Bernie Sanders' Revolution a drifting derelict afloat in a crooked Democratic Party

[Terrell]

Edit: If you want a system in the U.S. with more than 2 parties, you're going to need some form of proportional representation. I doubt there's sufficient political support in the U.S. to change our government in that fashion.

I think you are dead wrong about that. Just look at the polls and it is clear to see. Democrats are not too fond of Clinton and Republicans are not too fond of Trump. They will vote for them and not go third party because they are afraid of or hate the other side. And so long as these two parties are the only two that get any votes, they will never want to change the system no matter what the public actually wants. Same with how they lock anybody else out of the debates. And same with how they control the media through access.

So how exactly do you propose changing the system? Please be specific. The thing I propose; fielding more progressive candidates in Democratic primaries starting at the local level and working your way up to the presidency will work. It just won't happen overnight. Social Conservatives proved this when they wanted Republican candidates more to their liking.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Encourage people to vote 3rd party. The more that do, the more will. As they do the pressure mounts on the major parties. If a critical mass is reached and a third party wins either the presidency or numerous seats in the house/senate, then we'll see even more rapid change, as the parties will see it in their benefit to move towards proportional representation and to listen to the voters instead of just the donors/funders/corrupters.

The idea that you can never vote for what you actually want, but instead against what you like the least, has to die. As does the idea that you have to vote for one of the two established big money corrupt parties currently running the show together.

 

[Terrell]

Encourage people to vote 3rd party. The more that do, the more will, until a critical mass is reached and a third party wins either the presidency or numerous seats in the house/senate. Then the parties will start to see it in their benefit to move towards proportional representation and to listen to the voters instead of just the donors/funders/corrupters. The public will also see it as more and more of a real possibility, and put more and more pressure on the major parties to do so.

The idea that you can never vote for what you actually want, but instead against what you like the least, has to die.

Why would people vote 3rd party in a system where the person with the most votes wins and there's no prize for 2nd place? How exactly do you get that to happen when splitting liberal votes between multiple parties, when conservative votes remain in the Republican party results in more Republican victories? How much damage do you have to undo should you even get this to work, as opposed to having moderate Democrats in power while you build a broader more progressive coalition to get the policies you want? 4 yards in a cloud of dust, consistently over a generation, is the way to go.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How does your approach break the two party system or do anything but further entrench it and give more power to the few? Can you work that out? If so, I'll happily hop on board.

Up here in Canada we also have first past the post voting, and it is the NDP (not currently in power) making the push for proportional representation. Liberals (the party in power) are listening and we may get some traction on the issue, all because the history we had with Harper on the right (and a fractured left) and people that kept voting for more than the 2 parties. There is a spirit here of multiple party dynamics even though we have first past the post same as you. Our debates for the last election had 4 people on the stage rather than just 2, and it wasn't entirely clear who as going to win until it happened.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-debate-takeaways-aug7-1.3182332

 

[Terrell]

How does your approach break the two party system or do anything but further entrench it and give more power to the few? Can you work that out? If so, I'll happily hop on board.

I'm saying that the 2 party system in the United States cannot be broken due to the First Past the Post, Win or Go Home system. Trying to set up more than 2 major parties here simply won't work for that reason. I see no reason why splitting the vote is going to get you to proportional elections. What's the incentive of a major party who sees it's opposition party's coalition fracturing to allow their own coalition to fracture? Why wouldn't they simply try and pick up some of the other party's pieces and further consolidate their power? They win more elections if that happens rather than trying to change to a different system.

Since the electoral system in the US is designed that way, FPTP WOGH, it makes sense for groups of people whose interests overlap to some degree, or are somewhat compatible to form a coalition (major party) and vote as a group. Those not in the first group, can band together to form a second coalition (major party) and work together to get policies more to their liking. Members of neither coalition get everything they want, but they likely do better than getting nothing they want.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is going on with Sanders isn't about third parties or Henry Kissinger. I think to get as much of the party platform as he did to go progressive, he made a deal with the Clintons. They will most likely break that deal as soon as they can. But Bernie won't. He will do everything he said he would because he knows the rules of the playground and no good kid wants to a outed as a fink.

