November 2014 Electin

20Cent

True democratic turnout was bad but due to new voting laws in many states hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised.

Just a few examples:

North Carolina
Thom Tillis won by 1.7 percent, or 48,000 votes.
This year changes in the law removed seven early voting days, same-day registration and voting outside a voter’s home precinct.
In 2012,
700,000 voted during the early voting days.
100,000 North Carolinians, almost one-third voted using same-day registration
And 7,500 voters cast their ballots outside of their home precincts that year.

Kansas
Governor Sam Brownback won by 2.8 percent, or less 33,000 votes.
198,000 “active Virginia voters” did not have acceptable ID this year.

Florida
Won by 1.2 percent 72,000 votes.
1.3 million Floridians formerly convicted of crimes but have done their time can’t vote due to new restrictions brought in by Scott.

Texas
600,000 registered voters in Texas could not vote this year because they lack IDs the state will accept which were added just before the elections.

Similar situations in other states.

Then you have the money poured into it. The Kochs spent close to 150 million dollars. Hundreds of thousands of attack ads. It is naive to think that had no impact.


Amendment votes were victories for liberals and progressives :
The minimum wage was raised in Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska and South Dakota — all Republican states.
Marijuana was legalized in Oregon and Washington DC. Washington state Personhood amendments that about banned abortion were shot down in North Carolina and Colorado.
California’s Proposition 47 passed.


Anyway I suppose the Democrats will accept the republican mandate and work with them just like the republicans did when Obama won.

Manic Moran

If even Dianne Feinstein, about as liberal as you're going to get in California, is opposing Prop 47 as "will do anything but make our communities safer", it's questionable if it's a victory for liberals. Frankly, I think the fact that it passed is proof that the voters are idiots. Almost no law enforcement or district attorney (you know, the guys actually responsible for and knowledgable about our crime safety) supported that one.

Without denying the impact that money has on elections, as far as I know, I received no money at all from the Kochs for going out of my way (an hour each way, actually) to go use a pretty crappy marker for fifteen minutes, and, as far as I know, no money from the Kochs went to anyone for not going to the polls either. Voters made their own choices to show up or not. That it is believed that money can be a primary factor for election results is, I'm afraid to say, further proof that either voters are idiots, or they're perceived to be idiots.

The voter ID issues are another matter (one I have fairly strong opinions on), though things like "same day registration" are, to my mind, a non-factor. It is not hard to arse yourself to register to vote ahead of time, and it's nice to give the registrar a little time to actually process your eligibility.

As an aside, the Florida ex-felon thing technically isn't a matter of Scott adding restrictions, it was Scott reversing the loosening of the process. The Florida Constitution (Article 6) places the default position of "Convicted of a felony, you don't get to vote." Restoration of voting rights is listed in the Constitution as "An act of mercy", implying that it should not be considered the defacto standard.

K-9

20Cent wrote: »

The Koch brothers bought this election, careful what you wish for. Kind of want a republican government next see the tea bag brigade lose their environment, healthcare and working rights.

Teabagger or variation thereof isn't allowed as per the charter.

jank wrote: »

Ah the predictable response of the loony left.

An election doesn't go your way..."Some evil corporation bought it, not fair, boo hoo..."
An election goes your way..."Da people have spoken, we have a mandate and listen to us roar! Raaawwrrr"

Utterly predicable and pathetic.

Replying with loony left doesn't particularly help either.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

20Cent wrote: »

True democratic turnout was bad but due to new voting laws in many states hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised.

Even if those people had been able to vote, it would not have made a difference because overall turnout figures were so bad. Virginia is a perfect example: 198,000 did not have proper ID, but 1.7 million fewer people turned out in 2014 than in 2012. And those figures hold across the board.

I think that the new voter laws are a separate issue, but the story in 2014 was clearly a lack of turnout, not voter suppression, when it comes to participation rates.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

20Cent wrote: »

Then you have the money poured into it. The Kochs spent close to 150 million dollars. Hundreds of thousands of attack ads. It is naive to think that had no impact.

