The Smiley Smile Message Board

Does anyone believe that the best campaigners necessarily make the best elected officials? Or that a two-year campaign process--literally the entirety of house members' terms--is necessary, much less appropriate? Or that the sham television ad-selling and front-page-fodder generating events misnamed "debates" produce real, valuable results, as opposed to water cooler talk, chances to mock who looked at his watch, seemed under- or over-rehearsed, or seemed too desperate in his plea for more airtime?

Defend or fix the system. This is the thread for it. Good luck.

If we must remain as a single country, implement a parliamentary system. If we like the slow-to-change effect of our current system, keep the two houses with their substantial constituent differences and reinforce their interdependence by having the ministers come from one house while the other has a veto or something like that.

But a better solution is for the US to divide into 7 separate countries.

I've read nine and 11. What are the seven?

Southwest (including SoCal), west coast (not including SoCal), interior west, Midwest, southeast, New England including eastern NY but not NYC, mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes.
But I'm not married to this delineation. I can be flexible.

Huh?  :o

Hmm?  ???

Eh? (Just trying to fit in.)

Emily, would you propose an EU-style federation of sorts between the former-U.S. nations? Or that they'd each remain more wholly independent?

I'd be (provisionally) fine with an EU-type thing. Certainly a Common Market with a shared currency would be good.

How would you divide the geopolitical map?

Answered above.

Not really - explain like I'm in Kindergarten.  :lol

I guess you're going to have to ask the question like I'm in kindergarten. Not being facetious; what do you want to know?

The specific regions...Is it New England, Middle Atlantic or a combination of the Appeals Court regions/circuits, of which there are 10 which you would reduce.   ;)

I'm sorry; I still don't understand what you are looking for. Can you be specific in what my post above (reply #3) is lacking?

Emily - We have seven seas.  You envision seven countries for the United States.  I'm looking for the regions they encompass.   

Which I answered above. If my answer above is insufficient, please tell me how exactly. I haven't planned this out to the extent that I know at what latitude CA would be divided. I suppose Michigan and Illinois might go either way... Again, I'm not deeply committed to the specifics around the edges.
But if you ask a specific question and I have an opinion on the answer, I'll gladly tell you.

FdP, this is my reply to the Captain regarding the regions (reply #3 above). What further would you like to know?

Separate NY from NYC? OMG. Why?

Separate West Coast from SoCal?  OMG.  Really, why?

Really - I thought it was a joke and would/should have integrated those areas with those they are associate with.  

That would destroy the regional integrity and unique identity of each state.  

Nah - NYC is more culturally, economically and historically connected to New Jersey than to upstate. Eastern upstate is much more culturally New England and Western upstate is very much oriented to the lakes. Buffalo has way more in common culturally, historically and economically with Pittsburgh and Cleveland that with NYC.
Similarly, Southern California has much stronger Southwest ties than Northern California ties. Northern and Southern California have a very frustrating partnership.

I'll take both, thanks. Give me a nation of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and I'm good. A few key cities, agriculture, industry, mining, timber, some great universities and an educated population...a little more religious than I'd prefer, but it's a solid centrist nation of probably 40-50 million people.

How would you sell it?

And, our voting regions are supposed to be heterogeneous rather than homogeneous.  They are not supposed to be stratified according to race. I would argue that economics, or special interests and industries could emerge with an enormous amount of centralized power, where the industry dwarfs the popular vote. 

Legislators who are lawyers, who have gerrymandered districts according to race have gone to trial and have been disbarred.

That plan would centralize and empower agribusiness as opposed to balance their interests against the general public. In my opinion it would be very un-democratic. States have emerged with state flowers, state products, and have developed pride in the diverse properties (exactly like the great state of NY) - of the topography and culture.  It is a radical concept to divide those regions arbitrarily.

But, this is not Super Bowl talk so it is all good!  :lol

Quite right I think. Chicago is historically the market for those states. Done.   8)

If it happens it will be because it sold itself.
*it sold itself to me. I won't pretend the idea's original.
Here's one (kind of lightweight) book on the subject that I read when it came out. The more polarized we become, the more I think it makes sense:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

Interesting that it included Quebec which attempted to secede most recently in the 1990's. 

With Europe in chaos, right now, I wonder how many are sorry for the EU being established, with pretty much common currency and a relative open border. 

It is an interesting discussion, but would likely be perceived as a divide-and-conquer plan. And even though we are regionalized for purposes of Federal Court Jurisdiction into 10 districts, it seems to be more for regional convenience, but not to change the identity of any individual annexed state to the original 13 colonies.  ;)   

I know a lot of New Yorkers - both upstate and NYC - and I lived in Buffalo for a few years (and grew up half in NJ).. I've never heard anyone from New York intimate that they feel unity within their state.
The division is not at all arbitrary.
This is about a better future, not sentiment for the past. And it has nothing to do with race (???).
All of the regions are diverse enough, I think, without the sort of stalemate condition the country is now in.
It's sort of reverse divide and conquer - more divide and be liberated.
PS - regarding how democratic it would be - each country would form a government as they would have it of course. I can't really imagine a less democratic democracy than our current country, however.

Left or right? Top or bottom?  ;D

The splitting of the country being somewhat far-fetched in the near future, what about more likely near-term improvements? Anyone have thoughts there?

By the way, Emily, a friend of mine is an incessant backer of the switch to a parliamentary system. It certainly makes sense at least to give smaller entities a bigger voice as being essential to coalitions. Yet we'd need an amendment to get it done. While certain candidates have tossed around proposed amendments as campaign promises (balanced budget amendments, definition of marriage amendments, etc.), that's obviously easier said than done.

The wolves would be number one team in basketball in this new nation!

We'd have to go to an international, Euroleague-style system to keep basketball going. I admit I hadn't thought of that. The Pistons, Bucks, Bulls, Wolves, and maybe Pacers certainly isn't a particularly fulfilling league, especially for 82 games!

Maybe keep the sports leagues intact then! ;D

I know. I only suggested radical pipe dreams. Sigh.
Ummm ... Other than that, all I've got is finance reform. Very low limits, cut the corporations and PACs. Maybe a better educated population? <<sigh>>
Not very imaginative, I'm afraid.

Aren't there some sports (baseball and hockey maybe?) in which Canadian teams are participants? I think sports leagues don't have to be changed.
The olympics would be more interesting.

Alabama or a general southern Olympic team would be amazing. :lol

Oh wow. I just saw that this was published in 1981, so I can't have read it when it came out. I think I read it in the late 80s or early 90s. Weirdly the first person I heard propose this idea was George Kennan.

Is Meth an Olympic sport now?

What about getting better candidates to run? I don't think anyone believes the country's best and brightest tend to run for public office. Should they? And if so, what should be done in your perfect world to promote that goal?

Political candidates' lives are held up to more scrutiny than reality TV stars.  Few, want to expose themselves and their families to all that digging for skeletons in your closet, with the potential of spinning every bit of information they data-mine for.  It takes a ton of money, an organization and the ability to land-on-your-feet while fielding all sorts of trick questions crafted to defeat your candidacy. 

Carly Fiorina was excluded from the ABC debate, which I found unjust because she had more support than some who remained.  I found her a refreshing change from the usual practiced career politicians.  She was more articulate than many on both sides.  The media wants perfect specimens.  They don't exist.   And it is mostly a game of name-recognition.  Often it is the person who comes back running for some office, year-after-year, even if they lose because they have built up name-recognition and when people go into the voting booth they pull the lever for a name that they recognize rather than one unknown to them.  ;) 

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds  :old but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further. 

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.   

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.   ;)

Democracy would work if the majority of people were not uninformed or poorly informed. Democracy also gives a role in decision making to those who have no business assuming said role; depending upon who you ask, the people who fit that criteria would vary wildly. As of now the only requirements to vote are being over the age of eighteen and having a body temperature somewhere in the upper nineties. This clearly allows too many undesirables to vote. When many people exist solely to be parasites and/or force their morality upon others (this includes people from both major parties and many of the third parties) they will use the state accordingly. Without the state, big corporations (unions included) and big banks would be in the same boat as people who abuse the welfare system or expect the state to enforce morals. But then again, they're both two sides of the same coin and it's ironic that they seem to loathe each other. They exist only to have the state benefit them at the expense of others.

I'm aware that a method of changing the Constitution is by Amendments; that would be fine. The people in the parties are 'people.' Implying that there are some people who are 'the people' and other people who are not is a way to distract from the fact that everyone is reacting as people will to the same system. If the two-party system were broken, as I've suggested, 'the people' would be free to form parties and nominate as they wish, and to impose democracy on that process is to ensure that the monied and powerful continue to control it, because they would be able to overrun any party. If we had parties who got to control their own processes, as they do in most parliamentary democracies, we wouldn't have such a political oligarchy. The rich and powerful would have their parties and others would have their own and would be allowed to protect their interests. In the US 'democracy' is a euphemism for 'controlled by the people who can afford a ton of media.'

Emily - Direct election is the fairest process and eliminate a "middle man" which would be created with another layer of it's own bureaucracy which would be subject to manipulation, special interests with more lobbyists and the necessity to learn the backgrounds of those individuals. 

The two-party systems' philosophical lines have been blurred in the last several decades. 

There is also always continuous questioning of "Framers' Intent" when we look at the Constitution.  It was meant to provide the core framework, doing the main work, and the amendments doing the ancillary tweaking of our government, as needed.  There has been too much lobbying influence over Congress which needs to become more transparent.  And there have been too many Executive Orders in this administration which have not had little more than "stopgap action," "humanitarian emergency aid,"or "ceremonial impact" but policy impact that has usurped and undermined the other branches.  The three branches are out of balance and need to be brought back to alignment.  It is one reason that this election cycle is so contested. 

There is an almost universal lack of confidence with this administration. And the reason that Sanders and Trump are doing so well. It is a clean-house mindset this year.   ;)   

Emily: I know, sorry about the thread-plugging. (I don't want to be a thread-scold!) In my mind it just makes sense to talk ABOUT politics separate from the immediacy of a heated campaign. Plus it might sometimes even prove more fruitful as conversation. But obviously I know these are big issues. We don't have to solve anything, we can simply chat.

I share the concerns about true democracy (which are as old as democracy itself). The reality is, it's an inherently optimistic idea, and I'm not so optimistic. I think most people can look around themselves and shudder at the thought of those people around them having an equal say in issues as themselves. Everyone else is an idiot. But of course, everyone thinks this, and not everyone can be correct. I suspect most people want (in their hearts if not on their tongues) some criteria for voters. But who is willing to let someone outside his own tribe choose the criteria?

That we've increasingly preached democratic principles over our history even as we've grown the state's reach is interesting. Not necessarily a contradiction, but ... An awkward marriage?

I'm not against democracy at all. I think the idea that the nominating process should be democratic is just a thing in the US because the parties are so entrenched, big and quasi-official. When you have an election for class presidency, do you hold a vote first to determine the nominees, then a vote to determine the president? No. Do you do it for congressional candidates? No. When Perot or Anderson or Nader ran, were they democratically nominated? No. Do you have to be nominated by a party to run for president at all? No. You just have to have 'x' signatures. The two-party nominating process is not an official part of the process at all and it's not a necessary or even normal part of democracy. Parties are normally NGOs that follow their own internal processes. US Americans have just gotten confused. They think the parties are public bodies.

And I was joshing about the thread-plugging. You're quite right.

I have not criticized direct elections in the least. Certainly you don't oppose people's right to assemble?
The two parties have always, by definition, had blurred philosophical lines. It is not new or more than usual. And is irrelevant to the immediate unrest.
Once again, you assert that this administration has used Executive Orders more than usual. This is false.
I disagree with your conclusions. The lack of confidence is the new normal and I think would be greater under Sanders and through-the-roof with Trump. Neither of them will do any house cleaning. They simply reflect the dissatisfaction of voters with what we're talking about: the failure of the process. Obama, Trump and Sanders are all just symbols. As soon as anyone is elected, that person will be the new symbol in Obama's stead. With Trump, the difference would be that the public's alarm would be warranted, not just over the process, but also over the reckless man they mistakenly voted for in protest against the process.

Emily - I am absolutely not against the right to assemble, but they are regulated by reasonable "time, place and manner" regulatory standards.  And, I do assert that the Executive Order has been abused, and not in "number," but in terms of "impact."  And working around Congress for matters he knows won't be passed by the lawful representatives of the voters. 

Hillary has troubling ties to private prison lobbyists while she denounces over-incarceration.  Geo Group is cited as well as Corrections Corporation of America, are working as fundraisers which conflicts with the recent anti-law enforcement position she has taken.  Most of the immigrant detention centers are connected to these groups. She can't have it both ways. 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/ There are many articles online concerning this and other issues such as the Clinton Foundation.

