopted by the rest of the public? Is that just some fad which took traction and stayed? Or was it just because Americans like doing things the exact opposite way to the rest of the world, to distinguish themselves? ;-)

A quick overview of the issue of political colours around the world reveals a vast diversity, and yet there is a noticeable tendency of red representing leftist/progressive/socialist-leaning ideologies and blue representing rightist/conservative/democratic-leaning ones. But that, of course, is The Rest of The World, a.k.a. Other Countries That Don't Matter. My inquiry here is strictly about the US. So what's your take on the matter?

radiiters.livejournal.com

Alright so after that rather lengthy discussion on the Midterms in the USA, I actually want to share a bit about what's happening where I am right now in Spain. Its called Podemos and its a brand new political effort that was started this year. Today they are among the top three most popular political parties in Spain.

They are a left wing/green party that is unalied with the traditional conservative/liberal parties in Spain. Podemos holds five seats in European parlaiment today and their popularity is rising thanks to their incredibly democratic policies.

I bring this up because I've been seeing a lot of cynicism lately, a lot of people saying "well nothing can really change," "especially in places that already have well established governments", etc., etc. But this clearly shows that there is something revolutionary happening in Spain right now - a western country with a well established political system - and that change for Europe is coming as well with the rise in popularity of this country. With enough conviction obviously the country can be changed. Podemos can't be underestimated, in July they had five members. Now they have over 200,000. One needs to look at is this chart on voter's intentions in Spain to really understand the implications of this new party.

But can this happen in places outside of Europe? Is Spain an isolated case? Could the U.S. ever see such an endeavor?
( Read more... )

Mood: Interested
Location: Office
Music: TV background noise

mahnmut.livejournal.com

In our last Friday of Dysfunctional Institutions month (as well as the year), may I invite you guys to have a look at this online flash game, where you'll have to choose your political allegiance, then use every dirty trick in the book to bring the other party down. Prepare the buckets of mud! Ready! Steady! Go!

DONKEYS vs ELEPHANTS

Who knew the political process could be this brutal... and fun? :-)

ddstory.livejournal.com

Most of us must have heard about the Pirate Party already. It has grown into an international movement, and currently is most prominent in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere. And no, it's not just about copyright and the internet - in fact it's about civil rights, direct democracy and participation, transparency, freedom of information... and yes, patent law too of course.

Well, here's the case of the Pirate Party of Germany (PPD), which has gained a lot of prominence in recent years. They're also dubbed the Orange party (not to be confused with another orange civic movement turned into party, which has become famous and even held power for a while in Ukraine).

The problem with the German Pirate Party is that it's going through something like a crisis right now. It's losing of its initial influence, and running out of steam. And the examples from all that trouble could well serve as a lesson for other grassroots movements now turned political forces, elsewhere around the world - including across the Atlantic.

( Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum )

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com

One of the chief complaints made against the electoral college is that it encourages people to vote "tactically" rather than for a candidate that they genuinely like, out of fear of seeing their vote wasted.

This argument has never really born up to scrutiny in my mind.

You see, in most states there is a Party in Government that will either by simple demographics or by ruthless control of the polling process deliver that state's electroral votes to the candidate chosen by that party. States that lack the demographic lop-sidedness or political machinery needed to guarantee a result are refered to as "Swing states". And unless you live in a swing state the chances of your vote deciding a national election is infentesimal.

If the value of a vote is judged on it's ability to change the result than the votes of everyone not living in CO, OH, VA, and WI (any state not marks as being Red or Blue on Jeff's map) was wasted before the polls even opened.

So why vote for a candidate you don't like?

You see while everybody makes a big deal out of Rasmussen vs. Gallup and all that there is only one poll that actually counts and that is the one that occurs tommorow.

If you don't live in a swing state your vote may have the most impact by voting Libertarian, Green, Social Justice, CPUSA, or writing in someone else. Just vote. The bigger their numbers, the more it will make the Parties in Government stop and think. They won't do anything about it, of course, but the data will empower those who have not been entirely coopted, or who see the opportunity to make a name for themselves as reformers.

