NationStates Jolt Archive

This post will be debates among Communist, Republican, Democrats.
Personaly I am a Communist. But i respect others ideas besides im kinda new to politics.

Just come in and do the following

HE/SHe(Not Required)
Politcal party

sorry He/She is not Recomended.

Well you took my advice and started one, But I don't know where to begin...can you narrow down your topic a little more?

anyway

Political Party: undefined.

I'm a communist, but I am not a member and do not at all support the CPUSA.

I'm a communist, but I am not a member and do not at all support the CPUSA.

^ And this is the dude I was telling you about in the "war may end soon" thread. Seriously, this guy is smart. :D

Regarding partisanship, at least in the United States. Third parties for all practical purposes cannot win on a national level. There is one (1) Socialist and one (1) Independent senator in the United States Senate. There are no third party representatives in the United States House of Representatives. There has been one (1) president not belonging to one of the two major parties composing the party system at the time when he ran for office, be it Democratic, Federalist, Republican, or Whig. That president was George Washington, and it's quite likely he'll be the last non-partisan president of the United States as it exists today. On a local level, the vast majority of third parties have close ties to either the Democratic or the Republican party, to the point where third-party candidates run simultaneously on both their own party's ticket, and on the ticket of a major party, where such is allowed.

More often than not, any third party will drain votes away from one of the two major parties, and cause whichever party has the most votes left to win. For example, the Green Party, being center-left, will drain votes from the Democratic Party, the major center-left party. As a result, the Republican party will get more votes than either the Democratic Party or the Green Party, and will win the district in question. This occurred in the United States, when Theodore Roosevelt, under the Bull Moose (Progressive) Party, split the Republican vote in 1912 and caused Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, to win the Presidency.

At its most extreme, when many parties compete in a single-member district under simple plurality rules, the candidate that gets into office might have the support of only a small fraction of the voters. In some cases, the party that gets into power this way is quite extremist, meaning all the factions might have been better off focusing on one candidate instead of splitting the vote.

So ... in all it's really best not to bother with third parties in the United States, or in countries using similar electoral systems, and because the two parties are so big, with each trying to attract the largest number of voters, their platforms tend to be quite broad, and to vary from one district to another, so compromise may be a more viable option.

That president was George Washington,

Well, the Republican party was also two-election cycles old when Lincoln one, and T. Roosevelt took a massive portion of the vote, which while strengthening your second point- implies illegitimacy for your first point.

This post will be debates among Communist, Republican, Democrats.

So everyone else (which is about ... well, most people in Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, Non-USA America as well as the independents in the USA...) should find another thread ?

Fair enough.

So everyone else (which is about ... well, most people in Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, Non-USA America as well as the independents in the USA...) should find another thread ?

Fair enough.

Sounds good to me.

Well i disagree with Weyr. The third party IS important. I think we actually should strengthen the chance for a third party to be able to be elected. Because quite frankly i am disappointed in the main parties running at this time.

I consider myself not a Democrat, Republican or a Communist. I am independant.

The Republican Party at the time of its formation organized around a highly salient issue -- slavery, and as a result attracted voters from the dying Whig Party and from the Democratic Party. The geographic concentration of anti-slavery interests in the Northern and Midwestern states gave the Republican Party a strong geographic base. While simplistic, this outline more or less sums up the factors that allowed the Republican Party to effectively compete with the Democrats and as a result to fill the vacuum left by the de-facto dissolution of the Whig Party.

Most third parties are organized around specific interests, are geographically spread out, and have to compete with two established parties. Something like 90% of incumbents in the United States Congress are re-elected, if they choose to run for the same office. The most common way for a Congressman to leave the United States Congress is by being elected into a more attractive office, or by being carried out in a pine box. Geographic concentration is required because in practical terms there is no benefit to coming in second or third in a single-member district plurality election. Thus, a successful third party has to have a large following across a large number of states, and have enough voters in those states that it stands a good chance at gaining a plurality victory. In the absence of polarizing, salient issues around which to organize and which have not been incorporated into the platform of one of the two major parties, a third party will probably not get the sort of geographic concentration seen during the formation of the Third Party System, and will thus have no chance of winning any significant representation on a national or even on a state level.

The Progressive Party took 27% of the nationwide vote in 1912. The Republican Party got 23% of the vote. The Democratic Party got 42% of the vote. Considering that the Progressive Party dissolved shortly after Roosevelt returned to the Republican Party, I'd have to conclude that the Progressive Party only got a large chunk of the vote because of Roosevelt's popularity.

