It is stupid to think 80% of Americans are in the middle. Just more clown shit
Hi noonereal,
There is nothing stupid about that I think. As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. We do it by income, body weight, length, education, religion, education etc..
Joey
If you look at the latest party affiliation, identification it’s not 80%. Gallup has it 28% republican, 28% democratic, 43% independents.Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.
What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.
Joey
My enemy's enemy is my friend. So I hope Musk has some success.
We are not talking about any of those things and we don't get 80% agreement on anything you wrote.
Trump commands 40% of the electorate. 40% that have NO interest in middle ground.
Then you have about 20% of the left that are uncompromising lunatics.
So at best, at best, you could get 40% of the country to show an interest in a centrist.
But in application, youd never get the 40% never mind the 80% suggested.
If you look at the latest party affiliation, identification it’s not 80%. Gallup has it 28% republican, 28% democratic, 43% independents.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Our two-party system is entrenched, there’s no changing it. Besides, if there’s on thing republicans and democrats agree on, it’s no viable third party will ever rise. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Then too, all the billionaire financial backers for both major parties have too much money invested in both parties. They’re not about to invest in a third party when they get exactly what they want from both major parties. Forget it.
You make valid points, BUT:Hi Chomsky,
Having a parliament would solve some of the issues, depending on implementation. But there are more issues. Looking at other countries will quickly show that as well.
Time has shown, over and over again, that their are issues. Here some of them
- Democracy allows for people to be elected. But it is ridiculous that everybody can be elected if they want to. It is unacceptable that a person who does not have education at a sufficiently high level, a certificate of good behaviour from the department of justice, and a high-level of security clearance (when requested) can still be electable for office. All he needs is voted. This is NOT acceptable however way you look at it. And look at the result. If any of these 3 had been applied, Trump would never have been president. Nor would Chavez, Putin, Hitler, or Xi.
- Most democracies date back several hundred years. They were 'designed' during much simpler times. And intended for much simpler people. Yes, there have been updates to the constitution, but it is clear that politics is not keeping up with the pace at which our technology develops. This has resulted in Social Media. Some people, proud of the free speech rights, think it is completely ok that politicians ( or anyone else for that matter) have the right to say things that are utterly wrong. There is obviously nothing right about lying and gaining votes under false pretences. Imagine you're an alien in LEO flying in their little alien spacecraft and observing and studying human behaviour. They must immediately understand why we are not more developed than we actually are , but are shocked at the open display of stupidity by people who are in charge.
Maybe we should not vote for People but for Policy instead....
Joey
Creating a political party for those who can not identify with what is in place already. It is all you have to go by, a concept.
You make valid points, BUT:
1. What do you consider " sufficiently high level" of education? Harvard? Yale? Cal Poly? Eureka College? BA, MA, PhD?
2. DOJ has to certify ALL candidates. Do you really think the DOJ can be objective enough to do this? Would the DOJ under Biden have certified Trump? Would they under Obama? Would the DOJ under Trump have certified Biden? You're putting a lot of stock in people who are hardly unbiased
3. Same thing for security clearances. Who decides? Certainly not the opposing party in power.
So:
In a "Democratic Republic", the people decide. Without the [people there may have not been a Lincoln who led us out of a civil war. There might not have been a Roosevelt who took on the Axis powers. There might not have been a Truman who made the decision to end WWII in the Pacific. There might not have been a Kennedy who faced down USSR in Cuba. There might not have been a Reagan to say "Mr. Gorbachev? Tear down this wall!". The list goes on and on.
We tried with the Reform Party. We were opposed by both major parties. They did everything possible to keep us off the ballots which usually resulted in a ton of lawsuits by us. Winning almost all of them. But they cost us millions upon millions of dollars that would have been spent in campaigns and on organization. We did have some minor successes. One Governor elected, Minnesota and over 300 state legislators. In the end what did us in was Pat Buchanan hijacking the reform party. Most of us originals departed.Hi Perotista,
I think there is much truth in there, but do not underestimate the power of the people. The same people that supported Trump can also just drop him like a pudding. If you start a 3rd party, and you loose as expected, but you do win 5 seats in the chambers, than you can probably cause a lot of trouble for the ruling party. The concept would make, whoever is governing, more careful. If they use the newly gained power in a positive way and people see that, than after 4 years their number of seats will likely increase, giving them more power even if not elected.
Now I can understand the Republican and the Democrats would not like that, but what is it that they can do against that?
Joey
The Democratic Party has been a centrist party for quite a while now, since the 1960s. Compare its policies to liberal parties in similar country. I remember a Conservative MP telling me he would be considered leftist in the US, an exaggeration, but not a big one.I've been calling for a "Centrist" party for over a decade.
But as to Musk's 80%? As long as he can take 5% from the GOP, that's good enough!
Adolf caught part of a perfect storm. He is an outlier. After the Great War, Germany was stripped of power and wealth. Coming in the 30s with a promise to make Germany a player again struck gold. Add to that the Nazi party putsch so, in fact, the people had little to do with it.Hi Jane,
Agreed. Hence they were meant as bullet points. Implementation is a different story altogether. But it is not 'undoable' I think.
Yes, the people. The people who elected Hitler into power nearly 100 years ago. Or the Greek people who year after year voted for bankruptcy until they finally got it and all had to pay the price. Or the Brits voting for Brexit not so long ago. It goes both ways of course Jane.
Joey
Adolf caught part of a perfect storm. He is an outlier. After the Great War, Germany was stripped of power and wealth. Coming in the 30s with a promise to make Germany a player again struck gold. Add to that the Nazi party putsch so, in fact, the people had little to do with it.
