Hypothetical new party

Suppose a new political party were to be set up.

What kind of structure should it have- top-down or down-top? Should the national party have more authority than the state and local party organizations, or should the authority rest with the local organizations and then be delegated to state and national?

What would the platform have to be to attract the support of a majority of the American People?

Centralized but work on local and state elections as well as national-level contests to build local machines and bases of power (as with Sanders in Vermont).

Run on a social nationalist/populist platform-basically Bernie Sanders but flexible on guns, abortion, and immigration while talking like Donald TRUMP.

What about allowing abortion

-Everywhere when the mother’s life is at risk (rare from what I understand in that pregnancy isn’t an abnormal medical condition, but a woman may need medical care that could harm the baby if she doesn’t wait to get it)

-In states in cases of rape and incest when the state imposes the death penalty for rape and incest.

Require all gun owners to be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the government of the U.S. and their state and render such service to the government as the law may allow, and otherwise put legal limits on the number and types of guns than individuals can own while prohibiting criminal charges for anyone who uses a firearm to prevent a crime or capture a fugitive.

I would also have some kind of government-paid healthcare insurance, but do it so all insurance companies and then all medical providers must compete for business so if a consumer wants something that costs more than his subsidy he pays it himself.

I would also reign in corporations like Walmart and Home Depot and end free trade in favor of tariffs. Then I would impose enough taxes and budget cuts to pay the federal debt and rebuild our infrastructure.

A national K-12 school system is also needed.

[li]Pro-life, with exceptions.[/li]
[li]Death penalty for rape and incest.[/li]
[li]Vigilante justice delivered by anyone, but they are limited to a few guns of selected types.[/li]
[li]Single payer healthcare.[/li]
[li]Increased taxes.[/li]
[li]Nationalized Education.[/li][/ul]

Did I get that right?

I’m pretty sure that the write-in candidacy of Mickey Mouse will whip your candidate’s butt.

Sounds like a platform I could get behind although it’s preferable to work within the framework of the Democratic Party.

There should only be one big issue:
Restoration of economic and political power to the people of the United States

The platform should call for members and candidates to serve their own conscience on issues like guns and abortions. The goal should be to unite, not divide.

One reason Occupy Wall Street failed is that it opened its platform to a cacophony of “progressive” or hipster notions: vegetarianism, etc. :eek: Let’s concentrate on removing the huge political power of Wall Street and billionaires. Only when democracy is functioning again should we try to find a consensus on lesser issues.

(But on the specific matter of women’s rights, why aren’t Dopers endorsing my proposal: Male legislators are expected to abstain on all legislation involving abortions.)

Because you left out the important qualification: Male legislators are expected to abstain on all legislation involving abortions so long as the legislation deals only with female foetuses. :wink:

And by that you mean Wall Street?

The people who get elected are supposed to serve the people who elected them. When I vote for somebody I am entitled to know exactly what they would do once in office.

:confused: If this is a joke, I didn’t get it.

My point is that enforcing a wide range of positions will limit the appeal of a new party. Why not just focus on the most important issues, the issues where Republicans and some Democrats have turned against the American people? Make campaign finance reform, regulating Wall St., and working to improve general prosperity the main goals. Embrace voters and candidates who agree on these issues regardless of their opinions on secondary issues like guns or abortion.

:confused: And where did I suggest that politicinas should keep their views secret?

Then you should run for office yourself, since that’s the only way to be sure.

You can’t. You can only know what they’d like to do, not what they would do when something totally unexpected occurs. All you can do is exercise your judgment as to what principles and personality characteristics will form their judgments on issues as they arise.

It would have to be as ambiguous and meaningless as a newspaper horoscope. In this hyperpolarized political environment, you can still find a solid majority for one side of this issue or that, but there’s no other way a majority could get behind a whole cluster of them.

Nobody on the ballot will know themselves exactly what they would do once in office. Nor should they. No matter how sincere or earnest their stated intentions, everything looks different from behind the officeholder’s desk, and one becomes privy to information mere candidates don’t know, information that might change all calculations, and, more importantly, situations may arise that no one imagined or anticipated during the campaign season.

If you really want a new party with your particular positions your best bet is to hijack an existing party and transform it. Take a look at what movement conservatism did to the Republican Party.

If you want your party to go anywhere, you need positions that are popular with enough voters to get elected. The above is basically outlawing abortion except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The pro-abortion side will fight you to the death and beyond.

If you want to regulate abortion, stick to issues that are popular with the voters - parental notification for minors seeking abortion, outlawing late-term abortion, etc. Again, the pro-abortion side will fight you to the death. I suspect their first response will be to lie about late-term abortion, and claim that it is done on fetuses who are dead or dying anyway, or to preserve the health of the mother. This response is false as to fact - late-term abortions are generally done to a healthy fetus and a healthy mother. That won’t stop them.

But the American public is ambivalent about abortion, apart from the extremists who either want to ban the procedure or who will fight any change of any sort at any time under any circumstances to the status quo.

The first part is meaningless - why should someone be required to take an oath before exercising their rights under the Constitution? The second part will fail almost at once - the Democratic party has learned that gun control is a losing issue for them, although some of the more naive or less honest ones still give it a go. The last part is meaningless - it is not against the law to defend yourself with a gun, and I don’t see why that would change.

People aren’t charged with crimes because they defended themselves - they are charged because the DA thinks there is enough evidence to prove they weren’t just defending themselves.

The devil is in the details. What kind of system, how will it be set up, how much will it cost?

At which point you have lost me, as well as anyone who knows anything about economics. Free trade is like global warming or nuclear power - the people who know anything about the topic are pretty unanimous. Free trade is an overall benefit to an economy.

Great idea. What taxes are you going to raise, how much will they raise, and what specifically are you going to cut, and by how much? Let’s see your math.

Why is it needed, how will it be implemented, and how are you going to convince all the parents who moved somewhere because the local schools are good? Are you going to disband all the local school boards?


This is doubly unconstitutional; it violates both Roe vs Wade and Kennedy vs. Louisiana.

That’d be my approach as well. Look for issues that are broadly supported by the population, but not being served by the government, such as:

  • Universal background checks on firearm sales
  • Marijuana legalization
  • Raising taxes on the wealthy

Just checking if you were a “conservative”, i.e. a libertarian who thinks corporations are part of “we the People”.

Not necessarily. The issues that you think are important may not be what I think are important. I may not care about your issues, but if the party only addresses your issues, I’d have no reason to support it.

A third or so of the country is neither Democrat, nor Republican, and this is because these parties either ignore certain issues, or non-Democrat/Republicans can’t bring ourselves to support the Democrat/Republican position. A new party should try to bring people who haven’t been politically active into the process. Otherwise the 2/3 of the existing electorate that is Democrat/Republican will always put Democrats/Republicans in office.

I also don’t want to put people in office without knowing as much about what they would do in office as possible. This wouldn’t be possible if they only campaign on a limited number of issues.

I did one time as a write-in candidate. I couldn’t run again due to health reasons.

Did you expect John Roberts to say Obamacare is constitutional? Was Roberts ever asked about his views on socialized medicine during his confirmation hearings?

A majority of this country’s voting age population would never compromise, with each of us accepting things we don’t want in order to get things that we do want?