US electoral system explained

[Viggen]

Finally i understand how this works in the US, especially the last sentence made me giggle...

 

click

[Moonlapse]

Yes, isn't it lovely? And if you don't fit into the Democrat/Republican glove, you can forget about it, it doesn't matter how much money you have.

[Faustus]

Yes, isn't it lovely? And if you don't fit into the Democrat/Republican glove, you can forget about it, it doesn't matter how much money you have.

If a new, viable, US political party could be created to replace one of the two existing mainline parties, what would that party have for its driving force? What would define its common sense goals for frustrated change which could capture the imagination of a plurality of the population, or even a large enough segment of the American population that would it would be self propagating and grow?

 

Merely being self perpetuating is not enough. The Libertarian party is that but only provides a hollow vehicular shell. It has already presented too many defects to be viable; as a beginning it has been a false start, embryonic but unfertilized only suggesting a need for something new.

 

Faustus

[Moonlapse]

'New US political party' and 'viable' don't belong in the same sentence. Our two parties are simply feet shuffling us into statism. That's the essential long term effect and anything different enough to alter this is far too radical for the majority. Statism will inevitably fail and the process will start over, lessons forgotten or obscured.

[Faustus]

Our two parties are simply feet shuffling us into statism. That's the essential long term effect and anything different enough to alter this is far too radical for the majority. Statism will inevitably fail and the process will start over, lessons forgotten or obscured.

You pose the problem of our age: The vulnerability of democracy to ignorance, demagoguery, and false passion. And all this in what might be called an

[Moonlapse]

Define education.

[Faustus]

Define education.

Education/Educated:

A population adequately informed in the sciences, (their) history, language, economic and political system such that they are enabled to consider the soundness and likely consequences of their and their government

[P.Clodius]

An interesting experiment would be to suspend the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, and put someone like, say, Petraeus in the Executive, see what happens.

[Faustus]

An interesting experiment would be to suspend the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, and put someone like, say, Petraeus in the Executive, see what happens.

 

If we look at that

Edited April 20, 2008 by Faustus

[spittle]

Do single issue parties (pressure grioups) ever have surprise victories under the American system?

[Faustus]

Do single issue parties (pressure grioups) ever have surprise victories under the American system?

In governorships (gubernatorial elections) yes, and mayoral, a few cases in the House of Representatives; never before in the presidency. The closest we come there is the Republican Party with Lincoln in 1860, and the Republican Party was an offshoot of the old Whig Party.

 

Jesse Ventura a professional wrestler (a performer) became governor of Minnesota was in the Reform Party of Minnesota, later the Independence Party of Minnesota. Senator (previously congressman) Bernie Sanders of Vermont of the Independent party (he's actually a socialist), are the most prominent of recent years.

 

Al Franken, a professional comedian is running in Minnesota for US Senator, which is a bigger joke than his comedy routines. He's a Democrat but the appeal of odd offshoots in Minnesota is pointed out by his candidacy there.

 

There are lots of reasons why "outliers" like those in these and other parties have limited and spotty success, among them limited appeal, and lack of financial resources because of that. These two factors are interchangeable to an extent.

The US and internal elective offices are mass audiences and are difficult to reach without the resources needed to reach a broadly based mass audience, namely TV and radio, hence money is free speech.

 

Faustus

[Moonlapse]

Define education.

Education/Educated:

A population adequately informed in the sciences, (their) history, language, economic and political system such that they are enabled to consider the soundness and likely consequences of their and their government's decisions (through their elected representatives) in developing their system, for the benefit of both, the individual citizen and society.

 

Faustus

What is 'adequately informed' and who determines it? Science, history, language, economics, and political systems according to whom? Does simply being informed to a standard criteria automatically enable you to consider the soundness and likely consequences of anything? Is the use of force appropriate to educate a population?

[P.Clodius]

A more important question would be related to expenditure. I read something yesterday that said something about Obama having a budget of $45 million ready to layout JUST for the month of April. The system is corrupted and needs to be fixed...I cannot run because I was not born in the US, fine, but PP cannot run either because he's not a multi-millionaire.

[Faustus]

A more important question would be related to expenditure. I read something yesterday that said something about Obama having a budget of $45 million ready to layout JUST for the month of April. The system is corrupted and needs to be fixed...I cannot run because I was not born in the US, fine, but PP cannot run either because he's not a multi-millionaire.

There are those of us who believe the system is not corrupted by money, as long as there is transparency as to where the money comes from. Obama's funds if divided by the number of contributors show he is getting small donations averaging about $50.

I just gave $50. to McCain. That is one way to support the ideas I think should win; another is persuasion.

 

Ross Perot had a vast fortune to use as he wanted but he was not able to get elected in 1992. However he did influence the election in favor of William Jefferson Clinton by taking votes from George H.W. Bush. Clinton only won with a plurality, not a majority of votes which tempered his

Edited April 21, 2008 by Faustus

[Kosmo]

Having many parties it's not more democratic then having just 2. What is relevant it's the way in which people became top party officials, the so called self-replication of the political elite. By selecting candidates the people already on top pass their ideology and habits to the future weeding out those who are undesirable from their point of view.

The highly competititve US system of nominations it's far more democratic then usual in the rest of the world where the candidates are chosen behind close doors (how did Gordon Brown became PM?). This US system allows for a suplimentary occasion for the electorate to express his will. Choosing the head of the executive it's also great.