The lack of confidence in the current policies and the recurrent scandals involving truthfulness have raised the lack-of-confidence meter.  Lack of confidence and a strong activism response is a good thing.  Voter dissatisfaction opens all sorts of dialogue.  Trump and Sanders are symbols of the kind of rage at the bailouts for banking and auto industry, but not for the thousands who have lost their homes as a result of predatory lenders. And for the policies of off-shoring work, which is one of the reasons Verizon is on strike right now. 

Trump is making the kind of errors that a person who is new to the political arena makes. He does not have the benefit of having run for office before to learn the pitfalls these seasoned vets  have learned from.

Donald is not in the political elite where a public relations person is at the candidate's elbow, as almost an appendage, doing damage control or keeping the candidate on script. 

Trump is largely not reading from a prepared issue list.  And he is articulating (as is Sanders) concerns that voters and citizens have across-the-board.  And, he is what the establishment fears most.  He is self-funding because he can.  The rest are beholden to their contributors and sponsors.   

JMHO, of course.  We can agree to disagree.   ;)

Regarding assemblage, I'm not encouraging parties to riot.  ???
Regarding executive orders, I think that's a matter of one person's executive order is another person's abuse and vice versa.  I tend to think of Bush's as more abusive, but I suppose that our interpretations are to do with our policy preferences. At least keep in mind that what you are saying about this is subjective, please.
Regarding Clinton, yeah, just like every other candidate. You can't blame one candidate for systemic problems.
The lack of confidence is not to do with truthfulness; that's a red herring. It's what people are focused on, but if it was the real problem the same focus would have been applied to all the other untruthful candidates or presidents of the past (all). People who benefit from the current system (all of the candidates and their main backers)  are manipulating a dissatisfied public with these red herrings to distract them from the real issues.
And - lol at innocent naive Trump. You don't think he has an in-house PR? You don't think he's had PR at his elbow since the 80s?
Trumps errors are those of a bigot or, more likely, someone who is comfortable using other people's bigotry to manipulate them. His errors are also those of someone who has thought very little about public policy outside of his business agenda; and those of someone who is cynically using the political system to raise his public profile.

Emily - Bush was no bargain.  We aren't talking about him or his siblings or ancestors. Lack of confidence has everything to do with credibility and Hillary has little. She is not helped by her husband and every time he appears, there is a firestorm that needs to be cleaned up.  And women do not support her across-the-board.  Bernie has a lot of support from women, and especially young ones.

Hillary had less baggage in 2008 than she has now. I think she missed her window and it is all on the DNC for that. I could have supported her then. She had a higher profile as a post 9-11 NY Senator. 

And I did not say Trump was innocent or even naive but that he is making errors consistent with a candidate's first election run. He operates without a script.  Of course he has PR.  Do you think he does every thing they tell him? He is not as "measured" as are most of the candidates or as polished who practice their speeches in front of a coach and a video camera.   

Even if Trump had run for state rep or state senator, he would have learned-the-ropes of what an election is all about.  He would have a "filter" that he is developing gradually. 

The party designees are vested into the pay-to-play-system in both parties.  And that is the image that the old-time "pols" (politicians) have to lose, in order to win.  ;)

Emily - re the amount of democracy and my comments, I hope you didn't think I was saying you're opposed to democracy. I was rather just tying together your previous comment that with respect to the nomination process, and then TRBB's comments about the voting public in general, and then top it off with some observations on my end. There was in all three posts a sentiment that "more democracy all the time in all things," which is how people usually speak (more out of habit than thought, I think, and possibly with an eye toward the dreaded political correctness? THE HORROR!), was something we were all in different ways challenging. But I didn't mean to say you were opposed to democracy in all things.

I do agree with your comments about parties being conflated with the American system of government, as well as their (in my opinion) outsized influence/dominance.

I honestly think Trump is trolling the Republican Party so his good friend of the Clinton family is back in the White House and the Republican Party in ruins.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I absolutely consider that to be a possibility. Also he's a fame whore.

FdP, I really don't think the general dissatisfaction is to do with any individual candidate or office holder. I think Clinton and Whatshisname are party regulars doing the regular thing and Trump and Sanders are tapping into dissatisfaction and know how to work it, but neither offers anything substantially different. I think the whole reason for this thread is that some people think that there's more of a systemic problem and that all the candidates are working within that system and how do we fix the system. You clearly focus your dissatisfaction on Hillary Clinton, and most people enjoy having an individual to unload their dissatisfaction on to; but I don't think that she, or Obama, or Trump are the cause of the dissatisfaction.
And regarding women supporting Clinton, and that there are limits to the right of assemblage, and several other things, I find the non sequiturs distracting.