Bernie is looking down the road. Clinton can only be President for 8 years, Sanders wants to change the next 50 or possibly 55 years. I'm nearing 40 and I have no idea how politics can work for change. The Republicans have brain washed people into voting against their own self-interests. So that makes it that much harder to fight for things like affordable higher level education and health care.

In 2004 it was all about compromising everywhere to get majorities in the Senate and House. We did it in '06 and we gained almost nothing from that, so it isn't about having the majorities. It almost seems like you have to have a leader to can sell the ideas to the typical American. Sanders can't do that. Clinton doesn't want to. Obama lacked the Congress.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm saying that the 2 party system in the United States cannot be broken due to the First Past the Post, Win or Go Home system. Trying to set up more than 2 major parties here simply won't work for that reason. I see no reason why splitting the vote is going to get you to proportional elections. What's the incentive of a major party who sees it's opposition party's coalition fracturing to allow their own coalition to fracture? Why wouldn't they simply try and pick up some of the other party's pieces and further consolidate their power? They win more elections if that happens rather than trying to change to a different system.

Is your answer really that the 2 party system can never be broken, so don't try and just accept the 2 parties ruling over you forever? And forget any sense of actual democracy?

It isn't a democracy if the people are not able to vote outside the 2 establishment parties that work together to exclude actual progress. A 3rd party could win if it had enough of a vote, just like any of the other two parties. A third party if it got enough votes but didn't win, could still scare the crap out of the 2 parties to try to move them and get some progress out of them. And the more that vote for that 3rd party this time, the more realistic it looks next time that they could win, and the more people will vote for them next time. You could ramp up to something like we have here, were in our last election it was a 3 party race, not a 2 party race, and 3 parties were on the debate stage (5 in the French language debate). This could still happen under first past the post, and it could move people to vote in a better system, which will NEVER happen so long as you keep the 2 party system strong.

 

[Sarpedon]

16 years ago I voted for Nader. I've regretted it ever since. How many have died because Bush and not Gore was elected? Don't tell me both parties are the same. One has an apocalyptic viewpoint that encourages war and destruction in the middle east, and the other has to try to fix it every time it comes to power. The longer you can keep the first out of power, the less you'll have to fix afterwards.

I really can't stand people who rip on Obama for failing to solve the problems that Bush caused to their satisfaction, who then turn around and propose sabotaging Clinton the same way they sabotaged Gore. The parties are not the same. Now more than ever.

I don't really see the difference between these whiny, entitled lefties who want to smash the system because it doesn't fulfill their every desire, and the whiny, gun-toting tea partiers who want the country to go back to what they imagine it once was. Sure, they want different things, but their sense of entitlement blinds them to the reality in the same way. It is almost always more productive to try to change the system from within than smash it and start over. Even the most cursory glance at history will show that.

The difference between Sanders himself and some of his 'supporters' is that Sanders understands the importance of working with people in a productive fashion, rather than sabotaging and then whining about the results.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It almost seems like you have to have a leader to can sell the ideas to the typical American. Sanders can't do that. Clinton doesn't want to. Obama lacked the Congress.

Maybe Sanders needs to enlist a celebrity to sell his ideas? Somebody like Jon Stewart, Oprah, etc? One thing Trump has shown everybody in this election is that celebrity outsider status is powerful in an election.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

16 years ago I voted for Nader. I've regretted it ever since. How many have died because Bush and not Gore was elected?

Gore's failure to get people out to vote for him and subsequent failure to challenge the unfair appointment (not election) of Bush, isn't the fault of Nader or any of Nader's supporters. Had Gore put forth a better platform he would have gotten more votes, Nader would have been seen as redundant and gotten less votes, and Gore would have won. That was on Gore, not Nader. It was indeed precisely because the Democrats and Republicans were so similar that Gore lost.

