Quote :

"LoneSnark: "Parties" are not running for office, candidates are."

That's either naive or historically misinformed.

What would you call the "Contract with America?"

9/5/2006 4:22:46 PM

To LoneSnark: Yeah, candidates who represent parties are running for office, dillweed.

9/5/2006 4:35:12 PM

Basically. One organizing principle of political parties is to have its platform and ideals represent your presumed beliefs where you don't specify them to the public. How often are candidates/officials scolded for "not representing" the party?

9/5/2006 4:39:32 PM

One word: Lieberman.

9/5/2006 7:53:19 PM

Quote :

"One organizing principle of political parties is to have its platform and ideals represent your presumed beliefs where you don't specify them to the public."

This is one of the problems the American system is suffering from. People have gotten so used to European multi-party democracy that they have forgotten how the American system works. Libertarians, which would prefer to shoot a Religious Right Republican than pay taxes, are Republicans. Greens, which would prefer to firebomb a housing development than defend trial lawyers, are Democrats.

This is the design of American Democracy, attempting to pretend American parties should be anything but big-tent parties is folly, the system functions less and less well (the voters are less likely to get what they want) the more parties you have above two. This is how the American system is supposed to operate, with two parties and 10+ candidates.

Yes, we are supposed to vote on party lines in November and this does make parties important. But the important elections are not in November and they are not along party lines (or did the Democrat leadership announce before the primaries which candidate they wanted to win?)

The system is different, therefore the definitions are different, and the definition you give for "Political Party" is for other countries, not America.

9/5/2006 10:30:22 PM

^ You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

9/6/2006 10:50:55 AM

Alright, so, perhaps you could be more specific? What part of what I said do you feel is in error? Because, to my knowledge, what I am saying is not controversial. Plurality election systems just do not work reliably when there are more than 2 candidates, this is why every democratic country that utilizes a "First Past the Post" election system has split the system in two: the first vote reduces the list of choices to two and then the second vote selects the victor (France, U.S., etc). It is just a happenstance that in Europe the first vote is to choose among parties where-as in America it is to choose among candidates.

But if you want to change things then I prefer a proportional voting system. k?

9/6/2006 12:15:22 PM

^ Blah, blah, blah. . .and more bullshit. First, stick to this country for analysis. Second, please show me a modern-day candidate who won a major US election representing the Me, Myself, and I Party.

9/6/2006 9:58:14 PM

Quote :

"Second, please show me a modern-day candidate who won a major US election representing the Me, Myself, and I Party."

Hmm, you are the one arguing we have a multi-party system. I am arguing we have two-party system, which not only rules out 3rd parties but independents too. So, either you forgot what we were talking about or just never knew. Which is it?

9/7/2006 12:19:58 AM

Try to stop being so foolish, LoneSnark. YOU were the one who posted the following: "'Parties' are not running for office, candidates are." I have been clear: "[P]lease show me a modern-day candidate who won a major US election representing the Me, Myself, and I Party," which means a candidate who was NOT representing some form of political party. Well, we're waiting.

9/7/2006 2:13:01 PM

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

John Kerry is my answer. Back in 2004 when John Kerry was one name among ten running in the Democratic Primany he was not yet representing the Democratic Party, he did not receive a single penny from the party and neither did any of the other nine candidates. He won that primary election on his own merits (whatever they may have been).

It was not until he had already defeated nine other candidates that he gained Democratic Party support when the time came to win (lose) the secondary election cycle.

9/7/2006 2:31:55 PM

What's your definition of support?

9/7/2006 4:48:07 PM

Hmm, I suppose I should say party support is when the party aparatus proclaims "all loyal individuals are called upon to vote for this candidate!"

9/7/2006 6:21:07 PM

Oh. Something that never happens. I see.

9/7/2006 6:24:22 PM

Wait, they don't? Why the hell not? You seriously expect me to believe that the party leaders of the Democratic party did not once ask their friends and associates to vote for John Kerry?

I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you saying the Democratic party at no point supported John Kerry? Or are you saying that the Democratic Party was calling on people to support Kerry before he won the primaries?

9/7/2006 6:36:34 PM

Actually, no. I expect you to believe that this:

Quote :

"LoneSnark: party aparatus proclaims "all loyal individuals are called upon to vote for this candidate!""

Never happens.

9/7/2006 7:00:39 PM

So, what, are you nit-picking or something?

No, that was personification. A "Party" cannot speak, only people can speak, and "the Democratic Party" is an imaginary construct, not a person. I'm sorry, jeez.

But you must realize, when you ask a stupid question you are going to get a stupid response.

9/7/2006 8:45:30 PM

The planks of their platforms may not be physical constructs, but they are not "imaginary," either. Millions and millions of dollars are spent developing and marketing these platforms. Moreover, these platforms shape the very society under which we all live.

You are a pedantic gadfly. I choose not to go back and forth in this ridiculous exercise any longer.

9/7/2006 10:01:58 PM

That was in response to Gamecat! I didn't want to discuss the personification of inanimate objects, he's the one that brought it up!

God damn, do I have to explain everything I say? The platforms are everything you said they were, but they are not people, they are not alive and they do not think; they are a collection of inanimate objects or ideas created through great effort by people, nothing more nothing less.

I must conclude everyone now understands how the American system is layed out to work with two election cycles, one primary to choose among independent candidates and a seconary to choose among parties. Otherwise we would be talking about that and not some idiocy rung up by Gamecat, right?

9/7/2006 11:05:23 PM

^ Your sophistry is exhausting. I really must take my leave of you.

9/8/2006 11:16:36 AM

I'm only here to educate. If you are done learning then be with God, my son.

And for the love of all things worldy, vote in May, you are only disenfranchising yourself if you don't because as elections go the May election matters more than the November election.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/8/2006 12:05:16 PM

I'm not nitpicking. I'm asking you why you limit your definition of "support" for a candidate from its party during a campaign to proclamations that "all loyal individuals are called upon to vote for this candidate" or anything similar.

9/8/2006 5:40:06 PM

They do all the stuff they do, give money, give verbal support, give staff, give networking, give tables/chairs/computers/buildings/power/etc.

Yes, I realize that. No, it doesn't change anything. So why nitpick?

9/8/2006 7:46:22 PM

Pyro, you should try living in that area and having to put up with the racist attitudes 1/2 the population carries around there...I used to drive by the old Nat'l Klan HQ to get to my HS every day.

Quote :

""

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2006 8:01:58 PM