Bloomberg Is Leaving Republican Party

[Cosmo]

glad all is well, hey to Matt.

Originally Posted by pamplemoose77

well i'm doubting my sanity now that i've posted several times in a political thread, but other than that, yes!

[pamplemoose77]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

glad all is well, hey to Matt.

he says 'hey' back

[southbound]

Originally Posted by pamplemoose77

well i'm doubting my sanity now that i've posted several times in a political thread, but other than that, yes!

It's great to see you posting here, Charity. You are a thoughtful and honest individual and it's great to hear your take on things.

[roni]

Originally Posted by sctx

I don't buy that, he woulda made them look like fools for protecting the status quo........not that it takes much to make them look like fools protecting the staus quo

You could be right - guess we'll never know. I sure hope he would have handled personnel selections better than he did his vice-presidential choice.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by pamplemoose77

well i'm doubting my sanity now that i've posted several times in a political thread, but other than that, yes!

Next thing you know, you'll be running for office!

[southbound]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But I fear that sort of hope is inevitably extinguished when you look at how the system really works.

The system is tailored to and now built up around 2 parties, and people getting annoyed enough or another generation coming along is not going to result in a wave that rises up and changes that. That's the sort of hippie-era hangover "you say you wanna revolution, you tell me it's the institution, you better change your mind, instead" grassroots, consciousness raising stuff that Heath & Potter so successfully riddled full of holes in terms of any realistic possibility it might offer for change and improvement in society in The Rebel Sell.

Sorry to sound so cynical or curmudgeon-y. I like Obama's approach and that idea of the audacity of hope. I like it, though, in part, because it seems appropriately tempered with real world... well, realism.

Steve

Sheesh, Steve, that is VERY cynical and curmudgeonly. The Audacity of Fatalism!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by southbound

Sheesh, Steve, that is VERY cynical and curmudgeonly. The Audacity of Fatalism!

But it's not, really. Again while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think it underestimates the extent to which a 2-party system is de facto established and reinforced in the structure of our system at various levels. I also think the independent/3rd party sentiment is a close variation on the sentiment in favor of the so-called "outsider" or the moves to draft a particular candidate not in the race.

Frankly the whole thing often seems rather substantially misguided to me, psychologically, whether it's a move to shift blame from ourselves or the current parties for not doing a better job voting or selecting candidates and putting forth better ideas in the first place, or possibly just the hope that some sort of hero will ride in on a white horse and show us the way and we'll all have a happy ending without really having to so much thinking or hard work ourselves.

I think we should give up on that sort of dream-like approach and find the way ourselves. I think the parties and candidates we have do in fact represent a variety of choices already, and could represent a much wider variety of choices if more regular people got more involved in politics. That's certainly much more realistic than to think we'd uproot the entire structure of the system now and maybe even try the rewrite the Constitution to create a parliamentary system that would naturally promote multiple parties in the same way our current system naturally promotes a 2-party approach (which in the end is more or less what you'd need to do). You can call it fatalism to think that way but I'd call it realism.

Given that, it would be better, I think, to take all that mad-at-the-status quo, independent/3rd party energy and refocus it on more involvement by more people at the entry levels on up, more organizations trying to inform the public honestly and fairly, campaign reform (especially financing but also on things like timing and length, perhaps), and key aspects of the structure of our current system that might be more reasonable goals to change (finally eliminating the Electoral College's potential veto over the popular vote, for example, a particularly undemocratic and anachronistic aspect of the status quo).

We could greatly improve our democracy through these realistic goals, and do so more or less immediately, without waiting for another generation to come and go and then hope for a 3rd party to establish itself or for an independent candidate to win the presidency. If we just had the political will to do it.

IMO.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But it's not, really. Again while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think it underestimates the extent to which a 2-party system is de facto established and reinforced in the structure of our system at various levels. I also think the independent/3rd party sentiment is a close variation on the sentiment in favor of the so-called "outsider" or the moves to draft a particular candidate not in the race.

Frankly the whole thing often seems rather substantially misguided to me, psychologically, whether it's a move to shift blame from ourselves or the current parties for not doing a better job voting or selecting candidates and putting forth better ideas in the first place, or possibly just the hope that some sort of hero will ride in on a white horse and show us the way and we'll all have a happy ending without really having to so much thinking or hard work ourselves.

I think we should give up on that sort of dream-like approach and find the way ourselves. I think the parties and candidates we have do in fact represent a variety of choices already, and could represent a much wider variety of choices if more regular people got more involved in politics. That's certainly much more realistic than to think we'd uproot the entire structure of the system now and maybe even try the rewrite the Constitution to create a parliamentary system that would naturally promote multiple parties in the same way our current system naturally promotes a 2-party approach (which in the end is more or less what you'd need to do). You can call it fatalism to think that way but I'd call it realism.
Given that, it would be better, I think, to take all that mad-at-the-status quo, independent/3rd party energy and refocus it on more involvement by more people at the entry levels on up, more organizations trying to inform the public honestly and fairly, campaign reform (especially financing but also on things like timing and length, perhaps), and key aspects of the structure of our current system that might be more reasonable goals to change (finally eliminating the Electoral College's potential veto over the popular vote, for example, a particularly undemocratic and anachronistic aspect of the status quo).

We could greatly improve our democracy through these realistic goals, and do so more or less immediately, without waiting for another generation to come and go and then hope for a 3rd party to establish itself or for an independent candidate to win the presidency. If we just had the political will to do it.

IMO.

Steve

Hmmm..I don't think anyone said anything about waiting for 3rd party recognition while ignoring other wise actions that would improve our election process...

