Pennsylvania elects an honest Republican for once

[Phantasee]

Well unfortunately for you parties don't really give a shit about what you think is best for society, and only about what they think is best for their particular organization.

[someone_else]

I dare say an electoral system with more than two parties would be beneficial to the United States, but I sincerely doubt any tool to make party discipline stronger will have that effect, at least not by itself.

I wouldn't be so sure.

For example here there is a fuckton of parties, but the marginally smarter ones literally "sell their services" (for either hard cash like Northern League, or to have a say in a particularly to the stronger ones to reach half-decent numbers to not keep kinda going at "voto di fiducia" (a vote on something that if it's negative is an instant call for new elections, this would mean the politicians won't get their significant lifetime pension, and usually neither party wants this to happen).

The less-smart ones (the left mainly) had the bright idea of breaking up into so fucking many different tiny parties that spend more time fighting between themselves than doing something useful. And of course by gobbling a significant amount of votes (if taken as a whole) to not send anyone to parliament to represent them (albeit it's maybe better to not represent the dumbfucks that vote like this).

You would need pretty fucking draconian laws on corruption and similar, or you risk the organized crime or strong economic lobbies basically building their own party. Albeit the differences between this and the Repubblican party may just be cosmetic.

I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse?

Last time I checked, here the party's higher ranking staff can and does kick people out (or prevent people from entering) on a regular basis.

Why is this strange? It's a fucking political party. It cannot contain too different views or it will waste more time and resources in interencine conflicts than anything else (like the PD now, and the bigger leftist party that existed before it in Italy)

It's wrong only in cases where there is ONLY ONE political party like say in USSR.

[Simon_Jester]

I dare say an electoral system with more than two parties would be beneficial to the United States, but I sincerely doubt any tool to make party discipline stronger will have that effect, at least not by itself.

I'm beginning to think the Republicans are already close to this, given the power of Tea Party primary challenges. They don't crack up, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly because of the 'dead hand' of seniority: long-established Republican politicians preventing the new wave of radicals from turning things inside out too quickly.

Basically, all the cuckoos they've created and promoted with thirty years of anarcho-corporate propaganda are coming home to roost: now those people are in their forties and fifties, running for office in large numbers, and they actually believe all the hype. To the point where they'll basically vow to crash the country rather than not get their way.

I can imagine that breaking up under the strain of ideological purity fighting sensible governance within the next ten or twenty years, given enough of a push. I can imagine the Democrats doing much the same- the right wing of the Democrats has a huge amount in common with the left wing of the Republicans, more than either really shares with the radicals of their own party.

The only reason this is stable is that a bipolar model encourages both sides to at least try to court the middle. If there were three parties the sysem would look very, very different and probably harder for corporations to control.

For example here there is a fuckton of parties, but the marginally smarter ones literally "sell their services" (for either hard cash like Northern League, or to have a say in a particularly to the stronger ones to reach half-decent numbers to not keep kinda going at "voto di fiducia" (a vote on something that if it's negative is an instant call for new elections, this would mean the politicians won't get their significant lifetime pension, and usually neither party wants this to happen).

See, there's a problem right there- politicians who are afraid to be voted temporarily out of the majority/government/whatever because you punish them financially for losing power. That's not a normal feature of democratic governments.

The less-smart ones (the left mainly) had the bright idea of breaking up into so fucking many different tiny parties that spend more time fighting between themselves than doing something useful. And of course by gobbling a significant amount of votes (if taken as a whole) to not send anyone to parliament to represent them (albeit it's maybe better to not represent the dumbfucks that vote like this).

You would need pretty fucking draconian laws on corruption and similar, or you risk the organized crime or strong economic lobbies basically building their own party. Albeit the differences between this and the Repubblican party may just be cosmetic.

I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse?

Last time I checked, here the party's higher ranking staff can and does kick people out (or prevent people from entering) on a regular basis.

Kinda yeah. At least this way the corporate sector would face meaningful obstacles on the road from building a party to building a government.

[D.Turtle]

I fail to see how this makes my post wrong. Or are you just being pedantic?

How big do I need to make the font?

You failed the reading comprehension test...

Sentence number one, which you correctly read:

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write their name in to become a member of the County Committee.

Sentence number two, which is the relevant one here:

The Bylaws of the Luzerne County Republican Committee indicate that the only qualification for election to the County Committee be that one has been a registered Republican for the two years preceding their election.

