Tonight, I re-registered as an independent. I was formally a Democrat. I believed in the principles of the party and thought the party was an affirmation of the working man's rights. They were distinct from the Republicans and acted as a bulwark against the most outrageous and terrifying acts this opposition could muster. Lately, I feel the party has failed to represent their constituents and are Republican-lite. 9-11, as with the nation, has changed the Democrats and not for the best. Just expressing my thoughts and what I did in response to those thoughts.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Okay, I'm starting a betting pool on how long this will last before hitting the flameboard. 400 quatloos on ten posts beyond this one. Any takers?
As for the Democrats and Republicans, I think I have to agree. The Democratic party may have once been a force for workers rights and the proverbial good guys, but if they were it was long before I was born. The Republican party may have once been based around advancing the welfare of white millionaires, but again, long before I was born. As things are NOW, both parties are so mired down in politics that they don't actually get ANYTHING done. There is no guiding principle behind either the Republican or Democratic party, beyond "win the elections". They both suck. Of course, the Democrats suck MORE, but... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Become a communist. Is there a Anarchist option? I want to be registered as a Nihilist.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Lately, I feel the party has failed to represent their constituents..."
Most politicians don't represent their constituents. When do you think was the last time an entire party managed it?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I was getting worried that Omega would get through a post mentioning "Democrats" without slagging them off. Thank God that never happened, eh?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
There were individuals in each party who were skilled at representing their constituents. Nowadays, these individuals are few in number and nearing extinction.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, of course, Liam! I put that in there because didn't want to disappoint anyone.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What does this "registration" thing do anyway? Don't you just vote when the time comes?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
It's like wearing a Liverpool sweater even on days when they aren't playing.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
On a semi-related note, why does America have only two significant parties? Has it just grown that way? Have there ever been marginally succesful 'third' parties? I mean, there are other parties, aren't there? Or am I talking bull now?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I think the only time when a third party was actually successful was when Roosevelt ran for a third party when he was dumped by one of the other two (I don't remember exactly)
And yes, thats just the way it happened to come out.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
There are other parties in our country. These parties are small, not as well funded, and, in some notable cases, on the fringe.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: It's like wearing a Liverpool sweater even on days when they aren't playing.
That's what I wondered, except, well, you can see someone wearing a Liverpool top. How are people suppossed to know who you are registered to? Do you get a free "I heart Bush" t-shirt when you join, or something?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As I understand things, a party is a private organization. Anyone can join that organization, presumably so long as they aren't part of any other party. You pay your dues, you get a card, and you can vote in party primaries. And you may well get a tee-shirt, too.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
By registering to vote and thus affiliating yourself with a particular political party, you are then entitled to vote to select the candidate you want in the primary (before the real election) who will represent your party in the general election (election proper). So if you are a registered Democrat you would get to vote for whichever democrat (Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, or Minnie Mouse) you want to face off against George W. If there are T-shirts involved, no one has told me.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
A disenchanted Stephen: "I voted Republican and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." B)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'd be quite keen to see Minnie Mouse running as the presidential Democratic candidate. After all, we've almost certainly already got Repulican Senator Arnie "Charisma" Schwarzenegger. And have you noticed that his name is in the Word spell checker? And considering what he looks like even now that he's 7,000 years old, can you blame them?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: A disenchanted Stephen: "I voted Republican and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." B)
LOL! I mean I hate that LOL shit, but I did actually laugh. Out loud.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: On a semi-related note, why does America have only two significant parties? Has it just grown that way? Have there ever been marginally succesful 'third' parties? I mean, there are other parties, aren't there? Or am I talking bull now?
It's quite ironic, actually, but the Republican Party of today actually was itself a third party back when it was first founded in the 1850's.
This may require a somewhat long treatise on the history of American politics, but I'll try to be brief.
Originally, there weren't supposed to be any political parties in Congress at all under the 1787 Constitution. Ideally, everyone was just supposed to work together. But within the first decade, two basic factions developed, which could generally be characterized as favoring strict or loose interpretation of the Constitution. There was no real party organization at all in those days, but they were generally referred to as "Federalists" (for the loose interpretation group, who looked to Alexander Hamilton as the "leader" in terms of philosophy and policy), and the "Democratic-Republicans" or just "Republicans" (for the strict interpration group, following Thomas Jefferson).
After the administrations of Jefferson and Madison, the Federalist party basically collapsed and disappeared. America was actually a one-party government (unofficially) for about 15 to 20 years, before some disagreements arose (partially pertaining to North/South sectionalism), and the Whig Party was founded. IIRC, the Whigs did include some former Federalists from a few decades before, but they didn't take a whole strong connection. The Democratic-Republicans gradually came to be known as Democrats by the 1830's or so, the same Democratic Party we know and love (or not) today.
The whole build-up to the American Civil War from around 1848 until 1861 created a huge mess in politics. The Republican Party was founded in the 1850's and was only becoming popular because all the other parties were divided into North/South branches. Basically, there were two separate parties for each party name -- like the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats. Then there were the Northern Whigs, the Southern Whigs, and the Conscience Whigs, the Free Soil Party... and my personal favorite, the "Know-Nothing Party." (Which came from its secretive practices, when the members would answer "I know nothing" to any question about them.)
After the Civil War, everyone who was against the strict anti-slavery Republican policies basically unified under the Democratic banner. Aside from a few "populist" parties in the 1890's (early socialism, basically) and Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party in 1912, the US has been pretty well locked into the two-party system. Which, in my personal opinion, definitely sucks for us.
