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

[fishonjazz]

IAWTP. The paradox is that most Americans are somewhere in the middle, but the parties tend to be defined by the extremes. Both parties pander to their bases in the primaries, and then try to move toward the middle in the general election. They then govern toward their base. What if someone legitimately ran as a centrist, speaking to the middle in the primary, speaking to the middle in the general, and most importantly governing toward the middle once they were in power. Is such a thing possible?

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

 

[Deleted member 848]

Who said there was?

then why share such biased, propagandistic articles?

 

[Deleted member 848]

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

centrist is a fluid concept.

Canada elected a "Centrist" government that wants to legalize marijuana by 2017 and made half of his cabinet female.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

also, lol @ the notion of the DNC being considered an "extremist" party. If Hillary didn't have her email scandals behind her she'd easily be the most centrist American presidential candidate of my lifetime

Where did you get "extremist" from? I said that the parties are defined by their extremes and if you can't see that it's because you have your eyes closed. And the only reason you can call Hillary centrist is because the spectrum has moved significantly toward the left in your lifetime. She definitely panders toward the center because she is pure politician when it comes to this stuff. Her stances are calculated based upon polling. She needs to be just far enough to the right to get enough votes to get elected, but she cannot go too far to the right or she will alienate her base on the left. That's the way these things are done.

Bernie remains a huge problem for her because she needs the far left. He's poisoning them to her.

 

[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.

 

[franklin]

And yeah, I would love a centrist party too so I have a home, but this system creates pertinent discourse. That verbal fight seems to me to be what bothers people so much. Why?



(That, and AM radio has thrown a monkey wrench into it and completely ****ed the R party.)

 

[♪alt13]

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.

Which is why we should have ranked choice voting. Right now candidates get elected with the support of only about 30% of the voting age population and less than half of those that vote. Under Ranked choice voting the candidate needs to seek 2nd best and third best votes in order to win. This helps assure that a larger proportion of citizens at least approve of if not fully support a candidate.

 

[franklin]

Which is why we should have ranked choice voting. Right now candidates get elected with the support of only about 30% of the voting age population and less than half of those that vote. Under Ranked choice voting the candidate needs to seek 2nd best and third best votes in order to win. This helps assure that a larger proportion of citizens at least approve of if not fully support a candidate.

Does it? Is your issue that many people don't exercise their right to vote?

 

[Stoked]

also, lol @ the notion of the DNC being considered an "extremist" party. If Hillary didn't have her email scandals behind her she'd easily be the most centrist American presidential candidate of my lifetime

She is distrusted for far more than her emails.