American Politics

[M3J]

The Republican house members are really struggling to campaign in california lol.

that's what happens when you're a lying piece of trash, especially when Gaetz has been accused of having sex with a minor and/or sex trafficking.

Love how republicans like Cruz will OPENLY lie to spread bigotry without any repercussion. The fuckface blamed "illegal aliens" for rising cases of covid, as if they weren't opening up the state

 

[SharkBait]

Love how republicans like Cruz will OPENLY lie to spread bigotry without any repercussion. The fuckface blamed "illegal aliens" for

i dont know why people listen to Cancun Cruz. Hopefully Texas voters realize how awful he is and vote against him in 2024.

 

[M3J]

SImply because he's a republican and says things they agree with. That's all it really takes.

 

[hokageji]

i think republicans have a chance in california if they run a proper candidate... But California is already republican without realizing it.. there is no way a progressive or an extreme left will win here... A moderate will, easily as well too...

If republicans have a candidate that supports businesses and is on the left for social issues, they stand a chance... not Jenner of course.. she'd be terrible..

 

[kkck]

If republicans have a candidate that supports businesses and is on the left for social issues, they stand a chance... not Jenner of course.. she'd be terrible..

Isn't that your average mainstream democrat?

 

[shionoro]

What do you think would be necessary (not just legally, but realistically) to change the US system into a multiparty system. How could a third party rise to relevance?

 

[kkck]

As far as I know there isn't anything legally stopping the US from being a multi party system. It's more like the system is rigged against a third party. Say, like the debates where third party folk barely ever have any sort of voice. The US does in fact have dozens and dozens of other parties.. To me this is more of a media thing. If the media gives them coverage, a voice, then I think people could respond. But the media is one of the prime beneficiaries of the de facto dual party system so they don't exactly have any incentive to cover them. That said, it is worth noting that even with the internet being a thing these parties have not managed to get more of a platform so maybe even the media giving them more coverage probably wouldn't cut it. Maybe the media is simply responding to want US people want rather than being a bit of a bouncer...

 

[SharkBait]

What do you think would be necessary (not just legally, but realistically) to change the US system into a multiparty system. How could a third party rise to relevance?

Get rid of signature requirements or financial requirements to be on a ballot in each state
Get rid of Caucuses/Primaries (people basically have no voice after super tuesday, since most candidates have dropped out)
Ranked Choice Voting
Use the popular vote instead of the electoral college
Let people use more than just a "D" or an "R" on a ballot, let them be grouped under their party name...this has worked on down ballot candidates

 

[shionoro]

Get rid of Caucuses/Primaries
Ranked Choice Voting
Use the popular vote instead of the electoral college
Let people use more than just a "D" or an "R" on a ballot, let them be grouped under their party name

Yes but how to get political actors to do that?

 

[SharkBait]

Yes but how to get political actors to do that?

I actually think the politicians are litrally on the cusp of it
-the progressives
-the moderates
-the conservatives (demos and republicans)
-the centrists
-the fiscal conservatives
-the Q party

etc

I guess their afraid if they do branch off then they will give whoever currently is in the majority (say the 5 progressives split off), will lose the majority.

 

[shionoro]

I actually think the politicians are litrally on the cusp of it
-the progressives
-the moderates
-the conservatives (demos and republicans)
-the centrists
-the fiscal conservatives
-the Q party

etc

I guess their afraid if they do branch off then they will give whoever currently is in the majority (say the 5 progressives split off), will lose the majority.

I certainly do not think republicans of any kind would want to give up the electoral college. They cannot win any election without it.
The senate, House and White house all favor republicans due to the system. Giving that up would mean giving up the easiest path to power.

 

[M3J]

What do you think would be necessary (not just legally, but realistically) to change the US system into a multiparty system. How could a third party rise to relevance?

I don't think there is any way to do that because the Republican and Democrat parties have at least a century of history behind them, while third parties barely have any history or as much attention or clout. You'd have to have at least one super popular figure (like Trump) to have a third party be even remotely successful.

 

[shionoro]

I don't think there is any way to do that because the Republican and Democrat parties have at least a century of history behind them, while third parties barely have any history or as much attention or clout. You'd have to have at least one super popular figure (like Trump) to have a third party be even remotely successful.

My personal idea would be to have a party that runs on systematic reform while avoiding any of the touchy political questions like gender politics or something of the like. Basically a generic 'fuck off' party that is an actual systematic fuck off.

Americans , by now, have zero trust into their system. A party capitalizing on that that just vows to create a better and fairer system in the very abstract procedural sense could speak to a lot of current nonvoters and both parties alike and would benefit every time the trust into the current system diminishes.

It would have a far better selling point to vote them than the green or libertarian party.

 

[xi0]

My personal idea would be to have a party that runs on systematic reform while avoiding any of the touchy political questions like gender politics or something of the like. Basically a generic 'fuck off' party that is an actual systematic fuck off.