Koch groups reportedly spent $77 million. Tom Steyer reportedly spent $85 million of his own money on left-wing pro-environmental candidates. Billionaires - on the left and right - don't always get what they want; Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs spent a fortune in 2012, and Obama still won.

jank

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Koch groups reportedly spent $77 million. Tom Steyer reportedly spent $85 million of his own money on left-wing pro-environmental candidates. Billionaires - on the left and right - don't always get what they want; Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs spent a fortune in 2012, and Obama still won.

This is of course correct. Obama outspent both GOP candidates in 2008 AND 2012 by a few hundred million. You never see those complaining about the Koch brothers moan about this fact when of course their own ideological position is advanced by playing the game. So when an election goes the other way, save your tears and look at the real problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

I think the whole citizens United thing and super PAC's needs to be re-looked at. Big money donors on both sides are bad for democracy as a whole.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Only one Democratic candidate had Obama at his campaign Gary Peters in Michigan and he was the one that won!

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You don't see any difference in a union funding campaigns to look after the interests of the workers within the union and a billionaire funding campaigns because they're rich and read some Ayn Rand.

PopePalpatine

I wonder, what would be the proportion of large (say, more than $1,000) donations per person as a percentage of the total funding of both the Dems and the GOP?

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I do think that there is a fundamental difference between clearly defined member-based interest groups raising and donating money and these single-person operations looking to swing elections in a certain direction (or bend policy to their will). It is kind of scary that in a democratic society one person or a small group of people can intervene so heavily in the democratic process with little to no accountability, either internally (via membership, elections, etc) or externally (via reporting requirements).

MightyMandarin

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

But I do think that there is a fundamental difference between clearly defined member-based interest groups raising and donating money and these single-person operations looking to swing elections in a certain direction (or bend policy to their will). It is kind of scary that in a democratic society one person or a small group of people can intervene so heavily in the democratic process with little to no accountability, either internally (via membership, elections, etc) or externally (via reporting requirements).

Yeah, there is a big difference between Teachers Unions and similar groups donating millions to campaigns, and one single business or person donating millions under the guise of supposed 'grassroot' movements, which is exactly what the Kochs do.

Manic Moran

I'm unsure there is a practical difference, however. Special interest donates lots of dollars for their pet candidate, those dollars have the same effect in advertising, campaign, etc and influence, such as it is, on the public, regardless of it it was single source or combined fund. If there is the matter of the number of people, well, the California Teacher's Union (and their families) have a lot more votes than any billionaire has. The CTU donating $100m no more has my interest in mind than Joe Smith donating $100m.

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm unsure there is a practical difference, however. Special interest donates lots of dollars for their pet candidate, those dollars have the same effect in advertising, campaign, etc and influence, such as it is, on the public, regardless of it it was single source or combined fund. If there is the matter of the number of people, well, the California Teacher's Union (and their families) have a lot more votes than any billionaire has. The CTU donating $100m no more has my interest in mind than Joe Smith donating $100m.

Difference is the union consists of all its members many thousands I would think compared to just one person. By that logic Joe Smiths voice is worth x thousand teachers voices which doesn't sound very democratic.

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

Difference is the union consists of all its members many thousands I would think compared to just one person. By that logic Joe Smiths voice is worth x thousand teachers voices which doesn't sound very democratic.

Last I checked, democracy referred to the voting/election process, the ability for each person themselves to decide how to cast their vote. The ability to get your message across is not a matter of democracy. So, Mr Koch can get his message across better than Joe Bloggs of San Ramon High School because he's got lots of money to buy advertising space. Angelina Jolie can get his message across better than Joe Bloggs of San Ramon High School because she's got lots of followers on social media and the entertainment press will report what she says. The Governor of California can more easily get his message across than Joe Bloggs of San Ramon High School because his job immediately grants him access to news media. The editor of the San Francisco Chronicle can get his message across because, well, he -runs- the media. (And believe me, news media are not shy in this country about expressing their opinions on political issues). Situation gives advantages not available to others, people would be fools not to use whatever advantage they have over anyone else.

What the Teacher's Union has that Koch, Jolie, Brown etc don't, is a membership of thousands, each of whom can reach a vastly smaller number of ears per member but who in total can reach many, many more. Given all the different myriad of ways it's possible for people of different situations can transmit their message, be it an advantage of finance, fame, position, or whatever, how would you propose 'truly equalising' them?

vetinari

20Cent wrote: »

Only one Democratic candidate had Obama at his campaign Gary Peters in Michigan and he was the one that won!

