Democratic National Convention MEGATHREAD

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Well it doesn't help that the two major third parties are completely and utterly insane and idiotic.

No, though Gary Johnson has done quite a bit to drag the Libertarian Party back towards sanity, as has the increasingly alienated Liberty Wing of the Republican party.

That said, a winner-take-all first-past-the-post system is fundamentally incompatible with more than two parties.

[Zanza]

Some congress seats are held by independents, right? So it is not completely impossible to win as a non-mainstream party candidate.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well it doesn't help that the two major third parties are completely and utterly insane and idiotic.

No, though Gary Johnson has done quite a bit to drag the Libertarian Party back towards sanity,

Party is still wacky but the Presidential vote is individual.  He certainly looks more attractive than Donald J.

[Valmy]

Well it doesn't help that the two major third parties are completely and utterly insane and idiotic.

No, though Gary Johnson has done quite a bit to drag the Libertarian Party back towards sanity, as has the increasingly alienated Liberty Wing of the Republican party.

That said, a winner-take-all first-past-the-post system is fundamentally incompatible with more than two parties.

I think three parties could work. The Canadians and Brits have made it function to some extent.

I would love to form a purple centrist party and let the social conservatives and leftwing nutcases bask in their own purity.

[derspiess]

I think three parties could work. The Canadians and Brits have made it function to some extent.

I would love to form a purple centrist party and let the social conservatives and leftwing nutcases bask in their own purity.

The closest to that we have and will ever have in our lifetimes is the independent/non-party affiliated bloc of voters.  As far as a formal party goes, forget about it.  Even Independents prefer to vote for someone with a D or R next to their name.

[Razgovory]

I am amazed, disappointed, and baffled that as unpleasant as Trump is, he remains competitive in the polls.

That is because people in this country vote based on the little letter next to the candidate.  The Republicans could nominate Zombie Hitler and the Democrats could nominate Zombie Stalin and one of them would win, regardless of who else ran.

Well, in a parliamentary democracy actual Hitler won.  The two party system is suppose to weed on the kooks.  It was successful this year for the Democrats but not the Republicans.

[grumbler]

Some congress seats are held by independents, right? So it is not completely impossible to win as a non-mainstream party candidate.

True, but Bernie Sanders was one of them, and he didn't run for President as an independent, either.

[grumbler]

I think that's changing, which is part of the reason this election is so wonky.  There's a large group that either dislike the current parties or politicians, hence the popularity of outsider candidates like Trump, Sanders, Johnson and Stein.  However there's still a sizable body of party loyalists, which mean outsider candidates do better by hijacking one of the two main parties rather than working through a third party.

This is precisely what Sanders tried to do, and I think you have nailed the reason for it: there are party members who will vote for a pig if it has that (R) or (D) next to its name.

[Zanza]

Some congress seats are held by independents, right? So it is not completely impossible to win as a non-mainstream party candidate.

True, but Bernie Sanders was one of them, and he didn't run for President as an independent, either.

Sure. Just wanted to counter the "fundamentally impossible" by von Moltke.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Some congress seats are held by independents, right? So it is not completely impossible to win as a non-mainstream party candidate.

True, but Bernie Sanders was one of them, and he didn't run for President as an independent, either.

Sure. Just wanted to counter the "fundamentally impossible" by von Moltke.

I should have explicitly stated I was referring to the Presidential election setup, though the system makes getting elected in any partisan election with both a Democrat and a Republican running seriously hard.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Well, in a parliamentary democracy actual Hitler won.

No he didn't.   Hindenburg won the election, decisively I might add.  Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg afterward.

Well, in a parliamentary democracy actual Hitler won.  The two party system is suppose to weed on the kooks.  It was successful this year for the Democrats but not the Republicans.

Considering it also forces homogenization of opinion and enables national-level power brokers, I think the cure is worse than the disease.

[grumbler]

Well, in a parliamentary democracy actual Hitler won.

No he didn't.   Hindenburg won the election, decisively I might add.  Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg afterward.

Hindenburg was the President.  He wasn't part of the "parliament."  Hindenburg appointed Hitler because the Nazi party was the largest party after the Nov 1932 elections and von Papen (who had headed a non-democratic coalition that kept the Nazis out of power despite them being the largest party after the July elections) couldn't keep going.

Hitler did run against Hindenburg in the Presidential elections earlier in 1932.  Hindenburg squeaked out a win in that election (failed to gain a majority in the first round, got 53% in the second) but was fatally weakened by his continued lack of popular support (he only got in the first time by a plurality).  Hindenburg wanted to keep Hitler out of power, but he was only accomplishing that via rule by decree, and the Reichstag wouldn't let him keep doing that.

There was never anything "decisive" about Hindenburg as a politician.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Well, in a parliamentary democracy actual Hitler won.

No he didn't.   Hindenburg won the election, decisively I might add.  Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg afterward.

Hindenburg was the President.  He wasn't part of the "parliament."  Hindenburg appointed Hitler because the Nazi party was the largest party after the Nov 1932 elections and von Papen (who had headed a non-democratic coalition that kept the Nazis out of power despite them being the largest party after the July elections) couldn't keep going.

Hitler did run against Hindenburg in the Presidential elections earlier in 1932.  Hindenburg squeaked out a win in that election (failed to gain a majority in the first round, got 53% in the second) but was fatally weakened by his continued lack of popular support (he only got in the first time by a plurality).  Hindenburg wanted to keep Hitler out of power, but he was only accomplishing that via rule by decree, and the Reichstag wouldn't let him keep doing that.

There was never anything "decisive" about Hindenburg as a politician.

OK, "decisive" was an overstep.   My point, as Raz was clearly talking about the US Presidential election in reference to "keeping the kooks out", is that Hitler never actually won a (free and fair) national election.  Yes, the Nazi party was the most powerful in Germany in 1932.  That was on the basis of local parliamentary elections, though.  Considering our system does jack shit to keep our kooks out of such offices, he still doesn't have a point.

[lustindarkness]

Hindenburg was full of gas. He later crashed and burned.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hitler came in first in the 32 federal (national) election.  By a very big margin.