Democrats represent the people more than Republicans

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But neither party represents the people because they represent the oligarchy and special interests. So any small difference is not worth an argument.

coded message for "I am a republican"

I'm independent who believes Jessie Ventura said it best. Give voters a choice between the republican, the democrat, or "none of the above". And that way, if "none of the above" gets the most votes government should be required to go back and find candidates we will actually want in office. And those people might actually be the politicians who actually represent the voters.

coded message for "I vote republican and you should too"

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But neither party represents the people because they represent the oligarchy and special interests. So any small difference is not worth an argument.

There is a substantial difference in how their votes align with public opinion in their district.

 

[Elixir]

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

Yeah, either that or one of those obnoxious and useless types who look down on the major political parties and render themselves irrelevant by voting for obscure but like-minded individuals who have zero chance of winning or even drawing attention to themselves or their uber-enlightened "positions". Of course there are also the libberpublicans and unaffiliated voters who vote for democrats just because they know how small-minded, corrupt and racist the Republican Party is... but we can lump them in with the lowly members of major parties, of course.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

Yeah, either that or one of those obnoxious and useless types who look down on the major political parties and render themselves irrelevant by voting for obscure but like-minded individuals who have zero chance of winning or even drawing attention to themselves or their uber-enlightened "positions".

It's called "principle". You might want to look it up.

Of course there are also the libberpublicans and unaffiliated voters who vote for democrats just because they know how small-minded, corrupt and racist the Republican Party is... but we can lump them in with the lowly members of major parties, of course.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[none]

coded message for "I am a republican"

I'm independent who believes Jessie Ventura said it best. Give voters a choice between the republican, the democrat, or "none of the above". And that way, if "none of the above" gets the most votes government should be required to go back and find candidates we will actually want in office. And those people might actually be the politicians who actually represent the voters.

coded message for "I vote republican and you should too"

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

coded message for "I am in the republican coalition and I vote republican and you should too"

 

[Elixir]

It's called "principle". You might want to look it up.

Yeah, that's what I mean. Condescending faux-principled meatbags.

Of course there are also the libberpublicans and unaffiliated voters who vote for democrats just because they know how small-minded, corrupt and racist the Republican Party is... but we can lump them in with the lowly members of major parties, of course.

Don't be so hard on yourself.
ACTUAL principles are difficult. You might try it some time. But probably not.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[Swammerdami]

It's a drop in the bucket of Trump Crime Family misdeeds, but I just read that Betsy DeVos diverted a large share pf the $6 billion in Covid stimulus intended for struggling college students to small private schools, presumably run by her accomplices.

By any sensible standard DeVos and her brother are hard-core criminals, but their swindles and perfidies may be hard to prosecute as felonies in the misbegotten American justice system. It would be sweet if vengeance could somehow be wreaked on these criminals in other ways.

 

[TomC]

Wait, you want 'the government' to choose the politicians to vote for?

Worse still.



RVonse is confusing the political parties for the government.
Tom

Not for a second.

Here's what you posted:

"Give voters a choice between the republican, the democrat, or "none of the above". And that way, if "none of the above" gets the most votes government should be required to go back and find candidates we will actually want in office."

As long as the government is utterly dominated by partisanship, I can't imagine who you think is going to find , vet, and nominate these new candidates. Perhaps you think Pelosi and McConnell could get together over dinner and hammer out a new slate of statesman politicians?

But it is you that is confused if you really think the majority of liberals really wanted to elect Joe Biden this last election. They simply did not want Trump.

I don't see you as an expert on liberals. Nor am I sure what liberal even means any more.

Thomas Jefferson was extremely liberal. He was also an uberrich slaver, who presided over huge genocide, and was famous for his decadent parties, black mistress, and cutting a swath on his European tour.

If he hadn't written hypocritical stuff like "all men are created equal" he'd probably be forgotten.

What I see in the modern world is "progressive" and "conservative".
Conservatives advocate small incremental changes, while protecting the best of society. Progressives advocate sweeping changes, "damn the torpedoes full steam ahead".

In 2016, Clinton was the conservative choice. She didn't propose any sweeping changes. Just tweaking the status quo in ways that benefit the majority.
Trump was the progressive. He wanted to end the American tradition of "A nation of immigrants". He wanted to "Repeal and Replace" ACA. He wanted to restart conflict with Iran.

Heck, he didn't even want a United States. He wanted to separate people who support him from everyone else.

I'm pretty conservative. That's why I voted for the conservative candidate in 2016.

In a better world, the public would vote for someone and not vote against anyone.

In a better world, or at least a better USA, billionaires wouldn't buy all the available politicians. But, until people like AOC and Paul Ryan develop more clout in the government that's not going to happen.

Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

But neither party represents the people because they represent the oligarchy and special interests. So any small difference is not worth an argument.

But it has been made abundantly clear that the Republicans won't change. The Democrats, on the other hand, have the chance of coming around to their historical stance of championing the workers. They need to reject identity politics to favor all of the precariats and to abandon trying to curry the favor of Wall Street and the corporations, who are always going to favor the Republicans more than the Democrats.