You then had a large number of Democrats voting for the Iraq war, including Hillary Clinton. So you can't put ALL the blame for it on Bush and the Republicans (though they certainly deserve most of it). In fact, whereas Clinton voted for the Iraq War (a serious black mark on her record), Trump wasn't in politics then and didn't have any of the intel, so who knows what he would have done. Maybe he would have asked his friends in Russia to do something. Who knows. We can't know for sure that Trump would be more of a war hawk than Clinton. She's got a proven record of pushing for war (not just Iraq). He's got nothing but idle words. The thought of either Clinton or Trump directing your military is a frightening one.

And once Obama took power, he wasn't exactly a pacifist. He continues drone strikes to this day, with little information on who he is killing. He also hasn't been great domestically. He brought in Obama care, which was a huge gift to the insurance companies, forcing profits into their pockets, etc, and didn't even TRY for single payer. A third party remains called for. At the very least a good showing for a third party resulting in a NON-landslide win for Hillary, will let her know she's on thin ice for a second term, and may push her policies accordingly. A landslide win for Clinton, making her think she can do whatever she wants with impunity, is almost as scary a thought as a Trump presidency that somehow is more than a 4 year lame duck or early impeachment (which I find likely if he wins).

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, I've heard those things before.

Except...I was there, I was one of the voters. I know what my motives and reasons were. Let me tell you, they were inadequate. I voted for the Green party, the party ostensibly for environmental causes...against the strongest advocate for environmentalism the Democratic party had at the time? I didn't listen to the reasons. I wasn't making a rational choice. I didn't actually examine the contenders. I was bored and fed up and wanted something different. The problem was with me, my impatience, my ego, my lack of seriousness. Gore's only faults were being pompous and boring.

Yes I could blame Gore. That would be much easier than blaming myself. But my vote is my own, and my responsibility. It is because of my vote and others like me that gave us Bush and Iraq. But it is easier to blame Gore.

And it is easy to blame Clinton. War in Afganistan may have been inevitable, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq was part of the Neocon strategy years in advance. She voted for it, as people love to shriek. But only after a parade of people came before congress and the people and lied and whipped people up into a frenzy.

When I voted for Nader, I had no such excuse. There was no frenzy, no war, nothing. I was bored, and I wanted some excitement and change, so I voted for Nader, and got it.

So, by all means, if you are bored and want something different, vote for Stein, and get Trump. It will certainly be an interesting 4 (or 8) years. As for me, I've had enough excitement.

 

[Terrell]

I'm saying that the 2 party system in the United States cannot be broken due to the First Past the Post, Win or Go Home system. Trying to set up more than 2 major parties here simply won't work for that reason. I see no reason why splitting the vote is going to get you to proportional elections. What's the incentive of a major party who sees it's opposition party's coalition fracturing to allow their own coalition to fracture? Why wouldn't they simply try and pick up some of the other party's pieces and further consolidate their power? They win more elections if that happens rather than trying to change to a different system.

Is your answer really that the 2 party system can never be broken, so don't try and just accept the 2 parties ruling over us forever? And forget any sense of actual democracy?

It isn't a democracy if the people are not able to vote outside the 2 establishment parties that work together to exclude actual progress. A 3rd party could win if it had enough of a vote, just like any of the other two parties. A third party if it got enough votes but didn't win, could still scare the crap out of the 2 parties to try to move them and get some progress out of them. And the more that vote for that 3rd party this time, the more realistic it looks next time that they could win, and the more people will vote for them next time. You could ramp up to something like we have here, were in our last election it was a 3 party race, not a 2 party race, and 3 parties were on the debate stage (5 in the French language debate).

You still have democracy, you decide who the major parties put on the general election ballot by voting in the primaries. That's where you make democratic change. Sanders couldn't get it done in the primary, he would do well to work towards getting Democratic candidates to his liking in down ballot elections in the future.