Besides, if any third party recieves 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for Federal funding in the next election cycle.

underlankers.livejournal.com

The United States, for all that we think of the two-party system as a continuous, stable pattern, has had a track record at least in its earlier years of seeing entire party systems collapse without trace.
( cut for length )

( another cut because this was longer than I expected )
Ultimately if societies want to fix their problems in this sense of accountability, they have to work on their own problems instead of mindlessly copying the systems of other societies and expecting difference to magically hand-wave all of the prior issues. Instead the new system will rapidly come complete with its own problems, and then the utopians wake up to the reality that the pigs that overthrew the farmer are now just as human as the farmer was.

foolsguinea.livejournal.com

Dan Harmon (formerly of NBC-TV's Community) has a tumblr.

http://danharmon.tumblr.com/post/33234881965/i-think-romney-doesnt-actually-want-to-be-president ( Cut for somewhat extended excerpt )

Maybe Romney should concede, and then we can talk about the multitude of other races that are going on at the same time.

Anyway, the post goes on to deplore the two parties as really being One Thing in their power-sharing arrangement, and that's kind of interesting. But the point that Romney is going on, and the media are pretending his candidacy makes sense because it's the expected thing, that's really cutting. I suppose that really the GOP is going on with its passel of bad candidates, and the media is pretending that a) they're a reasonable alternative and that b) the Democrats are an effective counterweight, because it's the expected thing.

Maybe this is the prelude to a realignment, if we're smart enough to take it.

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

I'm always interested in how the same pieces of data are viewed by different people.

So here I have two polls to show you, and I want to see what you think. What I think is below the cut.

( Read more... )

kayjayuu.livejournal.com

In the last two weeks, we have been treated to the way in which the two major parties conduct their own personal affairs, among people with whom they usually agree and whose support they need/want/seek out/spend millions of dollars on. This has meant the public has been exposed to the whole sausage-making process, especially thanks to social media and YouTube. In times past, all this happened but remained "in Vegas," as it were. Now, when you say you are going to have the most open and accessible convention in history, well... that's what happens, then. Everybody gets to see your true colors. ( And I'm not even talking about ideology. )

Mood: distressed

dreamsofpaprika.livejournal.com

As more Americans identify themselves as 'Independents' , a derangement is taking place away from the major parties. Now, the three-party system takes on new significance. What are two advantages that 3 political parties create for the political system?

While presidential candidates of third parties have little chance of being elected, members of third parties have established many significant moves in our political social lives. Women's Right to Vote is just one of them, as well as Child Labor Laws, Reduction of Working Hours, Income Tax, and Social Security.

So do you think there are advantages with a third party?

rick-day.livejournal.com

Everyone pretty much dismisses the LP in the US as being, well, not really a force in politics. More like the place where most of the kookier park their political positions. But not everyone. There are those who can look beyond some of the kooky and wonder "what if...?"

What if a viable candidate emerged that brought the best of a True Compromise? A Social Liberal with a Fiscally conservative eye on managing cost? What if he was on the ballot in all 50 states?

What more would he need? How about matching federal election funds? What LP candidate ever elevated himself to such a position of fundraising ability?

Looks like Gary Johnson is on his way to being all of that.

Link shows that he has qualified for FMF in 13 of the 20 states he needs, and is well on his way to getting it, according to the cute 'March Madness' NCAA bracket style approach.

A few conservatives I have spoken with said it was a "deal killer' that he would have even spoken to the Occupy people, much less expressed support from SOME of their grievances. Fine. Be that narrow.

No one is paying attention to Johnson in the MSM yet, other than an 'oddity'. But pretty soon, if he can squeeze 3-4 more percentage points out of support, he can be at the POTUS debates, where he can slash to ribbons both Obama and the presumed candidate. I also think the young vote will turn from Obama and his War on Medical Marijuana and to End Prohibition Now Johnson.

Anti-prohibition sentiment is higher than ever. Roosevelt swept into the White House almost solely on a pledge to end prohibition.