This, I think the Democrats made a huge mistake in running from Obama.
Midterms are about bringing out your base. That's hard to do if you're running as a quasi Republican. Despite what some pollsters might think, Obama is still president of the United States and his presence at rallies is a big deal.

A great example of this as well is Obamacare. In comparison to the start of the year, the news coverage around this has settled down and it met it's signup targets. Yet the Democratic candidates seemed stuck in February. They allowed Republicans to set the narrative. They should have been much more aggressive in portraying Obamacare as a success. I mean you're the party that makes the biggest improvement in terms of universal healthcare in 50 years and you don't campaign on it!!

Paleface

Turnout in this election was the lowest in 72 years at 36.3% whilst spending was at an all time high almost reaching $4 billion.

Where is all the money going if its not enticing voters to actually vote?

Shows that Americans care little for congress or the senate. The presidency is where the real interest lies.

eire4

Paleface wrote: »

Turnout in this election was the lowest in 72 years at 36.3% whilst spending was at an all time high almost reaching $4 billion.

Where is all the money going if its not enticing voters to actually vote?

Shows that Americans care little for congress or the senate. The presidency is where the real interest lies.

The fact that turnout was so abysmal for me was a massive takeaway of the elction. Yet we hear little about it. To my mind while the Republicans obviously won big the reality is very few Americans beyond their base actually voted for them. As you correctly point out interest in the presidential election is much higher. Yet reality is what happened in the recent election will have very serious consequences yet the majority of Americans are tuned out and or disgusted with congress. What is most disturbing to me is there is no debate of any note going on about how badly the current system of government is functioning and how the majority of Americans have no believe in its ability to work for them fairly.


Certainly TV companies and other media are loving citizens United and all the revenue it is generating for them. I would flat out say a good chunk of that money is going to pay for policy the various wealthy individuals and corporations want. One of the scary aspects of the massive sums of money involved is how much of it is hidden and so vaious campaigns are financed by unknow sources. Personally I think we need to get this money out of the process but at the very least everything needs to be disclosed. I mean if everything is so above board why the need to hide.

Egginacup

Amerika wrote: »

With less than two weeks to go until the 2014 election, it now looks favorable for the GOP to take over the US Senate, and retain control of the House.

Crazy season is in full swing. The one thing that has me laughing is the cry from the Left now about “reconciliation.” Something the Democrats enacted last year to skirt the 60-vote Senate obstacle and render the filibuster a useless tactic by the minority. It’s the process that now allows any sort of fiscal legislation preferred by the majority to be passed with just 51 votes.

But with it looking like the GOP gaining control of the Senate, the Left is now sounding the alarms that the GOP will utilize the tactic to the detriment of the country – (the change Democrat’s instituted in order to get through their legislation). So I guess reconciliation is good for the country when Democrats are in control, but deemed de facto cheating if the Republicans gain control.

Somehow I think if the GOP gains control of the Senate with the November election, we will see the Senate void reconciliation before the swearing in ceremonies of new Senators.

And if the GOP takes control of Congress, I think we'll be looking at the premiere of “Executive Orders Gone Wild.” The opening will be in December 2014, with a guaranteed two year run. Then the Republicans will refuse to fund the executive orders, hoping for a GOP win in the 2016 Presidential election, and voiding all of Obama's executive orders. Gotta love US Politics.

The American political system is a farce. It's laughable how people actually talk about elections, races and bills like they actually mean something.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Egginacup wrote: »

The American political system is a farce. It's laughable how people actually talk about elections, races and bills like they actually mean something.

I really hate when people say that elections don't mean anything. Do you think that Alito and Roberts would have been appointed to the Supreme Court if Gore won over Bush? Keep in mind that it is the Roberts court that ruled in the Citizens United case, opening up the floodgates for campaign finance in the last several election cycles. For that matter, do you think that the US response to 9/11 would have been the same under Gore? The Democrats have shifted to the right over the last two decades, but there are still some key differences between them and Republicans.

Amerika

Egginacup wrote: »

The American political system is a farce. It's laughable how people actually talk about elections, races and bills like they actually mean something.

