A Morning Thought – Political but Hopefully Not Offensive

"Dakotahound" (dakotahound) 09/13/2019 at 07:57 • Filed to: Politics, Voting, Gridlock, Partisan Politics

0

39

Everyone complains about political gridlock caused by partisan politics. We could fix the problem and eliminate partisan politics in the United States today, and it is not that difficult.

Right now there are approximately 42 million Democrats, 30 million Republicans, and 24 million independents in the United States, so Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 12 million voters (from Wikipedia). The Republican Party, despite being smaller, has a cohesive and loyal following. They also have a more favorable election map. Because of this, Republicans will continue to control more than their share of seats in the House and Senate, and partisan politics will continue, regardless of who is elected president. In other words, nothing will be accomplished.

Rather than continuing down the same path, which has proven to be unsuccessful, why not try a different approach? Why not effectively eliminate political parties? This could be done if every Democratic voter registered as a Republican. Remember, belonging to a political party does not determine your vote – you can still vote for the candidate of your choice. If this change in registration occurred, Democrats would have considerable power in the Republican Party. In fact, there would be only one political party, which would essentially mean that there would be no political parties.

Some people may cry foul at this approach, but there is nothing unethical about it. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, millions of Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party. Besides, with all of the partisan gerrymandering taking place across the country, neither party can claim ethical superiority.

So, to put it simply, let’s all register as Republicans so that there will be just one big political party. That party would better represent the wishes of the country and elect officials that truly reflect the population. In that way, the majority will once again rule.

EDIT: Maybe some people are missing my point. A political party is just a label. The party can represent anything that the members desire. If everyone joined a single party, it would represent the will of the majority of people. Remember, Republicans were once liberal and Democrats were once conservative. Everything can change.

We cannot keep pinning our hopes for refo rm on an already partisan and gridlocked system. If we want change, we need to do something ourselves.

Maxima Speed > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:33

2

Lol wut? I’m at work right now so I can’t go into depth but I REALLY don’t think this is remotely workable.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:35

2

i bet you would have better luck asking everyone to switch to independent.  Then they are neither democrat or republican and they dont have to call themselves a name they once hated.

DipodomysDeserti > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:38

0

Have you seen what these people do when they’re unopposed? I’ll keep the “gridlock” thank you very much. Keeps them in check.

vondon302 > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:42

1

Ive been registered as a Republican for years. Doesn’t mean I vote for them in the election but voting in the primary is why I did it.

Besides after watching t he debates it looks like Trump might win again.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:45

0

This is an.... INTERESTING idea, to say the least

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:46

5

While clever, the problem with this idea is that many states only allow registered party members to vote in their primary elections. By registering as the ‘opposing’ party, one would not be able to choose their preferred candidate.

For instance, personally I despise that I will probably have to vote for fucking Biden in the general election. So I am not going to give up the chance to prevent that by missing the primary for my state.

A better solution is ranked choice voting and non-partisan districts. The current republicans only  have a more beneficial electoral map because they’ve blatantly cheated to create it. 

Dakotahound > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 09/13/2019 at 08:51

0

Believe me, I agree with you. R anked choice voting and non-partisan districts are solutions to many of our problems. Unfortunately, these solutions need to be passed by the already partisan elected officials. That is why they will not be enacted. Joining a single political party requires no action on the part of elected officials.

someassemblyrequired > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 08:57

1

In Washington State they run top two primaries. So you can end up with two democrats or two republicans on the ballot or two independents . Plus it’s all mail voting, so no polling station shenanigans.

Maine does ranked choice, which is another good system that republicans hate.

punkgoose17 > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 09:07

0

All the politicians themselves would have to change parties first I think. I was thinking it would not go well, but it would be absolutely hilarious .

Textured Soy Protein > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 09:26

2

Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, millions of Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party.

That’s because they were a bunch of fucking racists and the GOP said “hey, your pool’s getting a little cold for racists, water’s fine over here!”