Not only do I think he can take votes from both sides 9as well as the fat middle of Independents, who are clambering over each other for any change other than the current duopoly. Johnson does not sound like a kook and he has as much experience as Bush2 (Well, that is not saying much, but at least he is not a DC Insider).

I think the D's n R's would be more willing to work with someone who is 'not the other side' and to point the finger at when it comes to the backlash of ending prohibition (if there is any).

What do you think? Johnson for real? A Genuine Spoiler? for who? Does he have a chance in hell?

Mood: awake

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com

In the old days when we were young (most of us anyways) we used to watch Maple Leaf Wrestling or Stampede Wrestling or whenever wrestling your hometown had. We all knew who the bad guys were and we knew who the good guys were. Bad guys were Russian Bear, The Sheik, Kamakazi, or anyone dressed with a swastika. And bad guys cheated. They would stab opponents with pencils, spit fireballs, etc. And Good guys never cheated.

Today, many incarnations of wrestling later, the story lines in wrestling has blurred. Who the good guy is and who the bad guy is... is very unclear. Good guys are not so clearly good and nobody is really a true bad guy to boo for. Which is a sad reflection of modern society and especially the politics of politics. And speaking of which...

( incoherent ramblings )

Ah-well. I guess that's why all of us anti-authoritarians eventually get diagnosed as mentally ill. Because when we can't trust good guys to be decent, bad guys to be omni-evil, and authorities to be authoritative... we're crazy.

rick-day.livejournal.com

Well it looks like the hens have all come to rest, and The System, like the NBA, as overlooked the rising stars of tomorrow: the common man. A fatal Miscalculation, IMHO.

US Voters Increasingly Alienated by Two Major Parties

A new book shows there are now more U.S. voters who identify as independent than as Democrats or Republicans, despite the fact that the two major parties maintain their virtual stranglehold on U.S. politics and, so far, on the 2012 presidential election process.

In his book the “Apartisan American”, Russell Dalton, a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, reviews survey trends like the American National Election Studies (ANES), which show the share of U.S. citizens who consider themselves independent has nearly doubled, from 23 percent in 1952 to 40 percent in 2008.

Most of the shift appears to be among people who considered themselves Democrats to those who now consider themselves independent.

( and it is the fault of those damn Occupiers and their youthfulness! )

Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and one of the nation’s leading experts on ballot access reinforced the Discontent of the Middle:
“It’s a bunch of liberal Republicans who won’t abide with the Republican party,”

“I think people are afraid the Republican Party is going to nominate someone who is inadequate. They want someone high-quality, thoughtful, and intelligent in the race, other than the president (Obama),” Winger said.

Winger says the quality of candidates seeking minor party nominations is increasing, and that the biggest obstacles to their success are the corporate media which will not let them participate in debates.

So we get to the core of the obstacle, corporate controlled media and money. In my cynical opinion, even if a 3rd major party coalesced, the cancer of corporate control would absorb the top tiers and fund raising, with the people shut out again.

Time to change this 'top/down' system into 'base/up' in mentality.

Is it going to take another Red October to change things in America? What do you think? Will a 3rd party "of the middle ground" rise to counteract the extremes that have become the American Political System?

Mood: annoyed

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with parties

No Labels party?

Friday offtopic: Global parties map

Here's a heretical question...

Party vs ideology

The Nordic social experiment continues

(no subject)

Groupthink- My Thoughts on Politics and American College Education

Political colour

Spanish Endeavor: Podemos

Friday lulz. Donkeys vs Elephants

On stranger tides

Some thoughts befpre going to the polling booth tomorrow...

The Rise of the Republicans and the lesson of the US Third Party system:

This is really well written: Dan Harmon on the presidential race

Rorschach test--What do these polls say to you?

This is what democracy looks like?

What are the advantages of a third-party political system?

Gary Johnson quietly makes inroads to massive spoiler status

Who's the bad guys?

Book: there are now more U.S. voters who identify as independent than as Democrats or Republicans

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary