# What Would Your Ideal Political Party Platform Be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 13, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213 "2013-05-13T05:20:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/41 "2013-05-14T17:26:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Isn’t the only thing missing a federal law unifying the rules? There have been too many accusations of procedures designed to disenfranchise broad swaths of voters. I think we need a Constitutional amendment to put an end to this. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/42 "2013-05-14T18:39:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, we **need** a central bank. There were even more banking crises in America before we had one. Banking panics went away because of FDIC, not the Fed. Remember the Great Depression? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nullification is a dog that wouldn’t hunt in 1832 and has been rotting in the pet cemetery ever since. Nullification of the fugitive slave law was successful. Federal marijuana laws have been nullified in several states. Also, Missouri recently passed a gun law nullification bill. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/43 "2013-05-14T18:39:59Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Here’s mine: > > -Promote Western culture and identity by increasing funding for PBS and NPR (for God’s sake, can’t we have more original programming rather than half of it being British imports?) along with the fine arts and humanities while cutting off funding for degenerate art. We certainly wouldn’t want any of those sick freaks like Chagall or Kandinsky in a state-funded museum. ([Degenerate Art exhibition - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition)) ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/44 "2013-05-14T18:40:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There have been too many accusations of procedures designed to disenfranchise broad swaths of voters. I think we need a Constitutional amendment to put an end to this. Would felons have the right to vote under this amendment? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/45 "2013-05-14T18:49:35Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Would felons have the right to vote under this amendment? I would think they should unless their rights can be terminated under strict scrutiny conditions. With exceptions like voter fraud or treason, why shouldn’t they get to vote? They are still citizens. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/46 "2013-05-14T19:28:00Z")
Oh I agree. I was just asking because they are a class of individuals that is perenially denied the right to vote in one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/47 "2013-05-14T19:45:15Z")
Also **Brainglutton** in regards to nullification [Rasmussen reports](http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/06/rasmussen-poll-nullification-goes-mainstream/)that > [@](#): > > On the general question of ‘nullification,’ 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 are undecided > [@](#): > > According to the Rasmussen poll, 52 percent of mainstream voters think states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Also according to this[Pew Poll](http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/04/4-4-13-5.png)more people believe the federal government should not override state marijuana law than people who think marijuana should be legal, which is interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/48 "2013-05-14T20:10:10Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Would felons have the right to vote under this amendment? I’d be willing to concede a loss of their voting rights while they are incarcerated. Prisoners lose a number of civil rights. But once they’ve been released from prison and are back in society, their rights should be restored. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/49 "2013-05-14T23:25:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I have a question for **Qin**. With one exception, most of your platform seems quite liberal, certainly more liberal than most Democrats and totally opposite to Republicans(\*). Yet, IIRC, you’ve described yourself as allied with Republicans. Is that single issue (abortion) enough to move you from the side of reason to the side of hypocrisy? > > (\* - When I write “Republican” I refer to the Party of the current post-rational era, not to the Party of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, neither of whom would have any stomach for the travesty GOP has begun.) This is why in the last few months, I have shifted my support and sympathies by and large to the Democrats. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > ## -If a bill is killed, the Congresscritters that killed it will be named Isn’t this available via voting records of Congressmen/women/critters/freaks/mutants? > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > **Qin Shi Huangdi** Since your platform would inevitably lead to perpetual warfare and/or the destruction of the human race through world war i cannot in good conscious approve of it. How so? [quote=“silenus, post:33, topic:658213”] 1. We ban tobacco advertising. We ban or restrict condom ads. Same same for the churches. QUOTE] I don’t think condom ads should be restricted except by private broadcasters. And unlike tobacco, religion doesn’t give you a high probability of developing lung cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/50 "2013-05-14T23:29:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Penalties for introducing bills that are blatantly unconstitutional > [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s a little problematic. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Bills can’t be challenged in court unless/until they become law. Thus it would be difficult to assess a penalty for something which has not been held to be unconstitutional. No problem at all, actually. Consider this analogy: Driving down the road is presumed to be legal unless a traffic cop pulls you over and gives you a citation that is either conceded or upheld on challenge. By your reasoning, enforcement of the traffic laws is “problematic” and it “would be difficult” to assess penalties for violating them, which is not generally the case in the real world. The only part that presents a bit of difficulty is the definition of “blatantly” (which I presume to mean “anyone fit to hold office knew, or should have known, that the bill was unconstitutional and that introducing it was contrary to his oath of office”). However, my traffic-law analogy applies: the law generally manages to distinguish between going 11 mph over the limit and careening through a school zone at 90 mph and apply certain laws only to the latter scenario. > [@silenus](#): > > All tax exemptions for churches are repealed. > [@Oakminster](#): > > First Amendment–unless you repeal all charitable exemptions. On the contrary – it is the exemption for churches _on grounds of being a church_ that is problematic under the First Amendment. A church would have no more (and no less) ability to claim existing charitable deductions than any other charitable organization under **silenus** ’ proposal. assuming that it is in fact engaged in charitable works. Anyway, a few items from my list: 1. Ban gerrymandering by defining a clearly stated and objective “compactness” criterion (e.g. district area divided by perimeter, perhaps with down-weighting for perimeter portions corresponding to navigable waterways and preexisting city/county lines). Any interested parties who care to do so submit their maps; any with excess population variances between districts or Voting Rights Act problems are thrown out; the remaining one with the best number wins. 2. Plug a hard number (on the order of 50 years) into the “limited times” of the Copyrights and Patents Clause. 3. The above-mentioned penalty for introducing blatantly unconstitutional laws – judicial review would follow up judgments of “unconstitutional” with judgments of “blatant violation” or “innocent misjudgment”. A penalty of three strikes and disqualification from future office might be sufficient; I’ll leave it at that and crank it up if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/51 "2013-05-14T23:31:06Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > So when the State requires that I give up income to serve on a jury (their “fee” doesn’t remotely cover the cost of that time to me), I have a case under the “takings clause”? Do tell, Counselor. I smell a HUGE class-action here… Do I not get an answer, Oakminster? It was a (tongue-in-cheek) but serious question. You seem to be espousing the opinion that no other Constitutional issue overrides the takings clause. I.e., just like citizenship involves some sacrifices, so does the ability to claim rights under the First. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/52 "2013-05-14T23:38:38Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > How so? I’m guessing he was referring to these items from your platform: > [@](#): > > -Identify Russia and China as primary strategic threats and work to isolate them by strengthening our alliances in Europe and East Asia until they democratize. > -Pursue a treaty of alliance with India and institute a Marshall Plan for that country > -Work to completely eliminate the current regimes of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia. While we won’t go to war against them, isolate them as much possible, aid opposition forces, engage in cyberwarfare and a few discreet assassinations etc. > -Continue the policy of drone warfare against Islamist reactionaries in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere This is a pretty ambitious foreign policy slate and it’s hard to reconcile it with this item: > [@](#): > > -Cut areas of military spending especially missile defence programmes and conventional forces You can say you don’t want a war. But when you have confrontational policies like you’ve described, you have to be realistic and consider how other countries will react to what you’re doing. The regimes you mention won’t want to give up power and will resist any pressure on them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/53 "2013-05-14T23:42:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m guessing he was referring to these items from your platform: > > This is a pretty ambitious foreign policy slate and it’s hard to reconcile it with this item:You can say you don’t want a war. But when you have confrontational policies like you’ve described, you have to be realistic and consider how other countries will react to what you’re doing. The regimes you mention won’t want to give up power and will resist any pressure on them to do so. Most of what I advocate isn’t too different from current policy IMO, after all Obama already has had a “pivot” to the Pacific, and opposing those regimes listed above while at the same time advocating cutting military spending and without being perceived as overtly aggressive. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/54 "2013-05-14T23:51:49Z")
> [@](#): > > -Identify Russia and China as primary strategic threats and work to isolate them by strengthening our alliances in Europe and East Asia until they democratize. Why should we label these guys strategic threats? We should be eliminating trade barriers. Isolating countries leads to war and/or threats of war (ex: Japan pre ww2, Cuban missile crisis, modern day Iran and North Korea). The common trope that democracies don’t make war on democracies is a fallacy. > [@](#): > > -Work to completely eliminate the current regimes of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia. While we won’t go to war against them, isolate them as much possible, aid opposition forces, engage in cyberwarfare and a few discreet assassinations etc. > -Continue the policy of drone warfare against Islamist reactionaries in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere If you commit to the drone war you are making a lifetime commitment. You are committing to the unending creation of enemies abroad. All of those methods mentioned for toppling regimes will either cause economic havoc in the countries or lead to further isolation and war. Assassination has the added bonus of being illegal. We do not need these countries to be democratic. We should be looking for smart ways of reigning in the empire. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/55 "2013-05-14T23:54:30Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Also **Brainglutton** in regards to nullification [Rasmussen reports](http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/06/rasmussen-poll-nullification-goes-mainstream/)that Sorry, whenever I read “Rasmussen” these days, I tend to twitch. 😉 > [@](#): > > Also according to this[Pew Poll](http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/04/4-4-13-5.png)more people believe the federal government should not override state marijuana law than people who think marijuana should be legal, which is interesting. Just to ask, what laws do you think nullification will be used on? Everyone talks about federal marijuana laws and stuff like that, but can you think of any other likely laws these would be used against, especially ones you actually agree with? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/56 "2013-05-15T02:09:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Why should we label these guys strategic threats? Obviously this wouldn’t be stated openly but China and Russia both have foreign policy interests strongly contrary to our own. > [@](#): > > We should be eliminating trade barriers. I agree hence my support for free-trade throughout the platform. > [@](#): > > Isolating countries leads to war and/or threats of war (ex: Japan pre ww2, Cuban missile crisis, modern day Iran and North Korea). Considering that Japan in the run-up to Pearl Harbour was waging a brutal war of conquest in China, I’d say isolating them and imposing sanctions was justified even at the cost of a war. That said I support maintaining diplomatic links and trade with both Russia and China. However the US should be nonetheless in a position of strength and make this clear to our allies (such as Poland, the Baltic Countries, Georgia, Korea, and Japan) who are neighbours to China or Russia. > [@](#): > > The common trope that democracies don’t make war on democracies is a fallacy. That depends I suppose on whether you consider Imperial Germany a full democracy or not. > [@](#): > > If you commit to the drone war you are making a lifetime commitment. You are committing to the unending creation of enemies abroad. All forms of warfare are likely to result in the creation of at least some enemies. > [@](#): > > All of those methods mentioned for toppling regimes will either cause economic havoc in the countries or lead to further isolation and war. Assassination has the added bonus of being illegal. We do not need these countries to be democratic. These countries aren’t being solely targeted because they’re dictatorships (or else countries like Vietnam would also be on the list) but rather because they’re especially heinous and brutal in their oppression. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/57 "2013-05-15T03:17:37Z")