I don't think you can uncouple social topics from politics, simply because it's things some people will care about. And if a politician chooses to be dodgy about it when asked, enough people will disqualify them in their minds. Even more so if they're a third party candidate.

 

[shionoro]

I don't think you can uncouple social topics from politics, simply because it's things some people will care about. And if a politician chooses to be dodgy about it when asked, enough people will disqualify them in their minds. Even more so if they're a third party candidate.

But what if you made a thing about it and made your party solely about structural reform without emphasis on the people in it but a clear outline of what kind of structural reform you want and not wavering form it but also simply refuting to talk or vote about other topics until you achieved it?

If you can twist it like "if you actually want another kind of supreme court, we are the only party you can vote and this is how we'd reform it", I think that would be a very unique sales pitch that could attract quite substantial amounts of people.

It is one thing to be dodgy, it is another thing if you simply refuse to vote on any issues that are not structural.

Maybe a branding like "vote us if you would not vote elseways" could work well, too.

 

[hokageji]

Isn't that your average mainstream democrat?

average for the country... for Californians, they think they are progressive and far liberal but have always benefited with business encouragements... So a republican who comes and pitches that encouragement further, while making them feel that social liberal policies will stay has a chance of winning it over...

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 20, 2021, Original Post Date: Jul 20, 2021 ---

What do you think would be necessary (not just legally, but realistically) to change the US system into a multiparty system. How could a third party rise to relevance?

Media plays an extremely critical role in the country. none of the mainstream media even bothers to give the 3rd party contestants any genuine coverage...

The only way 3rd party stands a chance if a significant portion of exodus happens from the mainstream parties to form their own party and has backing from a media group for promotional purposes.
We saw some republicans leave the party, if they try and join another party, contest and rally against republicans and not run under the republican ticket, its a possible start.

 

[SharkBait]

i guess republicans may be worried their supporters are the ones mostly being affected ?! why they wait so long to start adding this as a speaking point

 

[xi0]

But what if you made a thing about it and made your party solely about structural reform without emphasis on the people in it but a clear outline of what kind of structural reform you want and not wavering form it but also simply refuting to talk or vote about other topics until you achieved it?

If you can twist it like "if you actually want another kind of supreme court, we are the only party you can vote and this is how we'd reform it", I think that would be a very unique sales pitch that could attract quite substantial amounts of people.

It is one thing to be dodgy, it is another thing if you simply refuse to vote on any issues that are not structural.

Maybe a branding like "vote us if you would not vote elseways" could work well, too.

How does avoiding social commentary enhance this kind of party's position? The structural reform will still mostly be favored by one side of the aisle over the other, and I just think that often that goes hand in hand with most social issues, for better or worse.

I think there's different shades of this as well. Reform without addressing other contemporary issues just seems rather wonky to me. That doesn't mean it needs to be part of a core platform, but still. And I think most cases of structural reform are going to be preferred by left-leaning voters, unless it involves paying less taxes or something.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Jul 21, 2021 ---

An example is doing mandatory time off for employees, education reform, criminal justice reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform... and the key to John Q from Kentucky being for this is not speaking too loudly about transgender rights? Just doesn't add up IMO.

 

[Sanity Check]

create a better and fairer system

The only requirement needed for that to happen. Is for the majority of people to follow the news.

Most americans do not follow the news closely enough to identify how healthcare is broken.

Leaving them powerless to fix it.

The same precedent extends to virtually every relevant issue.

 

[M3J]

My personal idea would be to have a party that runs on systematic reform while avoiding any of the touchy political questions like gender politics or something of the like. Basically a generic 'fuck off' party that is an actual systematic fuck off.

Americans , by now, have zero trust into their system. A party capitalizing on that that just vows to create a better and fairer system in the very abstract procedural sense could speak to a lot of current nonvoters and both parties alike and would benefit every time the trust into the current system diminishes.

It would have a far better selling point to vote them than the green or libertarian party.

Well, that's one way to stay irrelevant and not gain any traction. Tons of people acknowledge systematic reform and social reform as going hand in hand, and I assume it's the right who don't. But if you don't endorse white supremacy or cracking down on people of color/immigrants, then you won't win over their votes either compared to the Republican politicians who promise either of those.

By not addressing social issues like gender politics and racial issues, you keep the trust at zero, and you offer NO reason whatsoever for majority to even think of your third party. You can't create a better and fairer system without addressing gender issues, racial issues, LGBT+ issues, and whatnot.

For example, if you talk about infrastructure, you might also have to talk about prioritizing locations. Where would you prioritize fixing, upgrading, or adding new infrastructure? Affluent areas or poor areas that desperately need better infrastructure, especially when it could help them economically?

Social, economical, and political reforms are all tied to each other.