Orrin Hatch writes about a meeting that actually hadn't happened yet

[Joe Bagadonuts]

then why share such biased, propagandistic articles?

Unbelievable

 

[JimLes]

That's what I want..... I think

Really? Do people really want someone who has no position on any issue? Who compromises on everything? Like I said, these are binary issue. You're either on one side or the other. How can you possibly want a candidate that refuses to take a stand on any issue, let alone a majority of them?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Really? Do people really want someone who has no position on any issue? Who compromises on everything? Like I said, these are binary issue. You're either on one side or the other. How can you possibly want a candidate that refuses to take a stand on any issue, let alone a majority of them?

They are not binary. There is a range of possible positions on every issue.

 

[Stoked]

Well, what else could possibly happen? If by some chance, either of the two parties was to implode/explode/disappear/whatever, do you think a new party would not emerge to represent those voters? And do you not think that party would hold largely the same views as the old party? Most issues are binary. You either support gay marriage or you don't. You either support more gun controls or less. You either support more military involvement around the world or less. You either want more government involvement in the economy or less.

It's hard to imagine a party that would somehow have different views on every issue than either of the two current parties. Or some other combination of views. As cute as it is to see people on the internet pretending there's such a thing as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that's a massive oxymoron. You can't possibly logically believe we need to eradicate poverty, but then also believe we need to keep government out of our lives and spend less.

People, very broadly, are either socially liberal and believe the government can be a force for good or are socially conservative and believe the government to be inherently bad. Hence two parties. And the first past the post system plays a huge part in propping the two-party system up.

Most of those issues are not that black and white. How much more gun control? Or in what specific ways? Same with Abortion, education, healthcare, immigration, foreign policy... It's not an A or B choice world. There is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...

Also the parties are pulled to the extremes on those issues by the people. Specifically the primary seasons and how die hards are often the only eligible voters. A party could be much more moderate, open, transparent and honest.

 

[♪alt13]

I hope that something different can emerge, but realistically we're just going to have the same people calling themselves by different names. Is it really conceivable that an entirely new political class would take their place? No.

I can think of 4 things we could do that would help

1. Term limits

2. Ranked choice voting for all offices

3. Independent commission to draw district boundaries

4. Multi member districts in the state and Federal House



I edited the order to create an acronym TRIM

 

[Stoked]

I can think of 4 things we could do that would help

1. Term limits

2. Ranked choice voting for all offices

3. Independent commission to draw district boundaries

4. Multi member districts in the state and Federal House



I edited the order to create an acronym TRIM

Interesting ideas. Also a change I the parties primaries rules, policies and laws. Such as delegates...

 

[fishonjazz]

Really? Do people really want someone who has no position on any issue? Who compromises on everything? Like I said, these are binary issue. You're either on one side or the other. How can you possibly want a candidate that refuses to take a stand on any issue, let alone a majority of them?

I like people who have open minds. Hate people that have a pre set opinion and are unwilling to budge or admit they were wrong.

 

[franklin]

I like people who have open minds. Hate people that have a pre set opinion and are unwilling to budge or admit they were wrong.

Agreed. I find most "open minds" are actually pretty closed minded and preachy. For example, most here who claim to be open minded are completely closed minded to the benefits of our two party system, and are only interested in pounding that 3rd party gavel because they need something with an "open mind". Refusing to utilize the current system in place, that is not likely to change any time soon, is as closed minded as it gets. Continuing to wax religiously for the necessity for a third party is a waste of preachy breath.

 

[fishonjazz]

are completely closed minded to the benefits of our two party system,

I'm not sure I have heard what the benefits of a two party system vs having more candidates are. I'm willing to listen though.

 

[franklin]

I'm not sure I have heard what the benefits of a two party system vs having more candidates are. I'm willing to listen though.

It moderates the political process as progress takes hold but has the unintended consequences of getting way out of hand. When that looks like it will happen people switch parties and turn the tide back the other way. It also has a nice way of slowing down the radicals with loud voices from pushing their agendas down our throats. Politics has a nice way of paying attention to the loudest cry babies screaming wolf while not paying attention to the majority with reason who don't pipe up much but go on with their daily lives instead. Do you want a 10 party system that can grab power with, say a 15% majority, and then push their agenda onto you?

It's easier to chill and switch parties when you don't like the flavor of your local voting majority.

 

[fishonjazz]

It moderates the political process as progress takes hold but has the unintended consequences of getting way out of hand. When that looks like it will happen people switch parties and turn the tide back the other way. It also has a nice way of slowing down the radicals with loud voices from pushing their agendas down our throats. Politics has a nice way of paying attention to the loudest cry babies screaming wolf while not paying attention to the majority with reason who don't pipe up much but go on with their daily lives instead. Do you want a 10 party system that can grab power with, say a 15% majority, and then push their agenda onto you?

It's easier to chill and switch parties when you don't like the flavor of your local voting majority.

Good post.
Makes sense

 

[♪alt13]

Interesting ideas. Also a change I the parties primaries rules, policies and laws. Such as delegates...

The parties are independent political organizations. I would be against new laws that would interfere with their internal processes and decisions. I think that that would inevitably be used to further the two parties stranglehold/monopoly of the political process. It should change but those changes should be decided by their members not the government.