What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Meta777, Mar 30, 2018.

?

Interested in Participating in PF 'Demonstration' Votes?

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
    70.6%
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  3. Maybe (Please Explain)

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  1. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,789
    Likes Received:
    5,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Although I applaud your effort, wading through three extra long posts is a bit much for me. Here I thought I posted long post replies at times. I'll just say this without reading all that you posted. If you go back to the 40's,50's and 60's you'll find that between 70-80% of all Americans identified themselves with both major parties. That both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. That outside of the deep south, the solid Democratic deep south, all states were in play in a presidential election, not just 8 or 10 swing states with the rest pretty much decided.

    What has happen is since then is the Republican dropped their liberals, the old Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast and the Democrats their conservative reliable base of the South as the GOP move further right and the Democrats further left. Once that was accomplished in the 1980's those who affiliated with the two major parties had dropped into the 60-70% range. But the two major parties weren't done moving more and more to the extremes left and right. Soon both began to shed their moderates. The one's who could with across the aisle and compromise with the other party. By 2010, not many moderates remained in either party, they had become independents. Thus leaving the hard core left and right in charge of and that affiliated with both major parties. Both major parties percentage now has shrunk to around 55% of the total electorate according to both Gallup and Pew Research give or take a point of two. Independents has grown from 18% in the 40's and 50's to 45% today.

    What we have today with just the hard core left in the two major parties, they choose the candidates for the general in their primaries which independents in most states can't participate. We end up with the hard left and hard right in Washington. The ideologues with no compromise and no give and take. We end up with candidates like Trump and Clinton who on election day had a 36% and 38% favorable rating. First time in history or since Gallup began keeping track of the candidate's favorable ratings that any major party president had a favorable rating of below 40% gong back to FDR. Both candidates broke the record for the lowest favorable rating previously held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. G.H.W. Bush at 46% was the second lowest up until 2016. No other major party candidate since FDR outside of those four I mentioned above ever had a favorable rating of 50% or below.

    25% of all Americans disliked both major parties candidates and didn't want neither for their next president. That included 54% of all independents. 60% when adding that 25% who disliked to those who either disliked one candidate but not the other showed that 60% of all Americans disliked Trump and 60% disliked Clinton, yet one of them had to win in our two party system. Yes, it was a hold your nose and vote for the candidate you least wanted to lose.

    This is the cause of the problem. The two major parties moving too far left and right. leaving the biggest chunk of the electorate, Americans without a political home or party. Both parties are happy with this, it leaves the hard core in charge, it leave them able to give us candidates like trump and Clinton. Candidates a majority don't want, but have to choose from. Then in congress, it becomes gridlock, party line votes, neither party willing or wanting to give an inch.

    What we have today is each major party looking at the other as this nation's number one enemy, it's worst enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, the terrorists, or anyone or anything else. That each party looks on the other the other party is out to destroy this nation. Probably in 10-15 years independents will cross the 50% line as they become more and more dissatisfied and basically abhor the two existing major parties. But all the power will continue to lie with them.
     
    Meta777 and Baff like this.
  2. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    7,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't ask for arguments. You said "if you can think of an alternate theory for why they are doing this, then I'd love to hear it."

    I posted alternate theories. You didn't post any arguments either. You didn't even post theories. You posted bumper stickers.
     
  3. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The people who are actively destroying America just want everyone to get along while they're doing it.

    um, nope. tooth and mother effing nail.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
    Thought Criminal, Crownline and Baff like this.
  4. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    7,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FPP? - https://www.acronymfinder.com/FPP.html

    I have long favored Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Choice, or other such alternative, but I always come up with questions.... fundamental questions. ....

    You said "our current system is inherently set up to favor the existence of two, and only two, major parties." True. And therefore both parties will, I expect, stop any effort to change the system.

    So the first thing that actually needs to be discussed and resolved is the question of who is going to create such a change and how do we ensure that. When we say "we need to change ________" we are wasting our time, because "we" don't have a way to bring it about.

