Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Always does not = right. Politics has gotten just a little more corrupt/self serving I'm sure you've noticed(?).
"But we always did it this way!...." the masses cry, therefore, it must still be valid and right to serve the people.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with our political system.
But you need to understand that the system exists because it offers something. And that changing the system comes with costs.
For instance, you just want candidates to run willy-nilly, a slate of candidates for you to choose from with no political affiliation. How are those candidates going to communicate to you and to all voters? Your proposal would drive the costs of campaigns much higher. And you end up with a slate of candidates composed of only very wealthy people, or people who are even more tied into the elite you hold in so much disdain.
I want better representation, just like you. Which is why I tell people, that to get it, we've got to remove the cap on the number of Representatives in the House. That's the best battlefront to address the issues you have with government.
In the case of the GOP, their recent track record at what's best for the party doesn't look very successful! They allowed the worst President in history to win twice, and could not find a viable candidate to defeat Obama. Now they FINALLY have a real candidate, and don't want him because he hasn't been bought and paid for by them. I don't believe that you are so gullible that you really think these folks aren't concerned about their own interests ABOVE anything else.
That's just silly. Barack Obama has been a far worse president than George W. Bush.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with our political system.
But you need to understand that the system exists because it offers something. And that changing the system comes with costs.
For instance, you just want candidates to run willy-nilly, a slate of candidates for you to choose from with no political affiliation. How are those candidates going to communicate to you and to all voters? Your proposal would drive the costs of campaigns much higher. And you end up with a slate of candidates composed of only very wealthy people, or people who are even more tied into the elite you hold in so much disdain.
I want better representation, just like you. Which is why I tell people, that to get it, we've got to remove the cap on the number of Representatives in the House. That's the best battlefront to address the issues you have with government.
Not at all. The internet makes it cheap/efficient for anyone to get something rolling. Fundraising is a breeze on various websites. Look at sander's where I believe his average donation is in the $20's. Set up one of many sites to collect the money. Easy and efficient and costs a candidate next to nothing.
Yes, the wealthy component will probably be present if we have a slate of individuals running independent/no party affiliation. But it doesn't have to be. Again, websites are next to nothing to host. Social media sites, donation collecting money sites, dirt cheap to maintain/run in the scheme of thing. Get an army of people donating time for free to a campaign like we have now. And we are back to the people being ultimately responsible who they vote for, a rich person or an average person. Given the web levels the playing field, the choice is again ultimately up to the voter.
Not at all. The internet makes it cheap/efficient for anyone to get something rolling. Fundraising is a breeze on various websites. Look at sander's where I believe his average donation is in the $20's. Set up one of many sites to collect the money. Easy and efficient and costs a candidate next to nothing.
Yes, the wealthy component will probably be present if we have a slate of individuals running independent/no party affiliation. But it doesn't have to be. Again, websites are next to nothing to host. Social media sites, donation collecting money sites, dirt cheap to maintain/run in the scheme of thing. Get an army of people donating time for free to a campaign like we have now. And we are back to the people being ultimately responsible who they vote for, a rich person or an average person. Given the web levels the playing field, the choice is again ultimately up to the voter.
By all means, you should form the steven64 party!
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Not at all. The internet makes it cheap/efficient for anyone to get something rolling. Fundraising is a breeze on various websites. Look at sander's where I believe his average donation is in the $20's. Set up one of many sites to collect the money. Easy and efficient and costs a candidate next to nothing.
Yes, the wealthy component will probably be present if we have a slate of individuals running independent/no party affiliation. But it doesn't have to be. Again, websites are next to nothing to host. Social media sites, donation collecting money sites, dirt cheap to maintain/run in the scheme of thing. Get an army of people donating time for free to a campaign like we have now. And we are back to the people being ultimately responsible who they vote for, a rich person or an average person. Given the web levels the playing field, the choice is again ultimately up to the voter.
Since you cited Sanders, can you explain why Sanders, who has long pointedly self-identified as an Independent and not a Democrat, decided to run for the Democratic nomination? Since he's so easily raised funds, why didn't he run as an Independent?
DC, the party should not have the right to pick the candidate....period...it is us, that should do the picking and this has to change!!!
Where did you get erroneous sense of entitlement? This would be like you demanding the right to pick the next CEO of Apple because you own an iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
I don't support the GOP's Platform and agenda anymore....
Then what on Earth makes you think you have the right to dictate to them who their nominee is?
They are choosing their nominee, if you don't support the party anymore, then find a new party to join, or better yet, start your own and make your own rules. Don't hijack the Republican party and turn it in to what you want it to be.
If Trump has the most delegates, he will WIN the first ballot but lose
in a subsequent round.
In order to WIN anything, you have to have a majority of delegates, not just most.... This has been the rule for 150 years. Having "most" of the delegates does not necessarily =/= winning.
Thank you for taking the time to answer- you explained it well. I'd like to do away with the party system- it seems to discredit the will of the people to some degree. I'm for having a general election with all candidates lumped together on one ballot. Unless one gets 50% or more of the popular vote, have a run off between the top two. The electoral vote is silly- it can negate the will of the majority.
In other words, you don't think that smaller, less populous states should have any say in elections? Because that's what the popular vote would result in. The electoral college was designed to give smaller states some say in the election. Popular vote would result in basically New York and California picking the president every 4 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85
I believe that the "good old boys" power network will do all they can to make sure Trump does NOT get the nomination. Their concern is NOT for the party, but their own self interests, and staying on the "gravy train" with one of their puppets in office.
Did Sarah Palin tell you that?
I have to wonder if anyone thinks for themselves anymore. I've heard Trump people on TV use that "gravy train" line over and over again, and then people come here and repeat it as if they thought it up all by themselves. They're just parroting back everything that other people say.
And no one as of yet has been able to tell me how Trump if elected president will be able to put a stop to this "gravy train" either. They just seem to take it on faith that he will. You realize Trump won't be able to make laws, right? Oh and, why would Trump ever want to put a stop ( even if he could ) to a the "gravy train" that even he admits he took part and bought so much influence in as a business man?
Since you cited Sanders, can you explain why Sanders, who has long pointedly self-identified as an Independent and not a Democrat, decided to run for the Democratic nomination? Since he's so easily raised funds, why didn't he run as an Independent?
You bring up a very good question. And I wonder about this myself. Just a guess? He wants to influence/take a major party much further to the left. And if he doesn't win the nomination which sure seems likely, he wants to be able to influence this move to the left based on all the backing he has received from the people. It will be telling if he loses the nomination and what he does at that point.....run as an independent or not. This will be telling on several levels what his agenda really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
By all means, you should form the steven64 party!
There you go!
At one level it seems enticing but I realize I'd lose because I'm too blunt and most importantly, too honest. The honesty part doesn't seem to work very well in the game of politics.
Last edited by stevek64; 04-08-2016 at 03:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