As a complete aside (apologize) if the dems completely "abandon" corporations and the professionals that make it up, their coalition will become so small that they won't win many elections in the future. In fact, I dare say that we can't cut out anyone currently in the tent. We need to expand it further.

 

[Bomb#20]

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

Yeah, either that or one of those obnoxious and useless types who look down on the major political parties and render themselves irrelevant by voting for obscure but like-minded individuals who have zero chance of winning or even drawing attention to themselves or their uber-enlightened "positions".

And you think voting for somebody famous but un-like-minded merely because he'll win doesn't render you equally irrelevant? In my state everybody but Biden had zero chance of winning; does that make increasing Biden's margin of victory by one vote relevant? Will his winning by five million and one votes draw so much more attention to the President Elect's positions than a third-party vote would draw to an uber-enlightened position that it will magically cancel out the down-side that the President Elect's positions aren't uber-enlightened?

Why anyone in a non-swing-state would think he has a good reason to vote strategically is mind-boggling.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm independent who believes Jessie Ventura said it best. Give voters a choice between the republican, the democrat, or "none of the above". And that way, if "none of the above" gets the most votes government should be required to go back and find candidates we will actually want in office. And those people might actually be the politicians who actually represent the voters.

Wait, you want 'the government' to choose the politicians to vote for? ...

If we voted 'none of the above' this year, 'the government' would not seek our best reps. They would tease it out, giving us slightly better candidates, and slightly better, until they find the minimum representation a majority of voters would accept.

Which is pretty much tgge primary system anyways....

Yes, exactly -- 'the government' is already choosing the politicians to vote for. It's pretty much the whole point of dividing the electorate into geographical districts: so politicians can choose voters as a substitute for voters choosing politicians. "Never mind who you want to represent you: you may attempt to be 'represented' by someone you probably despise who will actually be representing group A or representing group B, neither of which includes you."

Wait, you want 'the government' to choose the politicians to vote for?

Worse still.
RVonse is confusing the political parties for the government.

Not for a second. But it is you that is confused if you really think the majority of liberals really wanted to elect Joe Biden this last election. They simply did not want Trump.

In a better world, the public would vote for someone and not vote against anyone.

^^^^ This ^^^^.

But as Keith points out, "None-of-the-above" wouldn't solve that problem, though it would alleviate it a bit. What would solve the problem is making the government allow us the option of choosing representatives we actually want in office. The geographical district -- the baked-in principle that you have to be "represented" by the same person who represents your neighbor -- isn't a law of nature. It's an arbitrary rule the government imposed on us for the purpose of working around an 18th-century communication problem that no longer exists. Defang that rule and we could vote for instead of voting against. All the government would need to do is allow every voter displeased by his so-called "representative" to sign up with whichever politician won some other district. Each representative's vote in the assembly counts according to the number of people she represents: i.e., the population of her district, plus the people from other districts who opted in, minus the people from her district who opted out. The government couldn't make you choose a garbage candidate by putting two garbage candidates against each other if you had fifty other choices, all of whom they're actually going to seat in the assembly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow. Anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Republican I guess.

Yeah, either that or one of those obnoxious and useless types who look down on the major political parties and render themselves irrelevant by voting for obscure but like-minded individuals who have zero chance of winning or even drawing attention to themselves or their uber-enlightened "positions".

And you think voting for somebody famous but un-like-minded merely because he'll win doesn't render you equally irrelevant? In my state everybody but Biden had zero chance of winning; does that make increasing Biden's margin of victory by one vote relevant? Will his winning by five million and one votes draw so much more attention to the President Elect's positions than a third-party vote would draw to an uber-enlightened position that it will magically cancel out the down-side that the President Elect's positions aren't uber-enlightened?

Why anyone in a non-swing-state would think he has a good reason to vote strategically is mind-boggling.

Because they want to make sure you don't deviate from the one true faith.

The argument is idiotic, that my vote for Johnson in California cost Hillary the election, and my vote for Jo Jo in Alabama cost Trump the election. But they know it is a bad argument. They don't care. It is about presenting an apologetic for the one true faith.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The only thing that will allow other parties representation is a run-off selection type ballot.

This is why it's literally the only thing both parties agree on these days and try so hard to keep it from happening.

 

[RVonse]

I don't see you as an expert on liberals. Nor am I sure what liberal even means any more.

Thomas Jefferson was extremely liberal. He was also an uberrich slaver, who presided over huge genocide, and was famous for his decadent parties, black mistress, and cutting a swath on his European tour.

If he hadn't written hypocritical stuff like "all men are created equal" he'd probably be forgotten.

What I see in the modern world is "progressive" and "conservative".
Conservatives advocate small incremental changes, while protecting the best of society. Progressives advocate sweeping changes, "damn the torpedoes full steam ahead".

In 2016, Clinton was the conservative choice. She didn't propose any sweeping changes. Just tweaking the status quo in ways that benefit the majority.
Trump was the progressive. He wanted to end the American tradition of "A nation of immigrants". He wanted to "Repeal and Replace" ACA. He wanted to restart conflict with Iran.

Heck, he didn't even want a United States. He wanted to separate people who support him from everyone else.