I find myself on the opposite side of debates from **Qin Shi Huangdi** and so I opened this thread with a great deal of skepticism. But I’ll be damned if I don’t agree with most of his platform to such a degree that I’d support it all rather than get none of it. I don’t like space funding. I think humans need to solve our problems here on Earth before we go spreading out into the great beyond. I think free trade is bad policy though such pacts with other advanced industrial nations are not a huge problem. I don’t agree with such a blanket restriction on abortion. I’d rather have families making those decisions most of the time. I’m not sure what good sterilizing sex criminals would do. They could still hurt people for thrills without the equipment and there would be no way to undo a wrongful conviction. I think Iranian politics are democratic enough to support even if they don’t care for us all that much. Isolating them just plays into the hands of the regressive forces in their society. I’m not a fan of drone warfare. Losing soldiers is horrible of course but having some of our lives in the balance and not just those of people we don’t like can insert some much needed caution into the decisions to intervene. So yeah, some of that I have a problem with but most of it I find acceptable and some of it I enthusiastically second. **Huangdi/Sosoth 2016!!!** ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/58 "2013-05-15T03:23:55Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Just to ask, what laws do you think nullification will be used on? Everyone talks about federal marijuana laws and stuff like that, but can you think of any other likely laws these would be used against, especially ones you actually agree with? If I were able to predict something as fickle as the political caprice of the American public, I’d have a better paying job. That said, I could see the ACA being nullified if the health care costs rise enough. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/59 "2013-05-15T03:24:45Z")
My main “political” platform would be _“if it doesn’t harm the person or property of another, it shouldn’t be illiegal”_ Of course, with an idea like that I’ll never be supported for public office. As I’ve said in other threads, in 1992 I voted for the Perot/Stockdale ticket, because of a statement the latter made during the VP debate. When asked his position on abortion rights, Ret. Adm. Stockdale replied simply “I believe that what a woman does with her body is her own business, period.” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213/60 "2013-05-15T04:23:59Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Obviously this wouldn’t be stated openly but China and Russia both have foreign policy interests strongly contrary to our own. Our only foreign policy interest should be protection of our own citizens. In what ways do China and Russia present a threat to our citizens? If you mean to continue our mercantilist agenda of maintaining hegemony over the oil, we just disagree. > [@](#): > > I agree hence my support for free-trade throughout the platform. Except for the examples you listed. You forget by targeting a country through sanctions, you are destroying their economy and starving their citizens. This is just adds to any oppression you claim is present. > [@](#): > > Considering that Japan in the run-up to Pearl Harbour was waging a brutal war of conquest in China, I’d say isolating them and imposing sanctions was justified even at the cost of a war. Nevertheless, the embargo led to war. Would such a war be justified and/or desirable with any of the countries you listed? > [@](#): > > That said I support maintaining diplomatic links and trade with both Russia and China. However the US should be nonetheless in a position of strength and make this clear to our allies (such as Poland, the Baltic Countries, Georgia, Korea, and Japan) who are neighbours to China or Russia. What happened to your policy of isolating Russia and China? China wants resources. They’re smarter than us. They’re buying them. They’re not a threat to Korea or Japan. They have too many internal problems to pose a threat anyway. Same with Russia. If you want peace through strength, you have to realize you achieve a position of strength through economic might. Mainland US hasn’t been attacked in 200 years because of our geography and economic might, not because we meddled in others business. > [@](#): > > That depends I suppose on whether you consider Imperial Germany a full democracy or not. The reason no democracies have made war on eachother is because the US has maintained hegemony over virtually the entire democratic world. Of course the US would not allow, say, Korea to war with Japan when she maintains bases in both countries. During the reign of the Soviet Union, no communist dictatorships made war on eachother. Does this also become a rule: communist dictatorships do not make war on communist dictatorships? Has not Israel made war with both Lebanon and Palestine? > [@](#): > > All forms of warfare are likely to result in the creation of at least some enemies. Is this form working? Is al-Qaeda ready to throw in the towel? Meanwhile we are killing civilians by the hundreds in Pakistan and creating further instability. > [@](#): > > These countries aren’t being solely targeted because they’re dictatorships (or else countries like Vietnam would also be on the list) but rather because they’re especially heinous and brutal in their oppression You want to free the people of these countries by bringing economic chaos and/or warfare to their soil. I’m seeing a disconnect. If the people of these countries felt like they were being oppressed let them overthrow the government. If the rebel movement isn’t fully supported by the people you’ll have abortions like the proxy war in Syria. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-political-party-platform-be/658213.md?page=4)