Your plan looks like magical thinking since it doesn't show a clear means to get from point A to point B. You've yet to show how you get people to risk having their views set back by voting for a 3rd party that won't win and risking politicians that are hostile to their views getting elected.

3 or more presidential candidates that are capable of carrying multiple states, risks giving the decision of who wins the presidency to the House of Representatives. (The Senate decides the VP)

In the House each state would get 1 vote. This means CA gets the same 1 vote as WY, even though CA has cities with larger population than the entire state of WY. Los Angeles CA's population is around 3.8 million, WY's population (statewide) is a little under 600K. How is that democracy when people in Los Angeles get the same number of votes than people in WY despite having more than 6x the population? That doesn't even include the rest of CA!

Do you really think that an election decided in the House is going to give you any other result than whichever party has control of the most house delegations? Currently that's the Republicans with the most delegations under their control. Congressional delegations range in size from 1 (WY, AK, and others) to 52 (CA).

 

[dismal]

Yes, I've heard those things before.

Except...I was there, I was one of the voters. I know what my motives and reasons were. Let me tell you, they were inadequate. I voted for the Green party, the party ostensibly for environmental causes...against the strongest advocate for environmentalism the Democratic party had at the time? I didn't listen to the reasons. I wasn't making a rational choice. I didn't actually examine the contenders. I was bored and fed up and wanted something different. The problem was with me, my impatience, my ego, my lack of seriousness. Gore's only faults were being pompous and boring.

Yes I could blame Gore. That would be much easier than blaming myself. But my vote is my own, and my responsibility. It is because of my vote and others like me that gave us Bush and Iraq. But it is easier to blame Gore.

And it is easy to blame Clinton. War in Afganistan may have been inevitable, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq was part of the Neocon strategy years in advance. She voted for it, as people love to shriek. But only after a parade of people came before congress and the people and lied and whipped people up into a frenzy.

When I voted for Nader, I had no such excuse. There was no frenzy, no war, nothing. I was bored, and I wanted some excitement and change, so I voted for Nader, and got it.

So, by all means, if you are bored and want something different, vote for Stein, and get Trump. It will certainly be an interesting 4 (or 8) years. As for me, I've had enough excitement.

Pretty sure the math would say your vote did not swing the election.

So, rest easy. If your sense of self importance can handle it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Except...I was there, I was one of the voters. I know what my motives and reasons were. Let me tell you, they were inadequate. I voted for the Green party, the party ostensibly for environmental causes...against the strongest advocate for environmentalism the Democratic party had at the time? I didn't listen to the reasons. I wasn't making a rational choice. I didn't actually examine the contenders. I was bored and fed up and wanted something different. The problem was with me, my impatience, my ego, my lack of seriousness. Gore's only faults were being pompous and boring.

So you voted for Nader with no idea what Nader was for? And no idea what Bush and Gore were saying they were for at the time? Ok then, yes, that's on you. But that's not on Nader or any of his supporters who actually did know the platforms. It is also still on Gore for being pompous and boring. He failed to excite you, let you know how much he is for the causes you support, etc.

Yes I could blame Gore. That would be much easier than blaming myself.

You can blame both. But by your own words above, it isn't on Nader, and isn't any reason not to vote for a third party if you actually do your research beforehand.

And it is easy to blame Clinton. War in Afganistan may have been inevitable, but Iraq wasn't. Iraq was part of the Neocon strategy years in advance. She voted for it, as people love to shriek. But only after a parade of people came before congress and the people and lied and whipped people up into a frenzy.

Clinton certainly isn't as to blame for the Iraq War as Bush is, but she did vote for it, and has pushed other war measures and aggressive postures for your military since. She is no dove, and we have little actual reason to believe that she's any more of a hawk than Trump would be once actually in power.

