As someone looking in from the outside, I can’t back this message enough.
I don’t know if the country will ever go progressive but if it’s going to, this is the only way it will. One of the two major parties has to be infiltrated and overhauled so to speak, by primary.
Third party voting is not really any good yet, the FPTP system has to be fixed, well, removed, to maximise the minor party usefulness. It would be, though, if enough progressives get in to make those changes (which I imagine would be via the Amendment system? I don’t know) for what you know as ranked choice, which really does build worthwhile third party candidacy.
But they have to vote and they have to make use of the primary system. That’s your ticket out. The Republicans have already shown the way because that’s how they got to where they are…using those electoral systems and voting as a unit. Voting the letter on the actual day, too.
The dnc won a court case against Bernie by arguing that they have no obligation to run a fair primary, or even to adhere to the decision of the primary vote, or play by their stated rules. Its an internal process with no legal guarantees whatsoever.
Bernie has caucused with dems for his entire career and voted with them on nearly all of their bills (95-99% of the time). He’s a more reliable dem voter than most dems. The times he hasnt voted with them have been about taking on stand on pro voter causes, or anti war.
But they treated him like an enemy and did him dirty. Thats the Dem centrists for you.
republicans also had propaganda and rigging the election places , and voter suppression on thier side, DNC are pretty bad at propaganda, and also afraid to call out election rigging. the DNC benefits from it, at leas the dinos do
At the end of the day, their people still act and vote as a unit regardless of what noise is outside.
That’s the difference. Yes, there’s a lot of noise but sooner or later progressive voters or anyone who wants something decent is going to have to stand. That includes dealing with the voter suppression, one way or the other.
thier voter suppression are pretty much at a limit, thats whats the saves act is for. the news, dnc stopped attacking zohran after they saw him gathering more attention from the streisand effect.
which is technically a uniparty, since they do vote the same on some things most of the time. inaction against increasing the tax for corps and billionaires, after the gop had it cut, plus other things.
That barely existed as a system because it didn’t work well in practice. It was amended in 1804, there were only 3 presidents elected that way, Jefferson was in office when it was ratified.
It was changed, because they were worried that it would increase assassinations as the VPs people wanted the presidency. But they didn’t consider the follow-on issues. Basically another knee jerk reaction
There’s not really follow on issues from the president and vice president being elected together instead of in opposition. The opposition is supposed to be Congress not a person with only symbolic power.
That’s what they thought. But, keep in mind, if there’s a tie in the House or Senate, guess who casts the deciding vote? The VP.
Not the president. The veep.
The whole thing is set up to make passing new laws difficult. Intentionally.
We’ve made it easier and easier over the years. And in the process, we’ve broken our nation. We turned a nation built on bottom up power, where the majority of power is held by the individual into a top down power where our government has the majority of the power.
That’s still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It’s a very low possibility.
The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.
It also makes political change much less stable and more prone to the seesaw affect, as people are no longer voting for a person, but for their party, lest the “others” win.
Imagine if GW’s VP had been Gore. Imagine if Clinton’s had been A Republican…
It would have totally changed the political landscape.
Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn’t part of policy meetings. Instead it’s a nameless faceless advisor.
There’s maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.
As someone looking in from the outside, I can’t back this message enough.
I don’t know if the country will ever go progressive but if it’s going to, this is the only way it will. One of the two major parties has to be infiltrated and overhauled so to speak, by primary.
Third party voting is not really any good yet, the FPTP system has to be fixed, well, removed, to maximise the minor party usefulness. It would be, though, if enough progressives get in to make those changes (which I imagine would be via the Amendment system? I don’t know) for what you know as ranked choice, which really does build worthwhile third party candidacy.
But they have to vote and they have to make use of the primary system. That’s your ticket out. The Republicans have already shown the way because that’s how they got to where they are…using those electoral systems and voting as a unit. Voting the letter on the actual day, too.
The dnc won a court case against Bernie by arguing that they have no obligation to run a fair primary, or even to adhere to the decision of the primary vote, or play by their stated rules. Its an internal process with no legal guarantees whatsoever.
That time they did. That’s once. The American voter has been doing this shit every time.
Let’s remember too that Sanders is an independent, not a Democrat, so they aren’t going to fund him willingly.
Bernie has caucused with dems for his entire career and voted with them on nearly all of their bills (95-99% of the time). He’s a more reliable dem voter than most dems. The times he hasnt voted with them have been about taking on stand on pro voter causes, or anti war.
But they treated him like an enemy and did him dirty. Thats the Dem centrists for you.
Yep, no argument here.
republicans also had propaganda and rigging the election places , and voter suppression on thier side, DNC are pretty bad at propaganda, and also afraid to call out election rigging. the DNC benefits from it, at leas the dinos do
At the end of the day, their people still act and vote as a unit regardless of what noise is outside.
That’s the difference. Yes, there’s a lot of noise but sooner or later progressive voters or anyone who wants something decent is going to have to stand. That includes dealing with the voter suppression, one way or the other.
thier voter suppression are pretty much at a limit, thats whats the saves act is for. the news, dnc stopped attacking zohran after they saw him gathering more attention from the streisand effect.
The fptp system was broken not long after it was created. It wasn’t always broken like it is now.
That happened under the guise of making it “safer”
Used to be, the president didn’t have a running mate, the runner up was the VP.
By removing that, we’ve made our system into the 2 party monstrosity it is today.
which is technically a uniparty, since they do vote the same on some things most of the time. inaction against increasing the tax for corps and billionaires, after the gop had it cut, plus other things.
That barely existed as a system because it didn’t work well in practice. It was amended in 1804, there were only 3 presidents elected that way, Jefferson was in office when it was ratified.
It was changed, because they were worried that it would increase assassinations as the VPs people wanted the presidency. But they didn’t consider the follow-on issues. Basically another knee jerk reaction
There’s not really follow on issues from the president and vice president being elected together instead of in opposition. The opposition is supposed to be Congress not a person with only symbolic power.
That’s what they thought. But, keep in mind, if there’s a tie in the House or Senate, guess who casts the deciding vote? The VP.
Not the president. The veep.
The whole thing is set up to make passing new laws difficult. Intentionally.
We’ve made it easier and easier over the years. And in the process, we’ve broken our nation. We turned a nation built on bottom up power, where the majority of power is held by the individual into a top down power where our government has the majority of the power.
That’s still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It’s a very low possibility.
The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.
It also makes political change much less stable and more prone to the seesaw affect, as people are no longer voting for a person, but for their party, lest the “others” win.
Imagine if GW’s VP had been Gore. Imagine if Clinton’s had been A Republican…
It would have totally changed the political landscape.
Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn’t part of policy meetings. Instead it’s a nameless faceless advisor.
There’s maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.
Interesting, thank you.
Imagine what difference that would have made over the years.
The guys who set it up originally were actually pretty smart. And we spent the next 250 years screwing it up…
Ranked choice can be done state by state. Alaska, maine, and New York City elections are ranked choice.
The electoral college can be nullified by state by state adoption of the popular vote compact.
That’s only a few states short but all the blue states have signed on, so it needs support from red states which is a much heavier lift.
The original setup was basically a ranked choice system already. The top two vote getters were the president and vice president.
That was changed, ostensibly to “stop assassination” but like all good ideas, it had bad follow on effects.