Ps. I've been operating without a script my whole life and haven't said anything half as offensive to or about Mexicans, Muslims or women ever.

People can see beyond the sometimes maladroit and uncomfortable language to the burning issues of the corruption in the election process as a play-to-play game and look at the concern about out-sourcing of industries, and national security, which is not being taken seriously by this administration.  And, the trail of some of the military having to buy their own body armor and being not fully supported in the battlefield.    

And, I am bothered (along with millions others) that Hillary has this "party politics wall" insulating her from her from the justice that Petraeus was subject to as well as the double standard of the server scandal.  She does not have a tenth of the charisma of her spouse and behaves as though she is entitled to the job because she "waited her turn."

Those two, Sanders and Trump, are tapping into the rage of the voters. Everyone knows someone who has lost his/her home in the mortgage scandal.  Everyone knows someone whose child has overdosed from Mexican heroin and fentanyl. Everyone has seen crime committed by those who have entered the country without being "admitted and inspected" (which has been a standard for decades.) They are sick of being powerless.  They are sick of seeing cops being ambushed and shot and public events disrupted by terrorism attacks.  They are sick of the immigration system doing sloppy work, as in the case of the San Bernadino massacre where the wife listed an address on her paperwork that did not exist. That is a government not doing it's job.  

People will only take so much abuse. The way you operate without a script might work for you, but people who are running for office need some parameters to stay on topic. They are exhausted from a grueling campaign schedule and need a list, when they are so exhausted they don't know what day it is.    

Trump did not "neutralize" his comments.  He seems to be talking about national border security and plugs in an offensive term - I don't think he dislikes either but the behavior that is going on and the national security issues get bogged down in what is considered to be inflammatory language.

The message of security gets conflated with vulgar or unrefined remarks.  He is not a polished member of the diplomatic core who were groomed from childhood. Nor is Trump part of the dynastic political class who are internally scripted to avoid controversy.  I don't believe for a minute he is a bigot.  He may have an Archie Bunker mouth or persona but he has successfully dealt globally in business and that is not on the resumes of the others.  

He has educated his daughters to take their place as business leaders.  They are not "administrative assistants."  Trump does not look or present like a feminist in theory, or policy, but he has educated his daughters in that manner.  He trained his daughters to be business leaders and not followers of their spouses or be trophy-wives, notwithstanding their lovely physical presentation.  Tiffany is going to Wharton as did her father and some siblings.  A feminist educates daughters as well as sons. Trump grew up in an era where the college majors available for women were "teacher, nurse or social worker."        

Sanders has exposed corruption in the financial sector and that is what people suspected all along.  That it was a rotten system, with people such as those cited in the Panama Papers being "above the law." We don't have the full list yet.  His policies might be a little "out there" but he has helped open a discussion that is long overdue.  

As to the assemblage issue, you brought that up.  "Certainly you don't oppose people's right to assemble?" (#44)  

Hillary is neck-deep in her involvement with the private prison industry on both the policy end and the warehousing-end of "hosting" inmates.  Her spouse drove the legislation for the over-incarceration and profited from the "residences" (private prison industry) on the back end.  And, I am a moderate, (baptized Democrat) but want to see both sides of the issues, without a narrative from a political party.  ;)  

Hillary knows her flaws and would rather scheme to have Trump tear the republicans apart from the inside by making the base turn against the leadership. Ever notice he really doesn't attack the Clintons with vitol like he does to his republican "teammates".

Smile Brian - Hillary knows the Republican party because she was brought up Republican, volunteered for Republican Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, and was president of the Young Republicans Club in college.  She did not change parties until later. She knows both sides well and can "play" both sides.   ;)

So much for my hope to separate big-picture political process discussion from this election. Oh well. The people have spoken.

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?

Hee hee, seems totally legit to me. Though to be fair, the modern GOP likes Goldwater (or at least talks that way) a hell of a lot more than they did through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes eras.

Which is interesting because when I was young Badry Goldwater was fighting against (in the 80s) the increasing influence of the religious right in the party.

One of the most awkward parts of the Republican coalition is the smashing together of "liberty" types with a religious (and thus anti-other religious) agenda.

Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities. 

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her. 

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.   