It’s a wonder we can walk and chew gum at the same time, eh? Odd though that the question remains not that the US wants to export its political model, but why so much of the world wanted to import it over time.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

It’s a wonder we can walk and chew gum at the same time, eh? Odd though that the question remains not that the US wants to export its political model, but why so much of the world wanted to import it over time.

You believe democracy was invented in America?

I can't think of any other functioning democracy where a 2 party system is so deeply ingrained and where there is no left wing alternative.

I'd also struggle to come up with any country that would have a 36% turnout in an election.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You believe democracy was invented in America?

Not invented... Made practical.

I can't think of any other functioning democracy where a 2 party system is so deeply ingrained and where there is no left wing alternative.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

I'd also struggle to come up with any country that would have a 36% turnout in an election.

Also a good thing as those that decide to come to the polls obviously had a clue to what has been going on for the last 6 years. Give me quality over quantity any old time.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Also a good thing as those that decide to come to the polls obviously had a clue to what has been going on for the last 6 years.

Ironically, in voting control of Congress back to the Republicans, the voter seems to have forgotten what happened during the Republican GW Bush administration for the 8 years before those Democrat Obama Administration 6 years, especially the 2007-2008 collapse of the Dow to less than half its value (and other major index failures), the largest bank failure in US history (Washington Mutual, plus many other banks), failure of major investment banks (e.g., Bear Stearns, etc.), millions of home foreclosures, huge double-digit unemployment, the beginning of major corporate bailouts like AIG (that had a $400,000 USD post-bailout party in Santa Barbara late 2008, including $23,000 in massages), doubling the federal deficit, and two of the longest wars in US history. The memory and behaviour of the US voter is a craic!

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Amerika wrote: »

It’s a wonder we can walk and chew gum at the same time, eh? Odd though that the question remains not that the US wants to export its political model, but why so much of the world wanted to import it over time.

Amerika wrote: »

Not invented... Made practical.

Not really. Most modern democracies formed after the United States use a form of proportional representation and/or a parliamentary system.

On a more theoretical note, the French and US models are actually seen as impractical by most democracy scholars because they are relatively prone to deadlock.

Manach

My understanding from scholars such as Dahl is that the U.S. system can be held as an excellent example of a system that prizes distribution of powers and stability in the process . Hence the longevity and the stability of the U.S.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

My understanding from scholars such as Dahl is that the U.S. system can be held as an excellent example of a system that prizes distribution of powers and stability in the process . Hence the longevity and the stability of the U.S.

The notion of checks-and-balances between the 3 branches of US government (Executive, Congress, Supreme Court) were intended to accomplish this distribution of powers and consequent stability. Unfortunately, as John Adams warned, the 2 party system sometimes thwarts these checks-and-balances when one gains control of two or more branches of US government.

I dislike both parties, along with their often dysfunctional bipartisan system of government. John Adams was right.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The notion of checks-and-balances between the 3 branches of US government (Executive, Congress, Supreme Court) were intended to accomplish this distribution of powers and consequent stability. Unfortunately, as John Adams warned, the 2 party system sometimes thwarts these checks-and-balances when one gains control of two or more branches of US government.

I dislike both parties, along with their often dysfunctional bipartisan system of government. John Adams was right.

It’s much worse than Adams could even envision. Barack Obama has seemingly made one branch of government semi-inconsequential – Congress, with the use of Executive Orders and slick lawyereeze to justify his unilateralism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-great-immigration-betrayal.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

It’s much worse than Adams could even envision. Barack Obama has seemingly made one branch of government semi-inconsequential – Congress, with the use of Executive Orders and slick lawyereeze to justify his unilateralism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-great-immigration-betrayal.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Come on now Amerika it could just as easily be said that the Republicans record setting use of the filibuster made the Senate just as semi-inconsequential over the last few years. When it comes to blocking functional government the Republicans have not held back at all.

eire4

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I really hate when people say that elections don't mean anything. Do you think that Alito and Roberts would have been appointed to the Supreme Court if Gore won over Bush? Keep in mind that it is the Roberts court that ruled in the Citizens United case, opening up the floodgates for campaign finance in the last several election cycles. For that matter, do you think that the US response to 9/11 would have been the same under Gore? The Democrats have shifted to the right over the last two decades, but there are still some key differences between them and Republicans.

