Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[veekie]

Well yes, I believe it'd be really much more helpful to have the various subcomponents of the major parties become full parties in their own right, under the Repub/Demo Coalitions. Much more clear as to who is standing for what really.

[betrayor]

^ I don't know.  It'd be hard to make a definitive value judgment. 

I will say that in Greece, a non-trivial number of Golden Dawn representatives were elected.  21 out of 300 is about 7%, which means, especially in a fragmented legislature, they may need to be bought off.  And, having to buy off neo-Nazis to pass legislation might be terrible.  As a side note, the Greece example is an extreme one -- Greece is in a pretty crazy set of circumstances, so obviously it's not multiparty systems = Nazis.  Although I suppose that extreme circumstances are really the test of these things. 

Here's the comparison:  is it more likely that a group of legislators from disparate parties will negotiate and hammer out "moderate" policies, or is it more likely that moderate officials will be elected when they have to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate? 

I don't know.  I can see the argument that the FPP "you must appeal to half the electorate" approach leads to more moderate officials to be elected.  An extremist that gets elected can reasonably claim to have a mandate of some sort, and therefore have that justification not to compromise.  The same logic that SolEiji mentions within the legislature operates on candidates when they pick and articulate their political positions. 

And, extreme parties, if they are elected to the legislature, then get a big stage.  They get, typically, to use a broad array of state apparatus to spread their message. 

But, those observations cut both ways.  You may get less "extreme" parties, but you also potentially push out a lot of voices that have a considerable amount of support.  Federalism is thought to cure that a little bit, though only a little bit.

The thing is that the political situation in Greece now is unprecented,not only the Neo-Nazi party managed to get for the first time into the parliament(7% of the votes in comparison to the previous elections in 2009 where they only had less than 0.5%) but also the Far-left party Coalition of left and progress manage to go from 4% in 2009 to 28% in 2012.....

To understand the confusion better Greece always had since 1974 after the dictatorship fell a bipolar political system dominated by two parties the so called socialists
Pasok and the Conservatives New Democracy,they controlled over 85% of the votes in the last 35 years and they ruled intermittely much like Democrats and Republicans do in USA.....

But the economic crisis caused for the first time the fracture of the voters in the Election of May 2012 and June 2012,so now it is the first time for Greece that the Goverment is a coalition instead of a singe party......

In conclusion the reason that the Neo-nazi party is so strong is similar to the reasons that Hitler arose in pre-ww2 Germany,the compination of the economic crisis and the agenda of Golden Dawn against immigrants have put them in the prime position of taking advantage of the Greek people frustration and dissapointment especially in the lower classes....

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

EDIT: Issue 2: issue with solving Issue: if the government supplies candidates with money to run, then Crazy McCrazypants runs.  Takes money from government to run on platform of eyeballs eating his tree farm.

Candidates must collect a certain number of signatures in order to qualify to campaign. So if Mr McCrazypants can really get however many thousand people to sign off on his platform of eyeballs for every tree farm, he gets to use government money to run that campaign.

The government funded campaigns thing is really less about allowing poor people to campaign for office, though that is a nice potential side effect, than it is about preventing rich people from buying elections. It also potentially cuts down on the amount of stupid election related garbage the average person has to sit through.

Since we're talking about alternative electoral systems, how about this one: Campaign season begins on X day. Before that day, official  campaigning is illegal and talking about the election is strongly discouraged.

Won't fly because of 1st amendment issues but I'd almost go for it just to get rid of stupid shit like this.

[bhu]

Since we're talking about alternative electoral systems, how about this one: Campaign season begins on X day. Before that day, official  campaigning is illegal and talking about the election is strongly discouraged.

Won't fly because of 1st amendment issues but I'd almost go for it just to get rid of stupid shit like this.

"If the campaign day rule is violated, the perpetrator forfeits all protections guaranteed under the Constitution through the time of the election and you can taser that stupid sonofabitch at will."

[SolEiji]

EDIT: Issue 2: issue with solving Issue: if the government supplies candidates with money to run, then Crazy McCrazypants runs.  Takes money from government to run on platform of eyeballs eating his tree farm.

Candidates must collect a certain number of signatures in order to qualify to campaign. So if Mr McCrazypants can really get however many thousand people to sign off on his platform of eyeballs for every tree farm, he gets to use government money to run that campaign.

The government funded campaigns thing is really less about allowing poor people to campaign for office, though that is a nice potential side effect, than it is about preventing rich people from buying elections. It also potentially cuts down on the amount of stupid election related garbage the average person has to sit through.

Since we're talking about alternative electoral systems, how about this one: Campaign season begins on X day. Before that day, official  campaigning is illegal and talking about the election is strongly discouraged.

Won't fly because of 1st amendment issues but I'd almost go for it just to get rid of stupid shit like this.

There might be a possible way around that last part.  It wouldn't stop civilians or companies from talking about it, but the campaigns and parties themselves might be forbidden from doing it if its taken in the context of an employers agreement.  "By attempting to run for president and obtaining federal funds you agree to the rules of the game.  You can't start before July 1st.  You may only spend Federal funds on your campaign.  You can't spend personal funds on the campaign or accept donations.  You have 200k to spend.  No items.  Fox only.  Final Destination."

The trick of course is, what will stop "friends" from using their muscle to support or deny support through their own propaganda?  If Ford decides Bob Bobberson and his crazy Libertarian ideas are bad, they could push out a multimillion dollar add saying how bad of a person he is.  I don't have an answer for that one.

[skydragonknight]

Only really needs a cap on advertising expenses (especially TV and phone ads). I take no issues with the candidates traveling on public money campaigning in person(incumbent presidents already can, so they would get unfair advantage if your travel funds were limited).