They don't mean it as some kind of coronation of Clinton, or even remote satisfaction in her candidacy. Plenty of prominent establishment type of Republicans (Sen. Graham quite publicly) have suggested that they ignore the presidential election because none of the Republican candidates can possibly win the general. So their choices are marry themselves closer to the dipshits topping their ticket and further align with that garbage, or keep a distance and come up with a reasonable strategy that doesn't continue backing them into their current corner of nasty bigotry and intolerance for '20. That makes political sense. Let the angry flock to the demagogue, find out what it gets them (double-digit loss), and move on.

Yeah its better have an actual policy platform than Trump's lack of policy hidden beneath his grandiose statements of big government control of the people. Barry Goldwater at least had liberty ideas for the people, not fear and control like Trump. 

Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 

Bernie looked like the absent-minded professor early on that was never going to go anywhere and I look at his recent successes. And, I never once watched the Trump "You're Fired" show. So I had to figure out and filter what his message was. 

But, both are artculating perhaps polar opposite positions that millions on either side want to see happen.  That cannot be disregarded.

And, I did not ever take Bernie seriously as someone whom the Dems would support.  But I am not looking for my party to pull a fast one at the convention. Nor the Republicans. it is sure to be the catalyst for a 3rd party national movement.   I think it is about time that the popular vote be the standard, instead of the hacks in both parties keeping the status quo.   ;)       

Some of what we've been talking about recently--the parties as private entities, for example, how they get to their nominations, and the relative irrelevance of popular vote in it--is discussed in the newest episode of Dan Carlin's "Common Sense." Some people might be interested.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/show-304-speed-dating-for/id155974141?i=366972284&mt=2

A good line just before the 31-minute mark, which echoes what Emily has rightly said a few times: "These parties are not a constitutional part of the system that has to listen to you or is forced to play a certain role that you think is in your high school textbook."

Yay. I hope it gets a lot of listens.

Would a) general satisfaction with the political system and/or b) the results of the political process itself be improved if a large majority of people, understanding that the two major parties are not some sort of constitutionally mandated public entities dedicated to pure democracy, but rather private organizations with a century-plus-old near-monopoly (to various degrees over the past 150 years or whatever) on our political system, (inevitably, in my opinion) broke those parties into more, smaller parties that better represented their ideologies and/or causes?

For example, the Dems split into some combination of a labor party, a socially progressive party, a social democrat party, and a centrist party; the Republicans split into an evangelical and socially conservative party, a chamber of commerce party, a libertarian party, a strict originalist party, and a nationalist party. (Just examples based on current stereotypes and/or real factions.)

Are the results--with maybe four, six, eight "major" parties--better? For whom?

(I'd ask whether it's even remotely feasible within our lifetimes, but a) this is a big question already, b) no doubt it'll end up being about Trump or Bernie anyway, and c) our lifetimes have widely varying end-dates. Stupid youngsters. Stupid Bubs.)

Yes. And it would be better for everyone but the oligarchy

Well all right then!

I do think people would feel more attached to their parties. The question would be whether these parties could get anything done in the legislature. Then again, they don't get anything done now, so...

What would be interesting to me is the different coalitions on different pieces of legislation. As of now, you're with 'em or you're against 'em, more or less, if you're in congress. There is a little bipartisan work, but not much, and nobody much brags about it--certainly no Republicans. (This was dramatically different in my youth and adolescence, when people ran on bipartisanship. Good times.) But it's easy to imagine the post-Republican libertarians aligning with the social progressives on legalizing pot or right to die stuff. Or centrist Dems and chamber of commerce types aligning on typical corporate welfare. And so on. I think the possibilities of various, bill-specific alignments could be a huge boon to the country if people could break (current) party affiliation.

One is more likely to see cooperation in a multi-player majority game than a two-player unanimity game.
I heart game theory.

Thank you for your contribution to my signature.

Glad to help. Hope I won't be banned for personal insults.

Wait, what did Bubs do?

Y'know, just basking in my youthful exuberance

LOL sorry, meant to get back to this but, y'know, Prince died and all. Anyway, Bubs did nothing bad! I was fucking around. In noting our eventual demises, I was pointing out that he's likely to have a later one than some of us, such as the aging yours truly.

Ah. Well, I'm fine with him being in a band and young and all, but I'm a little "stupid Bubs" if he doesn't at least try to be a comedy writer.

He's the best writer on the board.