Sadly everything you say there is spot on. Elections mean something and sometimes they can mean an awful lot. Only 36% of the country voted so the people who put the Republicans in power was essentially their hardcore base hardly a mandate for anything from the people to the government yet that will not matter a jot to the Republicans.
What is also interesting is that within the states now 30 out of the 50 US states have both houses under Republican control whereas only 8 (albeit bigger population states) are under Democartic control. To my mind that is where the consequences of not voting will be felt most of all in the coming few years.

Sadly what all this shows in my opinion is that a large chunk of Americans have tuned out as they have no belief in the ability of the system to work for them and they see no alternative option to support so they check out altogether which just leaves the field open for control by the more extreme elements who will show up and vote.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Come on now Amerika it could just as easily be said that the Republicans record setting use of the filibuster made the Senate just as semi-inconsequential over the last few years. When it comes to blocking functional government the Republicans have not held back at all.

Both sides have used the filibuster. And Democrats were the ones who used the tactic to start blocking executive-branch nominations and appellate-court nominees starting with the 108th Congress, right?

Anyway the nuclear option changed all that didn’t it?

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Sadly what all this shows in my opinion is that a large chunk of Americans have tuned out as they have no belief in the ability of the system to work for them and they see no alternative option to support so they check out altogether which just leaves the field open for control by the more extreme elements who will show up and vote.

LOL I've seen a lot of this ridiculous type of thinking lately. So, it appears when the democrats win, it's the will of the people. When the GOP wins it's because voters have "checked out altogether." Sound about right?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

It’s much worse than Adams could even envision. Barack Obama has seemingly made one branch of government semi-inconsequential – Congress, with the use of Executive Orders and slick lawyereeze to justify his unilateralism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-great-immigration-betrayal.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

I fail to see how this Executive Order issue has any real merit when used to bash Obama, given the history of presidential Executive Orders. Obama has issued fewer Executive Orders to date (total = 193; average per year = 33.57) than GW Bush (total = 291; average per year = 36.38), and certainly less than Ronald Reagan (total = 381; average per year = 47.63). But none of these presidents come even a tiny bit close to Franklin D. Roosevelt (total = 3,522), which occurred before presidential term limits and was in office for 12 years, but had an extraordinarily average per year = 290.59 EOs.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Both sides have used the filibuster. And Democrats were the ones who used the tactic to start blocking executive-branch nominations and appellate-court nominees starting with the 108th Congress, right?

Anyway the nuclear option changed all that didn’t it?

Yes your right both sides have used the filibuster but it is the Republicans side who have taken it to record levels in recent years. The point I was simply making was to show how biased your finger pointing was against Obama when Republicans in their own way have been filibustering at record breaking levels.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

LOL I've seen a lot of this ridiculous type of thinking lately. So, it appears when the democrats win, it's the will of the people. When the GOP wins it's because voters have "checked out altogether." Sound about right?

Not sure what your laughing about this is beyond serious here. The dysfunctional and broken nature of the US political system right now is a major problem for everyone. I never mentioned anything about Democrats that is all your own addition. I have been very consistent and very clear in pointing out what I believe to be a dysfunctional and broken political system in Washington where both the Democrats and the Republicans are at fault for doing everything they can do to ensure there is no challenge to their 2 party monopoly on power in American. Plus the fact that big money has all but turned elections now into auctions with both parties more or less bought and paid for. I asked you before about this and you never answered.
To my mind the turnout which was the lowest for over 70 years was a response by the majority of Americans who feel the system is not working and they have no way to express any alternatives given the 2 party monopoly on power. In fact I would venture it say it is arguable that the US is no longer a democracy but has become an Oligarchy. While the extent to which the country is an Oligarchy is a debatable point what is clear in my opinion that this is what is happening.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Not sure what your laughing about this is beyond serious here. The dysfunctional and broken nature of the US political system right now is a major problem for everyone. I never mentioned anything about Democrats that is all your own addition. I have been very consistent and very clear in pointing out what I believe to be a dysfunctional and broken political system in Washington where both the Democrats and the Republicans are at fault for doing everything they can do to ensure there is no challenge to their 2 party monopoly on power in American. Plus the fact that big money has all but turned elections now into auctions with both parties more or less bought and paid for. I asked you before about this and you never answered.
To my mind the turnout which was the lowest for over 70 years was a response by the majority of Americans who feel the system is not working and they have no way to express any alternatives given the 2 party monopoly on power. In fact I would venture it say it is arguable that the US is no longer a democracy but has become an Oligarchy. While the extent to which the country is an Oligarchy is a debatable point what is clear in my opinion that this is what is happening.