We tried with the Reform Party. We were opposed by both major parties. They did everything possible to keep us off the ballots which usually resulted in a ton of lawsuits by us. Winning almost all of them. But they cost us millions upon millions of dollars that would have been spent in campaigns and on organization. We did have some minor successes. One Governor elected, Minnesota and over 300 state legislators. In the end what did us in was Pat Buchanan hijacking the reform party. Most of us originals departed.
In theory a third-party sound good, especially when you consider 43% of the electorate are now independents. But they have different priorities and different issues are important to them. For the most part they don’t fall somewhere in-between the two major parties ideological wise. You’ll find some that are pro-2nd amendment and pro-choice at the same time. Pro-climate change and all for rounding up illegal immigrants, secure borders are just a couple of examples. They support the republicans on some issues, oppose them on others with the same for the democrats, supporting them on some issues, opposing them on others.
Then there’s the constant battle from both major parties of them spending millions of dollars telling the voters a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote because they can’t win. Like it or not, money is a very important part of the equation. Being allowed in the debates is another. Both major parties denied our candidates participation in the senate, congressional, mayor etc. debates. Ever ask yourself why the League of Woman’s Voters are no longer sponsoring the presidential debates? The Bipartisan debate commission now rules over the presidential debates. The League let Ross Perot participate in the 1992 debates that’s why. Now it’s guaranteed no third party will ever be let into the presidential debates again.
Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.
What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.
Joey
Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.
What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.
Joey
No need to reinvent the wheel. If Musk is sincere, then I'm fairly certain the No Labels movement could make good use of his resources, not to mention a really generous cash donation.
When the talking stops, the fighting starts. It is a tragic lesson of history that too many Americans, and too many of our leaders, forget. Frustrated Americans are increasingly raging at the other side or receding from politics altogether. No Labels needs millions of citizens to join us in offering another way. We bring together builders and fixers across America and in Congress, where we support House and Senate members with the courage to think independently and find commonsense solutions.
2016 was the ideal year for a third party, independents candidate to run who had some financial resources and name recognition like Perot did in 1992. Both Trump 36% favorable/60% unfavorable and Clinton 38% favorable/56% unfavorable set the records for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidate going back to 1956 when this stat was first kept track of. The list:Hi Perotista,
Yes, but look around you. It's not the first time that elections produce 'Shock Results'. Trumps first term was exactly that. When the people are really fed-up, you can not stop them. That's how Trump got elected in the first place. Well, that and the low level of education that made people think it was a good idea to vote him in office. I agree it's difficult to break the status quo, and the way it is right now, I can not see it happen either.
But look at it differently. The Democrats still have not produced a single viable candidate and have struggled doing so ever since Obama. If let's say in the next 3 years the US economy keeps struggling and a large number of people face financial difficulties, than the people are more inclined to look for alternatives. And such a scenario is not that far fetched I think. Any alternative does not have to outright win the election. If they secure several seats in the chambers, they can make a difference on policy and negotiate changes or stall/stop unwanted changes. When done well, this will reflect in the next election. By the 3rd election, they could be an established party.
Joey
2016 was the ideal year for a third party, independents candidate to run who had some financial resources and name recognition like Perot did in 1992. Both Trump 36% favorable/60% unfavorable and Clinton 38% favorable/56% unfavorable set the records for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidate going back to 1956 when this stat was first kept track of.
We have the best government money can buy.
Starting off at the grass roots level is something I preached when the Reform Party was being formed. Running candidates for the state legislature, county commission, mayor and city council is a heck of a lot cheaper than jumping right into the presidential election is exactly what Ross Perot did back in 1992. That’s probably why we failed, the Reform Party was top down driven instead of bottom going up. Europe isn’t a good example as most if not all countries have multi-party electoral system vs. our 2 party system.Hi Perotista,
Why dop you not look outside your borders and see for yourself what other countries have done. 2016 may indeed have been a year where an alternative presidential candidate had a better chance than in other years.
And this is where you go wrong. Creating a new party is one thing. Thinking your gonna win the presidential elections the first time would be plainly stupid and naïve. Here looking at Europe you would get a good impression how this works and can be done successfully. There is plenty of countries that had small parties splintered from the main party out of discontent. And here you see 33 clear scenarios over and over again.
1 - It fizzles out before it has even started.
2 - They do pretty good in the first election, but than it fizzles out and they remain a small splinter party for their remaining days.
3 - They actually make it. They're not big. But they are new and innovative. After several elections you can see the party growing and slowly they ensure a presence in the parliament and senate (or whatever it is called in all other countries, but you're getting my drift I hope)
BUT!!
What you see way more often in Europe is that a local party has been started in let's say London. Now this is probably nothing new, but they do not focus on London, they focus on the things that matter in life in the grander scheme called the United Kingdom. Now if they are proven successful in London, they start expanding to a few other cities and constituencies.
This is a concept that has been proven to work in most other countries. Yes, it means you not start a party today and expect a president in 3.5 years. But if you have 4 senators in 8 years from now, than that would be a tremendous success and seriously disrupt the current balance of power.
But now that last comment of yours.... Please tell me I should not take this literally and that you are being sarcastic. Sorry, English is not my first language, and even in my own language I do not always recognize sarcasm.
Joey
And no. I wasn’t being sarcastic about having the best government money can buy. With a month to go in the 2024 election cycles, 15.9 billion dollars were already spent on that election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?