Questions? Or do I have to make the font bigger?

[Zaune]

I can imagine that breaking up under the strain of ideological purity fighting sensible governance within the next ten or twenty years, given enough of a push. I can imagine the Democrats doing much the same- the right wing of the Democrats has a huge amount in common with the left wing of the Republicans, more than either really shares with the radicals of their own party.

That's one possible outcome, yes. The other, perhaps rather worse one is the aforementioned "dead hand" coming down so hard on the dissenters that it has a chilling effect on all internal debate; we have the same problem here in the UK with our party whip system.

Also, do you honestly think the Tea Party could become a genuine third power bloc in the legislative branch? You said it yourself; they're willing to crash the country rather than meet others part-way. Cut them loose from the existing party framework and make them start from the ground up and I give it 'til maybe the third meeting of the manifesto draft committee before the first schism.

[Simon_Jester]

That's kind of my point, Zaune.

The Tea Party has power, and this is a bad thing, because they make up a large enough bloc of a large party that this party is forced to appease them. Left to themselves they would be much less of a threat and we could have a normal-ish legislative process. It might not produce the legislation I want, but it could at least function and keep things running, and maybe we'd see fewer cases of popular measures like "government not shutting down" being endangered by Republican filibuster threats.

[Vendetta]

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write their name in to become a member of the County Committee.

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat

any registered Republican or Democrat

How big do I need to make the font?

As big as this bit?

The Bylaws of the Luzerne County Republican Committee indicate that the only qualification for election to the County Committee be that one has been a registered Republican for the two years preceding their election.

Anyone can write their own name in as long as they have been a registered Republican for the last two years, no matter what else they are or have been in the past.

The real boggle here is how someone can be elected to a committee with a quorum of one vote. Surely in this case there is no need for an actual ballot, if any single vote for any individual is enough to guarantee them a seat on the committee (as has clearly happened here).

[General Zod]

The real boggle here is how someone can be elected to a committee with a quorum of one vote. Surely in this case there is no need for an actual ballot, if any single vote for any individual is enough to guarantee them a seat on the committee (as has clearly happened here).

Naturally. Which is why I suggested that refining the bylaws to put up a review for such a small number of votes or otherwise put in some sort of bare minimum number of votes for the position would be easier than setting up rules about views you don't like.

[someone_else]

See, there's a problem right there- politicians who are afraid to be voted temporarily out of the majority/government/whatever because you punish them financially for losing power. That's not a normal feature of democratic governments.

It's a specific kind of vote of the parliament, where even ministers are allowed to vote (it's supposed to help approve stuff that the government wants when there isn't the certainty that a standard vote would work) not the standard kind of parlamentary vote.

Besides, what should we do then? Allow them to stack pays and pensions if they call for new elections before their time? The fuckers will then keep us in a constant election day!
If they cannot find ways to reason like human beings and get things done, it's good to fire them, and boo-fucking-hooo they don't get the benefits.

Besides, that's stuff written in our constitution (that interacts in weird ways with the laws they made to get high pensions and high pays), so they have no way in hell to change this particular detail (yes, it can be changed, but the procedure requires conditions that are unlikely to be ever met unless they all die instantly).

[Raw Shark]

[snip] I participate in the discussion by questioning your analysis, which I think is inaccurate and oversimplified (now I know there's a heaping helping of dumbass ignorance behind it as well) and apparently in your middle school mindset you jump right into defensive mode, as if someone would dare question you! The thought! [snip]

Yeah, you're right: I wrote poorly and overreacted to being called out on it. Sorry.

The real boggle here is how someone can be elected to a committee with a quorum of one vote. Surely in this case there is no need for an actual ballot, if any single vote for any individual is enough to guarantee them a seat on the committee (as has clearly happened here).

Naturally. Which is why I suggested that refining the bylaws to put up a review for such a small number of votes or otherwise put in some sort of bare minimum number of votes for the position would be easier than setting up rules about views you don't like.

It'd also be easier to get people to accept than retroactive removal, since it eliminates the ongoing threat of getting the boot for not conforming to the party line enough (whatever the party decides that means this week) (except of course for everyone who'd like that leverage to exist so they can exploit it), but what do they do if they set a minimum vote requirement of more than one and only one voter shows up?