    I'm a bit cynical. I don't see this changing because I don't see any way to make it happen. It's the same with most of the debates and arguments we see on the forum. Do you want to really make a difference and develop a real path to solving a real problem? Then let's discuss practical, realistic ways of bringing about change with a government that talks talks talks but does what they want, and what they want is usually in the interest of the big corporations.

    But if we do that, we would also need very strict enforcement of forum rules to prevent attacks of all kinds, derailing of the discussion, flamebaiting, etc.
     
  5. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,789
    Likes Received:
    5,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There will be no change. The two major parties enjoy their monopoly of our electoral system. That they agree on. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. To make a change, the two major parties would have to write laws that would allow for change to their monopoly and neither, both will never do so.
     
    Kode likes this.
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now you read Belch. Given you have, what do you believe the outcome of a vote might look like with you and him voting? Have you persuaded just one other poster?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  7. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the post above. Today when discussing politics, it is always based only on what is going on in DC. And my problem with Democrats is they make it worse and worse. Trying to reason them away from their ideology is not working. I have been on forums since Clinton was president and thus far I see not so much as hair of daylight with the Democrats wanting to drop their choke hold on the public.

    I once hoped Democrats would recoil from the monster they created and realize the harm they have done. But watching Schumer and the rest proves we have no chance they will change. They want to dig in harder.

    Why blame Democrats? I studied our history of government from 1932 forward to stick to modern politics and quickly noticed who governed the majority of years. Some posters look just at presidents to see who governs but I looked at the congress. When Roosevelt was president, Democrats had this nation at their mercy. If Democrats wanted to move to socialism, they were unstoppable. While we finally saw a republic become president around 1953, that was 20 years of non stop Democrats. During that 20 years they poured on the coal and kept wracking up laws. Ike was not able to have a republican congress but his first 2 years. The man was hogtied.

    Anyway, this video will shed some light.

     
  8. thinkitout

    thinkitout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,897
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I am against them; I even question the necessity of having a party system, which purposely draws lines of division. . . . The biggest problem is that the people of the UNITED STATES are no longer unified in their goals. Self vs. country is the divisive factor that challenges our legacy of patriotism.

    I DREAM of a time when TWO universally admired candidates face off in an election, the outcome of which will be universally acceptable.
     
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your post is definitely on topic. Changing the voting method may be my favorite idea so far, but I wanted this thread to be open to all ideas as it relates to reducing partisan dysfunction. And I agree that the media is part of the problem. That said, how exactly can we fix it?

    -Meta
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless of what Democrats are doing, and regardless of whether the idea that they're doing it is or is not just a conspiracy theory, my real problem with Brewskier's post is that he has asserted that I am in favor of things which I have never claimed to be in favor of. If he believes that some particular actions by some Democrats are contributing to the partisan dysfunction, then its one thing just to say that,...but why take the very offensive extra step of claiming that I, Meta777, am in favor of/participating in "Ethnic Cleansing", unless one was just trying to start trouble or sew a bit of dysfunctional discord themselves???

    -Meta
     
  11. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meta, you didn't call for ethnic cleansing. Just an observation from a disinterested bystander.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So...your solution to Partisan Dysfunction,...
    would be to limit the federal government's authority strictly to managing the military, and nothing else?

    Just want to make sure I understand what you're suggesting, so that I can add it to the list.

    -Meta
     
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if a moderate had won, perhaps they both would have been put behind bars.
    Or perhaps, more realistically, we'd have been more able to focus on actually fixing the real issues rather than punishing political opponents.

    I know you're skeptical, but if the only alternative is shooting at each-other, again, don't you think its at least worth giving something like Instant Runoff a try? Seriously, why does war have to be the first go-to???

    Anyways, the point of this thread is to figure out ways to better resolve our disputes.
    Government, or no government, we are going to have disputes at times regardless, right?
    So, as a large population of individuals each with varying interests, what can we do to resolve those disputes?
    Our current Plurality Voting method is one answer. I believe the alternate voting methods I listed are better answers.
    But what other ways are there, for us to resolve disputes, again, preferably short of shooting one another dead??