Dakotahound > someassemblyrequired 09/13/2019 at 09:36

0

I like the “ top two primary” system. Unfortunately, it needs to be passed by the state legislature. As I mentioned in a previous post, most state legislatures are partisan, so it will not be enacted in many states. Joining a political party requires n o action by elected officials.

Ilikeredcars > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 09:46

1

I understand this as a noble idea, but it is an idea focusing on the wrong issues. The problem isn't partisan gridlock, the problem is that working people cannot afford a fulfilling life in the USA. Hell, they can't really afford it anywhere. The point should be to organize against that, outside of party politics. Unions and other activist organizations, particularly those that are not simply a mass bureaucracy are a far more noble cause. 

Dakotahound > Ilikeredcars 09/13/2019 at 09:53

0

I don’t disagree with you. Political figures are, however, trying to dismantle unions. Despite my distaste for this , w ithout political influence, few things can be accomplished.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:00

0

Very interesting thought...

Azrek > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:01

1

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:07

1

Independents should be able to vote in either (or both) primaries everywhere... The parties have way too much power to keep the status quo.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 09/13/2019 at 10:08

1

It really pisses me off that independents in lots of places can’t vote in primaries. They should be allowed to vote in either (or both).

Future next gen S2000 owner > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:08

1

I think the bigger issue that has lead to gridlock is the view that compromise is a weakness. It has become a my side needs to win vs lets accomplish the most for the most amount of people.

Stop viewing the opposing party as an enemy and start viewing them as your neighbor that has a different world view.

Dakotahound > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/13/2019 at 10:14

1

I agree with you. Voting rules and regulations , however, are constitutionally left to the states. If a state is controlled by one party, and that party wants to keep the status quo, nothing will change.

CobraJoe > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:15

2

There was a Factually podcast done recently about the two major political parties, and it was quite interesting. (The host is the “Adam ruins everything” guy)

A couple of the interesting points (if I can remember them right):

The policitcal parties are assembled quite differently: Republicans are mainly driven by the conservative movement, while democrats are a looser assembly of different groups that are focused on individual (usually progressive) issues.

Most of the friction between the two parties is the assumption that the “other guy” is the complete opposite to what “your party” stands for. 

Republicans tend to campaign on overarching themes, and democrats tend to campaign on specific issues.

Both parties have a legitimate claim that the majority supports their side. (Seriously, listen to the podcast just for this part, it’s better explained there than I can remem ber and summarize here). Basically, in a survey, more than half of all americans agreed with  the overarching themes of Republicans, but more than half of all americans agreed with the specific issues of the democrats.  

Dakotahound > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/13/2019 at 10:16

0

Or just join them. If everyone registers Republican, there are no sides. We will all be in the same party.

Future next gen S2000 owner > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:17

1

You’d get infighting within the party. Since views wouldn’t change, I’m not sure how much would change.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:20

1

Just like any talk about getting rid of the Electoral College is just that - talk.

Dakotahound > CobraJoe 09/13/2019 at 10:21

0

Thank you - I will listen to the podcast later today. I truly believe that most of us - Republican or Democrat - want the same things. In order to say in power, however, politicians try to create rifts between us. We have professional politicians. Their job is not to serve the public, it is to remain in power.

Dakotahound > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/13/2019 at 10:23

0

Yes, infighting would be great. We would no longer have people walking lock-step with their party leaders.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/13/2019 at 10:27

0

Problem is, you’ve got people on one side that think all Rs who voted for Trump are racists, and people on the other side that think all Ds are baby killers...

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Textured Soy Protein 09/13/2019 at 10:30

0

How did the party of Abraham Lincoln turn into what we have today?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > OPPOsaurus WRX 09/13/2019 at 10:34

0

If 90% of people switched to independent, it’d be the 5% on each extreme picking the candidates for us to choose from...

We need a true, centrist Independent candidate.

Was kind of hoping The Rock would’ve thrown his name in.

I would’ve voted for a rock in the last election.

vondon302 > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:41

0

Your edit is much better. 