Why can't another political party come into power? Sure it would take time, but doesn't most change? But they can happen fast as in the Tea Party, which sprung up quickly from grassroots organizations into a strong political force, and now is the political boogieman and blamed much of the problems in America. Nothing is stopping another political party from gaining power other that the electorate doesn't seem to want it.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I fail to see how this Executive Order issue has any real merit when used to bash Obama, given the history of presidential Executive Orders. Obama has issued fewer Executive Orders to date (total = 193; average per year = 33.57) than GW Bush (total = 291; average per year = 36.38), and certainly less than Ronald Reagan (total = 381; average per year = 47.63). But none of these presidents come even a tiny bit close to Franklin D. Roosevelt (total = 3,522), which occurred before presidential term limits and was in office for 12 years, but had an extraordinarily average per year = 290.59 EOs.

The left always uses quantity of Executive Orders in their arguments, never quality. Please find me one E.O. from the presidents you named that would equate to giving amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens. Even Obama himself said in 2013 that doing so would be illegal and against the US Constitution. Unfortunately imperialism does have its lure I guess.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Why can't another political party come into power? Sure it would take time, but doesn't most change? But they can happen fast as in the Tea Party, which sprung up quickly from grassroots organizations into a strong political force, and now is the political boogieman and blamed much of the problems in America. Nothing is stopping another political party from gaining power other that the electorate doesn't seem to want it.

The so called Tea party is in fact not an actual patry it does not exist as a seperate entity. It is a wing or the Republican Party and part and parcel of the 2 party monopoly on power.


The idea put forward that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was a grassroots movement is a myth. The Tea Party grouping in the Republican Party emerged from the split in the CSE in 2002 into the Dick Armey lead freedomworks and the Koch Brothers lead Americans for Prosperity.


The reason why we have not seen the growth of any other other alternatives is that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party use and abuse their positions to strangle any alternatives from challenging them. The insult to democracy that is the Preidential debates being a classic example. I venture to say that most Americans would be surprised to learn that this is not an independant debate but is in fact an organization owned and controlled by the 2 main parties who use this vehicle to maintain their control and stifle other voices by preventing them from being on the debates with onerous regulations. Such as that no other parties are allowed on to debate until they garner 15% in at least 5 national wide polls.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are very much to the fore in strangling the growth of any smaller parties from being able to challenge them by rigging the rules of the process in the states.
Never mind how the flood of money pouring into the process has turned elections into an auction in many ways which further works against the development of any viable democratic alternatives and is speeding up the move towards turning the US into an Oligarchy.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

The left always uses quantity of Executive Orders in their arguments, never quality. Please find me one E.O. from the presidents you named that would equate to giving amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens. Even Obama himself said in 2013 that doing so would be illegal and against the US Constitution. Unfortunately imperialism does have its lure I guess.

According to the Business Insider (not a "left" source) both George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan issued Executive Orders that extended amnesty to millions of immigrants that were illegally in the country.

This recent EO issue has little to do with being left or right politically, rather just continuing evidence of the dysfunctional 2-party system of politics (Democrats vs Republicans) that John Adams warned US Americans about.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

The so called Tea party is in fact not an actual patry it does not exist as a seperate entity. It is a wing or the Republican Party and part and parcel of the 2 party monopoly on power.


The idea put forward that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was a grassroots movement is a myth. The Tea Party grouping in the Republican Party emerged from the split in the CSE in 2002 into the Dick Armey lead freedomworks and the Koch Brothers lead Americans for Prosperity.