[SolEiji]

Only really needs a cap on advertising expenses (especially TV and phone ads). I take no issues with the candidates traveling on public money campaigning in person(incumbent presidents already can, so they would get unfair advantage if your travel funds were limited).

That has a second benefit.  It teaches them how to save or buck or two and work on the cheap, so you don't get $5000 toilet seats and $25,000 fireworks.  Maybe, just maybe, we can get people in there who aren't wasteful spenders.

[Libertad]

These two asshole CEOs are pissed that Obama won, and so they're taking it out on their employees:

Papa John

and

Robert Murray of the Crandall Canyon Coal Mine, whose extreme negligence and lack of concern for workers led to many deaths.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy!  "Obama's re-elected, and he's killing jobs!"

[bhu]

There's more than just them.  A lot of local employers here have said flat out they arent hiring again until a republican is in office.

[dman11235]

Good.  Let them screw their company over.  Free market and all.  They lose their companies, and fail in the market because they're so closed minded and can't adapt to new (old) circumstances.  New companies thrive, we get more competition, and new companies end up better off because they actually benefit the economy rather than screw it over while blaming someone else.

[bhu]

Good.  Let them screw their company over.  Free market and all.  They lose their companies, and fail in the market because they're so closed minded and can't adapt to new (old) circumstances.  New companies thrive, we get more competition, and new companies end up better off because they actually benefit the economy rather than screw it over while blaming someone else.

They aren't thinking that way.  They're thinking "If I downsize and shrink my company i can survive the next 4 years, and if plenty of others do the same and none of us hire, we crush the Dems because no one has a job".  It's a form of vote manipulation.  It's deliberately tanking the economy in spite in the hopes if you survive you can ride to the rescue when frustration with what you're doing get laid at the feet of your opposition.

[dman11235]

I know, give me my hopeful optimism, would you?

[Libertad]

Hey, if they keep this up, they might have genuine class warfare on their hands.  Occupy Wall Street will be small fry in comparison to an angry mob of repeatedly abused workers who just can't take it anymore.

[bhu]

I know, give me my hopeful optimism, would you?

*hugs*

[FlaminCows]

I can foresee such a plan backfiring. Sure, perhaps destroying enough jobs would create unrest directed at the government. Perhaps instead it would create disgust towards the private sector. The thing about a left-leaning government is that it is at its strongest when people struggle. Who cares about public healthcare if they can easily afford their own insurance? Why give a damn about unemployment services if your job seems safe and your boss isn't laying people off? Who is more likely to want an abortion, the one with a constant income or the one with concerns over their future? Who is going to fret more about taxes: the gainfully employed, or the people with no income to speak of?

Therefore the very worst thing a Republican can do is sabotage the free market's ability to generate prosperity. That just makes the public sector seem heroic. Additionally, increasing unemployment means that the Government – always an equal-opportunity employer – gets to hire workers on the cheap, allowing them to complete more works that would garner favour during the next election. Reducing productivity hurts the entire nation and everyone in it, but politically it hurts the Right Wing most of all.

Those bosses who are laying off in response to the elections are going to see one of two things: either there are not enough of them to have a meaningful effect and they just lose business, or they are enough of them to influence politics and they discover that both the employees they laid off and the employees they didn't are now voting Democrat. The Republican party should be calling these clowns and yelling "STOP HELPING ME, YOU'LL RUIN EVERYTHING!"

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

It's a form of vote manipulation.  It's deliberately tanking the economy in spite in the hopes if you survive you can ride to the rescue when frustration with what you're doing get laid at the feet of your opposition.

On the optimistic side, this is what they tried to do for the last 4 years and, even though Obama played right into their hands by actually trying to be bipartisan, it didn't work.

Hopefully he's over that now. I'm not holding my breath but it's not impossible.

[Libertad]

Hopefully Obama will be much more liberal now that he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

[bhu]

Hopefully Obama will be much more liberal now that he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

Politically it would be a bad move on his part.  If he suddenly yanks to far to the left, he risks alienating the middle that helped elect him because thats what every president seems to do.  They believe their second term gives them some sort of mandate to do as they please without being able to see that thats not the case, they kept the job because the base+a slim majority of the middle thought the other option was worse.  Plus it's likely he will get the usual second term scandals, and the Democrats will be increasingly willing to defy him because they want more terms and his policies are unpopular in their district.  They're looking towards the next election cycle now, Obama is just a placeholder till then.

[phaedrusxy]

Hopefully Obama will be much more liberal now that he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

Yes. I completely support total nationalization of the health care and insurance industries. Things like that should be considered basic human rights as much as the right to a primary education. I think the same thing applies to utilities like gas and electricity, as their loss can cripple the entire country (or at least a region), as well as mass transportation, etc. Things as important as these shouldn't be trusted to the greed and short-sightedness of corporations, and they should't be for-profit at all. The reason I'm not crazy about "Obamacare" is that it didn't go far enough. At least it's a step in the right direction, though.

[Libertad]

Hopefully Obama will be much more liberal now that he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

Politically it would be a bad move on his part.  If he suddenly yanks to far to the left...

Obama is NOT left-wing: He extended the powers of the PATRIOT Act, signed the NDAA section of indefinitely detaining US citizens with no trial, didn't support gay marriage until NC's Amendment One passed, didn't knock down the Bush tax cuts quick enough, and created a troop surge to Afghanistan to placate the far-right war hawks.  In many ways, he's a moderate.  I'm not saying that he should go full Bernie Sanders, just reverse several of his aforementioned conservative positions.  Withdrawing from Afghanistan would be a good start.