I get your point and understand the pull between the audacity of hope and practical realism ...but...would you say the same things about the Electoral College I wonder? I mean do you think that it also is perhaps so "well established and reinforced in the structure of our system" that it is not likely to change...? And yet you still work toward that change?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Hmmm..I don't think anyone said anything about waiting for 3rd party recognition while ignoring other wise actions that would improve our election process...

Well the discussion was about how perhaps it would happen during our lifetime, or that the next generation would manage it, so that's waiting right there. People are talking about how they don't care if it is throwing their vote away -- that arguably constitutes waiting when contrasted with putting your vote behind a candidate you think might win and change something. And inasmuch as the independent/3rd party sentiment takes any political energy at all, it reduces the energy spent on the system now, so again, I think that's waiting. My argument is precisely that the whole movement is pretty much de facto waiting and ignoring wiser choices that could improve our democracy now. (Sorry! )

Originally Posted by Jacko

I get your point and understand the pull between the audacity of hope and practical realism ...but...would you say the same things about the Electoral College I wonder? I mean do you think that it also is perhaps so "well established and reinforced in the structure of our system" that it is not likely to change...? And yet you still work toward that change?

Well respectfully I don't think you did get my point, then. That very aspect I do see as potentially changeable, if more people are informed on it and more people get involved. However I don't think you're going to otherwise reduce or eliminate much of all the parts of our system that establish and reinforce the 2-party system we have today without basically rewriting the Constitution to create a parliamentary system, and that's not realistic. I believe you are misinterpreting my hope of eliminating the Electoral College in the same way sctx has, conflating it with a wholesale replacement of the current system as laid out in the Constitution. Again the latter is unrealistic, the former is, I think.

Steve

[MWC]

A few rambling thoughts on Mayor Mike Bloomberg's move:

I don't think Bloomberg is expecting to win as a third-party candidate. I think he is expecting to start a groundswell movement that will ultimately give a third party "big leagues" legitimacy.

With that in mind, I wonder if Bloomberg has some kind of agreement with Giuliani. Maybe Bloomberg doesn't want to run for President. But maybe he is more than happy to get the ball rolling, and to bankroll the third-party candidacy of, let's say, Giuliani.

Maybe Bloomberg is only temporarily claiming Independent status, and will enter the Democratic field instead. He had been a lifelong Democrat until switching party affiliation to run for NYC mayor.

I had my doubts about Mayor Mike at the beginning of his reign. But he has quietly made a lot of things happen in New York City. But he is not a natural politician -- he pretty much bought his way into Gracie Mansion -- so I don't see him putting himself forward as a candidate on a national level.

You have a lot of guys like him -- mega-rich, successful corporate types -- who are more and more speaking out about the wrong turn America seems to be taking. These guys are speaking out not only as a matter of conscience; but also because a continuing downturn or lack of direction is going to hit all of them, all of us, in our money-makers. If Bloomberg helps spearhead them into a cohesive movement, that alone would be a great legacy for him.

[PlayadelSoul]

You couldn't get 1/3 of the States to pass an Amendment to change the Electoral College, let alone 2/3. What possible reason would Utah have for wanting to change it, for example? Or, Wyoming? Or, New Hampshire? Or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or,

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You couldn't get 1/3 of the States to pass an Amendment to change the Electoral College, let alone 2/3. What possible reason would Utah have for wanting to change it, for example? Or, Wyoming? Or, New Hampshire? Or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or,

Unless that is overtly sarcastic or cynical, I don't know why it would be there. I'm sure one could have said the same thing about an attempt to change the status quo when the status quo allowed for slavery, or discrimination based on race (a la Plessy) or when women couldn't vote -- what possible reason would men have for wanting to change that?

We can change for the better even if it means some in power give up some of their power. We've done it before, we can do it again, and it's just unAmerican and undemocratic to allow to stand a system which can ignore -- and has ignored on multiple occasions, including in recent history -- the fact that most people voted for one guy, and go ahead and establish another guy fewer people voted for as President.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You couldn't get 1/3 of the States to pass an Amendment to change the Electoral College, let alone 2/3. What possible reason would Utah have for wanting to change it, for example? Or, Wyoming? Or, New Hampshire? Or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or,

I agree with PdS here. We couldn't even get over the hump on something as basic as giving equal rights to women - no way the Electoral College gets changed.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well the discussion was about how perhaps it would happen during our lifetime, or that the next generation would manage it, so that's waiting right there. People are talking about how they don't care if it is throwing their vote away -- that arguably constitutes waiting when contrasted with putting your vote behind a candidate you think might win and change something. And inasmuch as the independent/3rd party sentiment takes any political energy at all, it reduces the energy spent on the system now, so again, I think that's waiting. My argument is precisely that the whole movement is pretty much de facto waiting and ignoring wiser choices that could improve our democracy now. (Sorry! )

Don't be sorry...I just believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time here.....we have plenty of energy to use up....it just needs focusing

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well respectfully I don't think you did get my point, then. That very aspect I do see as potentially changeable, if more people are informed on it and more people get involved. However I don't think you're going to otherwise reduce or eliminate much of all the parts of our system that establish and reinforce the 2-party system we have today without basically rewriting the Constitution to create a parliamentary system, and that's not realistic. I believe you are misinterpreting my hope of eliminating the Electoral College in the same way sctx has, conflating it with a wholesale replacement of the current system as laid out in the Constitution. Again the latter is unrealistic, the former is, I think.

Steve

The requirements that you suggest for changing the Electoral College are, IMO the very same requirements necessary to overcome the hurdle of a true multi-party system (more people needing to be informed and involved). And, both would require a re-writing of sorts of the Constitution via amendments...perhaps I am still not getting your point, or you mine?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

I agree with PdS here. We couldn't even get over the hump on something as basic as giving equal rights to women - no way the Electoral College gets changed.

You cynical curmudgeon you!