Empirically, cases of third parties gaining significant portions of the popular vote in the United States are the exception, rather than the norm. Concluding that third parties stand a good chance of competing with the established parties is akin to jumping out of a fifty-story building because a small fraction of the people to do so have survived.

The above is probably rather oddly worded, because it's 2:22AM and I seriously need sleep.

Earabia, the ability to change the electoral system rests, for all practical purposes, with the United States Congress. Since the membes of Congress, and the parties to which they belong, got into power via the current system, chances are they are not going to suppot any significant institutional nationwide change.

While it would be nice to have a more proportional system, the chances of it coming into being are virtually nonexistent. As long as the United States continues to use single-member district plurality, national third parties will not only fail to obtain representation, but will at worst actually cause the major party closest to their ideal point to lose.

I'd rather not make a normative judgement over whether third parties are good or bad. Under the current system in the United States, third parties do not have even a half-decent chance of becoming significant actors, and thus voting for third parties is akin to not voting at all.

Not unless the voters decide to vote for mostly a third party canidate. See that is the great thing about our system. If more third party members were to runa nd actually get attention, the two main parties my have a run for their money. Thing is though, most of the third parties i have seen are worse then teh two main ones....far fringe parties...maybe except for the Libertarians.

sorry i had to go for a minute.

Im still kinda new to polotics so forgive me if i make mistakes i made this post to sort of um learn more.

I think they should give Communism at least one chance in the US. Just to see what the result is maybe it will work.

Sounds good to me.

Splitters!

I think they should give Communism at least one chance in the US. Just to see what the result is maybe it will work.So, soooooooo many things would have to change. Perhaps you have some idea of how to go about it?

Communist, membre of the UDCP here, and the PCF in France.

I'm a communist, but I am not a member and do not at all support the CPUSA.

And in other news, Gus Hall is still dead...

I'm a communist of the libertarian/anarchist variety. Not too big of a fan of the CPUSA, though I do think that Sam Webb has some potential to make it a decent enough alternative to the Democratic Party.

I absolutely refuse to vote for Democrats if at all possible. That's kind of hard here in Montana, so I end up feeling a little alienated last November. I am glad that Conrad Burns is gone, but I'm not sure how Tester is going to do over here. Next presidential election I'll probably be voting Green or write in.

This post will be debates among Communist, Republican, Democrats.
Personaly I am a Communist. But i respect others ideas besides im kinda new to politics.

Well, here's your first lesson - "Republican" and "Democrat" are political parties of the United States of America, not ideologies.

I'm what you would call "Neolibertarian" or "South Park Republican" - libertarian on domestic issues, Neoconservative on foreign issues.

I'm what you would call "Neolibertarian" or "South Park Republican" - libertarian on domestic issues, Neoconservative on foreign issues.

you can't be a libertarian in any sense of the word if you loves you some imperial adventures. it is inherently contradictory.

Neo Con, let's break that down:

Neo meaning new, Con meaning con artist. At last truth in politics!

Well, here's your first lesson - "Republican" and "Democrat" are political parties of the United States of America, not ideologies.

But they do have their requisite ideologies behind them.

you can't be a libertarian in any sense of the word if you loves you some imperial adventures. it is inherently contradictory.

It's only imperialism if we annex the liberated nations. Instead, we turn them loose to do whatever they like.

I'm an anarchist fascist.

I'm an anarchist fascist. Good luck with that lol

Heres what i suggest for the test of communism in US. First lets give free medical care.then we could move forward to the poor now every one makes the same amount of money. Okay thats where we will stop so the people get a taste then if they like it we move forward.

the only thing i would change in communism would be the politcaly correctnis i cant stand that crap.

Heres what i suggest for the test of communism in US. First lets give free medical care.then we could move forward to the poor now every one makes the same amount of money. Okay thats where we will stop so the people get a taste then if they like it we move forward.

I have a better idea: keep Communism out of the United States entirely, except for the states where it has already taken root, like California.

Look how good california is going we make up alot of the econimy.

It's only imperialism if we annex the liberated nations. Instead, we turn them loose to do whatever they like.

we do?

when we invade a country we pretty much make them are *%&*(%$ but thats is okay if your the attacker. it would better if we just replaced the goverment and left them alone if they do it again leave them alone.

when we invade a country we pretty much make them are *%&*(%$ but thats is okay if your the attacker. it would better if we just replaced the goverment and left them alone if they do it again leave them alone.

what?

Look how good california is going we make up alot of the econimy.

Yeah, but that's all Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Computer geeks and movie stars apparently don't mind Communism.

im a communist, a republican and a democrat. Jesus this may be complex.