You could really use additional parties with some real traction in US politics. Even if they don't wield power of their own, they could at least be checks on the two main parties. Clinton veers too far to the right, the Green party is looming to take her votes from her. Republicans veer too far away from what libertarians want? Libertarian party looms to take their votes away. Additional parties could serve as additional voices. In a two party system there are no such checks on the big parties. If Clinton wins a landslide victory and doesn't feel at all threatened from the left, she will feel free to run to the right and here comes the TPP, and there goes universal health care, etc.

If Hillary has the comfort of thinking that her base will never abandon her no matter what she does, because she isn't the Republicans, and the Republicans are crazy (ie, Trump).... you do not have a democracy. You have a dictator.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't blame Gore for 'not exciting me.' I blame myself for not understanding the benefits to working for change within the system.

That is what makes Sanders such a special leader, and that's why I supported him, and now Clinton. He knows when to work with the system, and when to step outside of it. When I look at nuts like Stein and Johnson, who are literally both too ignorant to run as anything other than protest candidates, I see that these are not leaders who will accomplish anything. And you forget one thing when you say I can't blame them: They are part of the system too, and some people support them not because they want fools like Stein or Johnson to win, but because they siphon off votes, like you say. How is that somehow not 'part of the system?' People who want to wreck the system are easy to subvert to serving the system. This is another reason that patient work to reform the system from within, like Sanders does, is so important. (I can also blame them for having the temerity to run for president, despite being a couple of ignorant fools)

And, need I point out, Hillary knows quite well that people won't support her no matter what. Remember a guy named Barack Obama, who upset her carefully planned succession? If anyone knows the importance of not taking things for granted, its her. L

You see, you scold me for believing unfair things about Gore, because I was big enough to admit it. You are far from admitting that you are being unfair to Clinton.

 

[blastula]

Bernie Sanders taps his donor network to raise nearly $2 million in two days for House, Senate contenders - The Washington Post

 

[Elixir]

Bernie Sanders taps his donor network to raise nearly $2 million in two days for House, Senate contenders - The Washington Post

Paywall. Bassards!

 

[blastula]

Pssst, use a different browser.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Encourage people to vote 3rd party. The more that do, the more will. As they do the pressure mounts on the major parties. If a critical mass is reached and a third party wins either the presidency or numerous seats in the house/senate, then we'll see even more rapid change, as the parties will see it in their benefit to move towards proportional representation and to listen to the voters instead of just the donors/funders/corrupters.

The idea that you can never vote for what you actually want, but instead against what you like the least, has to die. As does the idea that you have to vote for one of the two established big money corrupt parties currently running the show together.

Ya, sort of like we had in Canada. More and more people voted NDP and split the vote and gave us ten years of Harper as a PM. Then, after only one short decade of the government implementing the exact opposite policies they'd want, the Conservatives collapsed under the weight of their own inadequacies and everybody voted for the Liberals again and the NDP tanked.

Those third party voters sure stuck it to the uppity elitists and made a real difference!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Encourage people to vote 3rd party. The more that do, the more will, until a critical mass is reached and a third party wins either the presidency or numerous seats in the house/senate. Then the parties will start to see it in their benefit to move towards proportional representation and to listen to the voters instead of just the donors/funders/corrupters. The public will also see it as more and more of a real possibility, and put more and more pressure on the major parties to do so.

The idea that you can never vote for what you actually want, but instead against what you like the least, has to die.

Why would people vote 3rd party in a system where the person with the most votes wins and there's no prize for 2nd place? How exactly do you get that to happen when splitting liberal votes between multiple parties, when conservative votes remain in the Republican party results in more Republican victories? How much damage do you have to undo should you even get this to work, as opposed to having moderate Democrats in power while you build a broader more progressive coalition to get the policies you want? 4 yards in a cloud of dust, consistently over a generation, is the way to go.

Right wingers always encourage third party voters because they know that there side is far more committed to controlling the supreme court than the left.