Politico article about this topic in Alaska.
Do you also reject Goodin, the leader of Indiana’s Democrats who agrees with 90% of Burns’ ideas and doesn’t focus on the other 10%?
Many people are bigots, enough to swing an election. I’m less prejudiced than most, but even I have been annoyed at certain ethnic groups.
I happen to believe that America would become a much better place with electoral success by the Democrats. Unfortunately many Dopers are so bigoted against ordinary D-voters like Burns, that they’re willing to let the R’s continue to win elections. Sad.
Name some. I, for one, would gladly have voted for Bernie if he were in place of Hillary, not just because he wasn’t Trump but because I liked some of his ideas. My head wasn’t in the clouds enough to think he’d be able to institute any of them, but at least he’d try and would have been (mostly) conscientious about maintaining the dignity of the office. I still thought Hillary would be the better President, but it wouldn’t make me so upset that I wouldn’t have done everything in my power to prevent the Orange Voicebox from getting there if someone else had been nominated in her place.
Some Bernie-ites, perhaps, but I don’t think there are that many of them left around here. (I’m deliberately trying not to use that term for them that I know they also get all butthurt about.)
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I’m not suggesting that any Doper D’s might have voted for Trump. I’m accusing some D’s (including some at SDMB) of imposing “purity tests” that make it hard for some D’s (like the anti-Muslim Burns at link) to vote D.
One thing during the D Primary campaign brought this D stupidity home to me. Sanders was frequently nagged about his support for rural long guns. :smack: Hillary should have interrupted and said “I support Bernie’s stance on legal rural long guns. Our worry – and I hope the Senator joins me – is about illegal urban handguns.” Instead the whole issue was used by the “coastal elites” to alienate rural voters. :smack:
With stupidity and holier-than-thou-ness like that, it’s no wonder the D’s can lose to a disgusting creep like Trump.
I’m sorry, but stuff like that doesn’t lose Presidential elections. There are innumerable equally stupid stances taken by Republicans on issues that alienate potential Republican voters. In the end, most of that stuff all comes out in the wash.
Nation-wide elections (and, in general, state-wide elections) are won by issues of supreme importance to people, which usually means the effect they have on the pocketbook. Mr. Trump won the Presidency not because Democrats weren’t a big enough tent, but because he won the battle of proposed economic prosperity where it counted (the rust belt). The only part of that equation the Democrats didn’t help themselves with was their insistence that immigration, especially immigration without permission, is not a problem. But I cannot imagine the tent being so large that it encompasses those who are xenophobic.
is it not already your problem in your electoral system that your reach is too concentrated in the urban areas? Since the poorer white women did not vote as I saw the data in a bloc with the ‘women of color’ - that is the minority, the idea of women solidarity seems to me like the workers solidarity of the communists…
This idea of success packs you in more geographically tightly and in your system as I understand it, it is not a path to success it is the path to the marginalization and the failure… like the failure which made you americans foist Trump on the world.
I do not personally have the sympathy for the anti muslim bigots, but in my own political system I woudl prefer to tolerate and educate for the larger win than to engage in the purity tests as septimus puts it.
Maybe there need to be more parties. I think that would pull people closer together and parties would have to compromise to get things passed. Maybe you could fracture the GOP into multiple groups, like religious fundamentalists, corporate types, gun stuff. Seems to me like these are the three big’uns for my Republican friends. Most of them that are hung on one couldn’t care less about the others. Maybe the democrats get divided into other groups as well.
Maybe that would divide the donor bases up a bit.
In a winner-take-all system, you get 2 parties. It’s almost impossible for any other situation to be stable.
Trump won the presidency because our electoral system is rigged so some voters have disproportionate representation. Wyoming is the Old Sarum of American politics.
That assumes a party has a greater agenda it wants to enact. Suppose a party is just composed of politicians who want to stay in office? All they have to do is obstruct the functioning of the government and then blame other parties for the resulting dysfunction.
Probably true, but maybe that would shift the focus of congress from “hey we are in charge now, fuck those other guys” to something more like “hey we only agree on 20% of shit, so let’s start there.”
Maybe diluting the “die hard stuff” between minorities that would have to work together to be a majority would show a better path to compromise, and “the other party hate” would go to “screw this particular congressperson or screw this lame pet issue they have.”
I’m not the sharpest crayon in the box though so maybe this is a fantasy.
Yeah, it’s too bad that the candidates don’t know that going in so that they can tailor their campaigns for an optimal outcome given that environment.
And I don’t think that there are lame pet issues and I don’t want to disparage anyone’s beliefs or anything.
That’s ridiculous.
Could get rid of the first past the post system, and turn it into a winner of plurality system.
It doesn’t seem that it would be any more trouble or controversy than a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. 
The benefit of multiparty is that a single party cannot obstruct the business of governing. Unless that party actually has a majority behind it, then the other parties make up that majority, and can get stuff done with no input from the party that has chosen to withdraw itself from the political process.
With a two party system, it makes the most political sense for the minority party to refuse to work with the majority, preventing the majority from enacting their legislation. With a multiparty system, a party will only marginalize itself by refusing to cooperate.
It would be interesting to see how that would work in a large, geographically diverse country like the US. I’m honestly not sure if I’d think it would be an improvement or not, speaking strictly from my own personal preference. But you could certainly make an argument that such a system is a more modern approach, and not tied to certain assumptions that may or may not be appropriate in the 21st century.
I don’t think we’re still in the mindset that Americans were in 200 years ago in terms of states and how they relate to the federal government, but I also don’t think we’re simply one big country that happens to be divided into states for purely administrative purposes either.
Probably. It would be a pretty radical change.
As with the Compact, there’s a Constitutional obstacle you’ll never get across, which is that small states will never give up their disproportionate power.
One candidate, of course, did exactly that. But the fact that a system is open to manipulation doesn’t mean manipulating it is a good thing. Or are you arguing that the only thing that matters is winning the election and it doesn’t matter what means you use to do so?
To start, part of the reason I said "It doesn’t seem that it would be any more trouble or controversy than a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. " is because, obviously, the NPIC causes more than a bit of trouble and controversy. My point was specifically that this is not something that would be easy to accomplish.
At the same time, I do not really see how changing to a multiparty system would decrease the small state’s power. In some ways, it seems it would actually increase it, as it becomes easier to have a party that represents you more closely than the binary system we have now.
No matter how it plays out, they would still have disproportionate power in that when democrats are elected, they tend to govern in a way that is best for the country, even at the expense of blue states, and when republicans are in power, they govern in a way that is best for red states, especially at the expense of blue states. That won’t change.
But you’re not saying it’s untrue.