I'm pretty conservative. That's why I voted for the conservative candidate in 2016.


Tom

I had not looked at it in this light before but your post makes perfect sense to me nonetheless. I agree with you that Hillary really was the conservative and Trump was the progressive during 2016. And it is very interesting to look at it this manner.

 

[RVonse]

But neither party represents the people because they represent the oligarchy and special interests. So any small difference is not worth an argument.

There is a substantial difference in how their votes align with public opinion in their district.

That still does not explain why most of congress is completely against public opinion when it comes to starting endless non stop wars and their pay raises. Pelosi likes Afganistan war so much she does not even worry about getting her votes for it. There is automatic money for that war far ahead of other things like COVID stimulus.

 

[RVonse]

As a complete aside (apologize) if the dems completely "abandon" corporations and the professionals that make it up, their coalition will become so small that they won't win many elections in the future.

Bernie and Warren did this with pretty good results I thought. Not perfect results but good results.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But neither party represents the people because they represent the oligarchy and special interests. So any small difference is not worth an argument.

There is a substantial difference in how their votes align with public opinion in their district.

That still does not explain why most of congress is completely against public opinion when it comes to starting endless non stop wars and their pay raises. Pelosi likes Afganistan war so much she does not even worry about getting her votes for it. There is automatic money for that war far ahead of other things like COVID stimulus.

The issue here is which is worse, continuing the war or "ending" the war. The problem is we can't actually end the war. We can stop attacking but that won't make them stop attacking.

 

[ronburgundy]

In a better world, the public would vote for someone and not vote against anyone.

^^^^ This ^^^^.

^^^^ This ^^^^ is incredibly naive and ignores the inherent realities and probabilities of democracy in a pluralistic, heterogeneous society.

Of course most Americans don't "want" Biden in any absolute sense, b/c most Americans would never "want" any candidate, b/c there are countless views on countless issues, such that no person could plausibly represent the ideal combination of positions held by more than a small minority of society. Simply as a function of probability, and not some unjust political system, the odds that any candidate would be your ideal is extremely small. Imagine there are 3 distinct stances on each issue and 100 issues (which is very low for both). That results is 162,000 different possible combinations of stances across the issues, making the random odds that you and any other person share the same ideal 1 in 162,0000. So, even in a perfect system w/o any bias in who in society becomes an electoral candidate, you would almost never in your lifetime encounter a candidate that perfectly represented you. Which means, that you'd never vote "for" your ideal, but always mere vote for the person who was less far from your ideal relative to the others.

Now combine with that the fact that no candidate can plausibly win unless they get support from a sizable % of the population, and that inherently requires exposure. Outside of people voting within tiny little clans/groups where every person is well known to everyone, amount of exposure always has and will depend upon resources. Thus, there is an inherent bias where those with more resources are more likely to have a chance of getting the exposure needed to garner democratic support to win. The only way around that fact is to not only eliminate variability in amount of resources, but eliminate people's basic freedom to use their resources how they want to.

In sum, to complain about the fact that we vote mostly against worse candidates rather than "for" people we ideally want is to complain about probability and the inherent nature of human society where desires and preferences widely vary across many issues.

 

[Rhea]

In a better world, the public would vote for someone and not vote against anyone.

^^^^ This ^^^^.

^^^^ This ^^^^ is incredibly naive and ignores the inherent realities and probabilities of democracy in a pluralistic, heterogeneous society.

Of course most Americans don't "want" Biden in any absolute sense, b/c most Americans would never "want" any candidate, b/c there are countless views on countless issues, such that no person could plausibly represent the ideal combination of positions held by more than a small minority of society. Simply as a function of probability, and not some unjust political system, the odds that any candidate would be your ideal is extremely small. Imagine there are 3 distinct stances on each issue and 100 issues (which is very low for both). That results is 162,000 different possible combinations of stances across the issues, making the random odds that you and any other person share the same ideal 1 in 162,0000. So, even in a perfect system w/o any bias in who in society becomes an electoral candidate, you would almost never in your lifetime encounter a candidate that perfectly represented you. Which means, that you'd never vote "for" your ideal, but always mere vote for the person who was less far from your ideal relative to the others.

Now combine with that the fact that no candidate can plausibly win unless they get support from a sizable % of the population, and that inherently requires exposure. Outside of people voting within tiny little clans/groups where every person is well known to everyone, amount of exposure always has and will depend upon resources. Thus, there is an inherent bias where those with more resources are more likely to have a chance of getting the exposure needed to garner democratic support to win. The only way around that fact is to not only eliminate variability in amount of resources, but eliminate people's basic freedom to use their resources how they want to.

In sum, to complain about the fact that we vote mostly against worse candidates rather than "for" people we ideally want is to complain about probability and the inherent nature of human society where desires and preferences widely vary across many issues.

This captures my vibe fabulously. Yes. Thank you for articulating it.

I will always be voting *FOR* the candidate closest to my desires. I am always aware that my desires will never represent a true majority because there are too many combinations of desires. And that I am FINE with that because I welcome people who don’t think lock-step with me and I make room for their desires as weel - while voting against things that are damaging.