I wouldn't call california communist, heck, the computer geeks are capitalist to some measure given the number that started up as little start ups. I would not want the US to turn communist, I would sooner leave the US if such a thing came to pass. I think that we have given communism some measure of trial and I think that we can at the very least determine that it is incredibly possible to screw up communism really badly and cause lots of misery.

For the question though, I would probably side with Republicans. I do not agree with them a lot I just agree with them more than their opponents. I am probably more of a moderate libertarian but I side with the group that seems more likely to promote my aims........

I wouldn't call california communist

It's called a hyperbole. Exaggeration for comic effect. It's a joke about the high taxes and ridiculously restrictive laws due to a Democratic deathgrip on the legislature.

Fortunately, Conan the Republican is turning things around by deregulating the economy and cutting taxes and spending. And he referred to the legislature as "girlie men" when they rejected one of his budget proposals :)

It's called a hyperbole. Exaggeration for comic effect. It's a joke about the high taxes and ridiculously restrictive laws due to a Democratic deathgrip on the legislature.

Fortunately, Conan the Republican is turning things around by deregulating the economy and cutting taxes and spending. And he referred to the legislature as "girlie men" when they rejected one of his budget proposals :)

The uninitiated have this annoying tendency to equate liberalism with communism.

The uninitiated have this annoying tendency to equate liberalism with communism.

When you say "liberalism", are you referring to the REAL liberalism (i.e., libertarianism), or the Communist bullshit that is incorrectly referred to as "liberalism" in the United States and a few other countries?

REAL liberalism (i.e., libertarianism)

haha

Communist bullshit that is incorrectly referred to as "liberalism" in the United States

and again

i think it'd be for the best if you got your terms right first

I already have my terms right. It's everyone else in the country who's misusing the word.

Fortunately, Conan the Republican is turning things around by deregulating the economy and cutting taxes and spending.Yeah, deregulating the electric industry worked so well for Californians, why not deregulate everything?...

what if we actually try it for real not a little tiny bit im talking complete just for maybe a year if they dont like it well change it your not a traitor for being a communist i dont know where that all came from.

Yeah, deregulating the electric industry worked so well for Californians, why not deregulate everything?...

I live in California, and my electricity is working just fine...

what if we actually try it for real not a little tiny bit im talking complete

Russia made that mistake, and they're not eager to repeat it.

I live in California, and my electricity is working just fine...Perhaps now it is, but not a few years ago.

Russia made that mistake, and they're not eager to repeat it.Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union was ever communist.

Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union was ever communist.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

The history books that I read in school tell a very different story.:D

Liberal...more toward the left than centre though

I don't care for the extreme left or right

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

The history books that I read in school tell a very different story.:DReally? They give an accurate definition of communism and then explain how the Soviet Union fit it?

what is this thread for? i'm not even sure i'm allowed in.

haha



and again

i think it'd be for the best if you got your terms right first

This poster has also gotten the terms wrong in the past too. To be proud of being a soviet is quite sad, really....

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Yes, soviet Union was communist and one person that denies this not only denies history but the fact of the matter.

what if we actually try it for real not a little tiny bit im talking complete just for maybe a year if they dont like it well change it your not a traitor for being a communist i dont know where that all came from.

um....the entire system of american industry, law, business, and basically every facet of the nation would have to be completely stripped down and redone.

Communism isn't something you "try out for a year" in a very capitalist country.

Democracy lasted how long in it's 1st phase?

Communism had a good start, poor finish... but don't write it off for the future

Yes, soviet Union was communist and one person that denies this not only denies history but the fact of the matter.

Let's consult Wiki on this.

Communism: an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.

The Soviet Union was neither classless (their were definite upper class and lower class), stateless (the Soviet Union was a massive authoritarian state), nor did it have common ownership of the means of production (the State owned everything). The only similarity is that a group of oligarches calling themselves the "Communist" Party controlled the show.

Let's consult Wiki on this.



The Soviet Union was neither classless (their were definite upper class and lower class), stateless (the Soviet Union was a massive authoritarian state), nor did it have common ownership of the means of production (the State owned everything). The only similarity is that a group of oligarches calling themselves the "Communist" Party controlled the show.

Wrong again. I never was talking about the Soviet union under Stalin, i was talking about Lenin. Please make sure you pay attention. Plus last time i checked even teh soviets considered them selves communists, now if that isnt acknowledgement...i dont know what is.

And if you dont think the "oligarches" are not communistic, i think some on here need to relook at how they define what they think is communism....

Plus last time i checked even teh soviets considered them selves communists, now if that isnt acknowledgement...i dont know what is.

Calling yourself something doesn't mean you are it. You could call yourself a small cucumber, but that does not mean you would be one.