MKULTRA1982(ConCrustyBrick) > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 10:58

1

This is good I like this, only having two political parties is insane 

MrSnrub > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 11:02

3

There are multiple problems with this idea - the first one being that a one-party state is not a good idea. The way one-party systems have usually arisen in the past is when the government outlaws or supp resses all other political parties. Without some coercive element to keep everyone in one tent, competing interests within the party or challenging interests outside will inevitably lead to the emergence of a multi-party system.

Other than that, registering as the other political party to vote for the least crazy person possible is not a new idea, and in regards to the Republican Party it doesn’t seem to have worked.

And ultimately this is really just another way of saying that Democrats need to move closer to the Republicans if they want to regain any power . I dispute this idea. Since the 1970s the Republican Party has moved further and further to the right, and the Democratic Party in response has consistently followed a strategy of leaning to the center and adopting “Republican-lite” policies to win elections .

The net effect of this is that the overall political center of gravity has shifted decisively to the right, with the attendant policies of privatization, de regulation, and tax cuts gaining overall supremacy as policy . As a result, wages have stagnated and inequality has soare d , which has allowed the rich greater ability to buy elections than ever before. And the rich do not want politics to function well - they want government to stay out of their business, so it is in their interest that it remain dy sfunctional. In effectively adopting Republican-lite policies, and allowing right-wing policies to continue, this state of affairs will only continue. So, this will not fix anything anyway.

CobraJoe > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 11:04

1

It definitely helped put the political parties in perspective.

I have a little more faith that there are some good politicians out there who are trying to make things better for everybody, but I really can’t tell where that line is drawn anymore.  All I’m sure about now is the fact that I’m tired of the “Shock value” type politics.  

Dakotahound > MrSnrub 09/13/2019 at 11:18

1

I definitely see your point, and under stand the dangers of a one-party system. I am not suggesting in any way that we mandate a single party. In fact, if every Democrat joins the R epublican Party there will be so much in fighting that multiple parties may arise. Even better, maybe there will be no political parties.

Ilikeredcars > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 11:23

1

Electoralism can be useful, especially in cases like this. An administration led by Bernie Sanders for example would facilitate the expansion of organized labor and the like, but it is no grand perfect salve for the conditions of modern society, that must be done by mostly independent spontaneous action.

MrSnrub > Dakotahound 09/13/2019 at 11:33

2

Sorry, I had some additional thoughts and added to my original comment. Bad habit.

Even better, maybe there will be no political parties.

As long as we have a democracy I think there will always be political parties. People of similar interests are naturally going to group together to better advocate for the policies they want. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea. The problem is that winner-take all, first-past-the-post political systems like ours only allow two parties to exist. It’s practically designed to maximize partisanship. Better systems exist elsewhere; proportional representation in a parliament-style assembly, for example, is a better way of doing things than what we have. I’d like to think America will reform into something like that  eventually, but it will probably take a massive crisis and some kind of state breakdown for it to happen.

Dakotahound > MrSnrub 09/13/2019 at 11:42

0

I agree with you. Unfortunately, any changes to our voting procedures need to be passed by the legislature. The legislature has a vested interest in keeping the current system.

You may be right; it may take a massive crisis and state breakdown. Obviously, t hat is not something that either of us really wants. It will, however,  require  something outside of the current political process.

Dakotahound > MrSnrub 09/13/2019 at 11:49

0

“...Democrats need to move closer to the Republicans if they want to regain any power.”

Actually, Democrats do not have to move closer to the Republicans. Democrats can just join the Republican P arty and move it to wherever the majority desires. There would be no reason for new Democrats joining the Republican Party to follow the current Republican platform. Since there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, Democrats could greatly influence the direction of the party.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/13/2019 at 12:14

0

Agreed. Primaries should be a neutral ballot that allows for a choice of one candidate from all ‘parties ’ that have a candidate in that election. So you as a voter would be able to choose your preferred D rep, R rep, and any other party candidate on the ballot.

So basically every voter has a say in who could be representing them at the primary election. The general election would still be a single choice among all the primary election cycle winners. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 09/13/2019 at 12:21

1

YES. Alternately, let voters pick one, and j ust let the top 3 vote-getters be on the final ballot, regardless of what party they’re from!