Well, that about sums it up. In the future, never ask an open-ended question like this when a History major is lurking about... Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I have lost count on how many political parties are in Canada. The major ones I can think of are Liberal, Progressive-Conservative, and New Democratic Party.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You live in a strange Canada where the Progressive Conservative party is "major."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That doesn't really explain why the U.S. is dualistic, though. The Republicans and Democrats are remarkably skilled at co-option, to such a degree that to claim that they really only represent two points of view is misleading. Those third parties you mention weren't forced out of the political arena by being silenced. They were swallowed whole, digested, and their political bones were spit out.
It seems to me quite unreasonable to insist the United States have parliamentary-style political parties when it doesn't have a parliamentary government.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, he lives in a province run by them.
Canada's politics, federally anyway, could be not-entirely-cynically described as one major party, four minor parties, and then about seven more really-really-minor parties.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:It's quite ironic, actually, but the Republican Party of today actually was itself a third party back when it was first founded in the 1850's.
Not all that unusual - Labour was third of the big UK parties to be formed, back at the tuen of the last century.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And the old liberal Democrats self destructed, or something like that. Not literally, I would assume, although that would have been cool.
Is the position with the Tories today at all comparable? I mean, I know the Daily Mail thinks that the Tory party is going to get 150% of the vote next time, but they still seem to be more impotent than a 90 year old man with no winky.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: [QB]That doesn't really explain why the U.S. is dualistic, though.
Of course it doesn't. That would require several volumes of political science textbooks, which I don't have the time to research and transcribe right now.
But seriously, I think the reason why no truly viable third parties have developed is because since the 1890's or so, there've been various campaign laws enacted concerning funding, recognition, and so forth. I'd think that there's no real "conspiracy" per se, but basically, it's become very, very hard for any party other than the Democrats and the Republicans to get elected. Among other things, the finance laws automatically funnel plenty of Federal funding into the two main parties each year (for elections, really), while the third parties are under incredible pressure to first get recognition -- meaning create enough awareness of their party and their platform and gather several thousand petition signees -- and THEN try to gain enough support to get at least a tiny fraction of the Federal funding that the big parties get.
And as I understand it, all this basically has to be done inside the four-year election cycle, or else it has to be started again. Meaning that it's very difficult for parties to just slowly build a presence, since they've got to get big results right away -- and that rarely happens.
I'm not sure how accurate all this is -- I'm a History major, not PoliSci. But I have taken a few GoPo classes (GOvernment and POlitics) in my time. Got a "5" on the AP GoPo exam my senior year of high school, but that was four years ago.
quote:The Republicans and Democrats are remarkably skilled at co-option, to such a degree that to claim that they really only represent two points of view is misleading.
So true. After all, most political compasses out there have the FOUR major points -- fiscal conservative, fiscal liberal, social conservative, social liberal. From what I remember in my GoPo class, many (or most) people are conservative in one realm and liberal in the other (e.g. a financial conservative but a social liberal).
I remember reading some very interesting arguments in a class I took about three years ago in college. One of the big arguments against the current American political system was that there was just one representative for each election district. Not only did this lead to huge redistricting fights and gerrymandering (see Texas for the latest example, or North Carolina for a classic example), but it also can easily fail to represent a RANGE of opinions inside a district by having a "winner take all" system. What that book I read argued for instead was an "at large" system where there would be three or five representatives for each (enlarged) district, elected simultaneously. It people would vote for multiple candidates, basically. (Probably like how everyone's old high school Student Council elections were run, I'd bet.)
Is this Flameboard material yet? I'll wager two strips of latinum it'll happen before the end of the second page. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Damn, I miss the Whigs. AND the National Bocialist Party. But not the Silly Party.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: And the old liberal Democrats self destructed, or something like that. Not literally, I would assume, although that would have been cool.
Why do you think the House of Lords has red leather? It's not actually red. It's the remains of the Liberal Party.
Which actually continued into the 1980s (with about 2 seats) before merging with the Social Democrats who were a splinter group of Labour MPs who were pissed off with the ultra-left stance that Labour was then taking.
quote: Is the position with the Tories today at all comparable? I mean, I know the Daily Mail thinks that the Tory party is going to get 150% of the vote next time, but they still seem to be more impotent than a 90 year old man with no winky.
The 90 year old otherwise known as IDS, I assume? And last i checked the Mail was only saying 140% of the population were Tories.
I'm not that sure that the situation is entirely the same; the British population has been traditionally very conservative and I think basically the Conservatives have a severe image problem courtesy of the various scandels during the Major government and several unpopular policies (esp. Poll tax) of the Thatcherites. IDS seems a bit of a wet blanket but to be quie honest I can't see any alternative that would be better. They should have stuck with Hague IMHO; he used to trash Blair during PMQs but he did have that Tory boy image.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
In West Virginia, you have to vote on a ballot for your party. Being an Independent, I can use onlt the Republican, cause the Democrats wont allow Independents to vote on their ballots. With the rightward shift after the last election, that may be changing. I'd very much like to see WV drop parties altogether, let everyone register, and vote for who ever they want to see in office.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
On an only vaguely related note:
I got an A in Politics!!!!!! Granted, it was in the most totally pointless exams ever conceived by anyone (the A/S level) but it's still an A. And I got 100% on one of the papers. And on two of the History papers (out of three). And on one of the Law papers (in which I also got an A). And I got two Cs in Chemistry and Tech (Product Design). But I was only 4 and 3 marks off a B respectively. Which is bloody irritating. But hey, I'm still pretty damn pleased.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ah, the ever-useful combination of law and chemistry. The unis will be climbing over each other to get to you. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Could be, if its biochemistry. Law firms are probably scrambling to find lawyers that understand biotechnology issues. Special bonus if you're familiar with IP issues as well But since you're still in high school. *shrug* Enjoy the irrelevance.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)