The reason why we have not seen the growth of any other other alternatives is that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party use and abuse their positions to strangle any alternatives from challenging them. The insult to democracy that is the Preidential debates being a classic example. I venture to say that most Americans would be surprised to learn that this is not an independant debate but is in fact an organization owned and controlled by the 2 main parties who use this vehicle to maintain their control and stifle other voices by preventing them from being on the debates with onerous regulations. Such as that no other parties are allowed on to debate until they garner 15% in at least 5 national wide polls.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are very much to the fore in strangling the growth of any smaller parties from being able to challenge them by rigging the rules of the process in the states.
Never mind how the flood of money pouring into the process has turned elections into an auction in many ways which further works against the development of any viable democratic alternatives and is speeding up the move towards turning the US into an Oligarchy.

True the Tea party is not an actual party, but they could become an actual political party if they want. They are not part of the Republican party but usually endorse Republican candidates. I recall the beginnings of the modern Tea Party growing out of GW Bush’s stimulus plans in 2008. I joined a local chapter in 2009.

But there is third and very influential party in the Independent Party. In 2013 membership in the three major political parties were Independent 42%, Democrat 31%, and Republican 25%. Some might not believe the Independent party to be a force, but strategies from the two other parties are greatly influenced by what the members of the Independent party are looking for in elected officials.

And the Constitution Party has been gaining force in recent years. I don't believe the Green Party and the Libertarian Party have had much movement as of late.

PopePalpatine

This Constitution Party? Yeah, I'd rather not see the USA turned into "Christian State".

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

This Constitution Party? Yeah, I'd rather not see the USA turned into "Christian State".

But it would be an alternative to the two party controlling system here, and that's what the majority here long for, right?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

True the Tea party is not an actual party, but they could become an actual political party if they want. They are not part of the Republican party but usually endorse Republican candidates. I recall the beginnings of the modern Tea Party growing out of GW Bush’s stimulus plans in 2008. I joined a local chapter in 2009.

But there is third and very influential party in the Independent Party. In 2013 membership in the three major political parties were Independent 42%, Democrat 31%, and Republican 25%. Some might not believe the Independent party to be a force, but strategies from the two other parties are greatly influenced by what the members of the Independent party are looking for in elected officials.

And the Constitution Party has been gaining force in recent years. I don't believe the Green Party and the Libertarian Party have had much movement as of late.

So the Tea Party could be a seperate party if they wanted? Well when they become a seperate party then we will see but the fact is they are a wing of the current Republican Party and not a seperate party themsleves. Just like there are different wings within what is the overall Democratic Party. The Tea Party was not and is not a grassroots movement that emerged all of a sudden. It is a wing in the Republican Party that developed after the 2002 split in the CSE into the Dick Armey lead freedomworks and the Koch borthers lead Americans for prosperity. I do not say that as a negative just as a matter of record.




There is no Independant Party as you well know there is not. The article your getting the Independants 42% number from is simply saying that there is a growing number of Americans turning away from declaring themselves as either Republican or Democrat. There is no Indepandant Party. The article clearly states this trend is due to the growing negative views among many Americans with the broken 2 party cartel and the dysfunctional government which is the result.




The Constitution Party, The Green Party and The Libertarian party while having very modest vote totals and holding the odd local office have no ablity to affect the current broken system. They are blocked by all the various ballot access laws designed by the 2 major parties to keep them out, by the electoral structure (winner takes all) in the US, the biased debate system I mentioned but above all else by the massive role that money has and even more so is playing.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

But there is third and very influential party in the Independent Party. In 2013 membership in the three major political parties were Independent 42%, Democrat 31%, and Republican 25%. Some might not believe the Independent party to be a force, but strategies from the two other parties are greatly influenced by what the members of the Independent party are looking for in elected officials.

What is this "Independent Party" that you are discussing? It's not a "party" is it; rather US voters that do not register as either Democrat or Republican? If you are discussing independent voters, which I think you are, this can be very misleading for our Irish readers, who may think there is a well organised, recognised, and largest 3rd "party" in the US, which in fact does not exist.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

But it would be an alternative to the two party controlling system here, and that's what the majority here long for, right?

I'd say a party like that would turn the USA into a one party controlling system, all in the name of Jeebus.

20Cent

Often wonder though could the US handle more than two parties?

Say there were even three parties. Two get 30%, the 40% party wins. 60% of population voted against them. Well over half the population who don't feel represented by gov and voted against them. This would put huge pressure on the political capital and authority of the government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.