    -Meta
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go to court?
     
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That requires laws.
    What set of laws are we going to go with?
    And if we happen to need new ones, who's going to make them?

    Will the court judges decide the laws themselves?
    And for that matter, who gets to decide who the court judges are?

    -Meta
     
  16. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it doesn't. It requires courts.
    Judges can be, and are, elected.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  17. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,569
    Likes Received:
    11,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would think that, at that point, a new party could be formed that deliberately targeted the middle. Actually, I think we're at that point now.
     
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Consider this site, we have moderators here who essentially act as the judges.
    But how fair would things be if we didn't have the written forum rules (the law of this site) to go along with them?

    Metaphorically speaking, we would effectively still have laws, they would just exist within each moderator's head,
    and note, would likely be different for each mod and subject to change on a whim.

    Would you agree, that that wouldn't be ideal?

    OK, yes...so you're saying that if there is a dispute on who should be a judge,
    the people, who would be subject to such judges should decide them through a democratic vote...right?
    So if we're going to have a democratic vote, should it be a Plurality vote, Instant Runoff, or something different?

    -Meta
     
  19. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I disagree that it wouldn't be ideal. If judges are chosen by society and they are charged with administering justice then that would be ideal.
     
  20. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,789
    Likes Received:
    5,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's harder than one thinks. For one thing it is the Republicans and Democrats who write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Maybe those two major parties can't agree on anything else, but they do agree on not letting a viable third party arise. Two is financial. Corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors give the two major parties tens of millions of dollars. They're not about to add a third party to their list.

    I went through this with Ross Perot, ballot access was a bear. petitions, 50 different state laws and 50 different time periods, different formats and different information required. It cost millions just to get Ross on all 50 state ballots and a couple of law suits. Republicans and Democrats get automatic ballot access for the general.

    Gallup shows 61% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed. What's more 77% of independents think a viable third party is needed.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/219953/...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
     
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're saying that you do want the judges to just make the laws up themselves as they go?

    And are you also saying you think this site would be better somehow if we didn't have the written forum rules?
    If you ask me, people complain enough about inconsistency as it is. Imagine how inconsistent things would be
    without the rules in place. Members would have no idea of what would get them banned,
    and if they miraculously somehow managed to figure out what one mod tended to ban people for and avoid that,
    who's to say another mod wouldn't just swoop in and ban them for something else? It would be a hot mess.

    But even putting that aside...you are saying that you think the judges should be chosen by society.
    And if I'm reading you right (correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't going to be anyone to unilaterally appoint judges in your ideal scenario.
    But of course, society likely isn't always going to all agree on who should be a judge, so how are they going to pick?
    Should they use a Plurality method? Instant Runoff? A Condorcet method? Or Something Else?

    -Meta
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I'm saying that I would prefer that we have judges who settle disputes between people.

    This forum's rules should be whatever the owner wants them to be.

    I am fine with our current system of electing judges.
     
  23. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our current system of selecting judges, is to let elected representatives pick them.

    -Meta
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where I live (in Pennsylvania) judges are elected by the people. But I would be okay with any way that society wishes to choose who will be their judges.
     
  25. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, its different at different levels and in different places.
    But note, any and every judge in the U.S. today, is not operating in a system where they can just make up law as they go.
    Laws in the U.S. are written down on paper. All that a judge does is interpret those laws.
    There is ample leeway in how they interpret them...some might say too much occasionally.
    But the fact of the matter is, judges in the U.S. do not act in isolation from laws.

    Also note, that regardless of how or where...at some level in the process of putting judges in place, the people, inevitably have to vote...right? Either directly for the judge themselves, or for the person or persons who picks the judge on the people's behalf. And if representatives are used, they may yet have to engage in a vote themselves...So if voting is as such required...what type of voting should occur? Please answer...
    Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff, Condorcet (e.g. Ranked Pairs), Approval Voting, something else, or does it depend on factors such as the level of the office etc.?

    -Meta
     

Share This Page