It doesn’t matter what other countries do. Most of those have parliamentary governments with are very different. Many states in the US have closed primaries. Closed primaries do not conflict at all with democracy. Parties themselves do not have to be democratic, only the general election does. You are confusing choosing nominees to run with the actual election. People can run in the general election without being in a party. All they have to do is is get enough signatures to get on the ballot. The call for open primaries on the Democratic side has nothing to do with democracy or improving the system but is purely a strategy to election progressive candidates. However, if a progressive candidate wants to win the Democratic nomination that candidate should be the choice of registered Democrats, not independents, Republicans, or others not registered as Democrats.
Thanks for the information. Hopefully, Washington State will move to a primary in 2020 and end the caucuses.
You have to assume that DNC is your friend. In every possible way, I see the center-right and centrist Democrats more dangerous than those American talibans aka GOP, precisely because they use the language of progressives, promising progressives policies that either never materialize or end up in terrible compromises. I don’t think all of the establishment/right-leaning Democrats are necessarily immoral people, but they are very far from being “progressive” if progressive means a break from (at least the neoliberal version of) capitalism.
Remember back in the 30s, it was decades of labor movements OUTSIDE the Democratic Party that forced the Party to come up with the New Deal. The working class needs its own party/parties and it does NOT matter if the oligarchic Democratic elites want to come down from their thrones or not. The two-party system only serves a portion of the population, aka the super-rich oligarchs, the upper-middle class and people in between. The Democratic Party can surely be beneficial to the working class and middle class, but its ACTUAL base is the upper-middle class and the oligarchs.
IMHO, Bernie is better off remaining unaffiliated. He ran as a DamnocRat in 2016 in order to participate in the debates and, in some states, even get on the ballot. Now that his name recognition nationwide has gone from 0.7% to 97%, he can run again (if he wants to), and support progressive candidates without sullying his name with Guilt by Association insofar as the DamnocRatic Establishment is concerned.
As Donna Brazile has revealed, the DamnocRatic Party is Rotten to the Core — not that we didn’t know that already.
Sorry, but I’m an Old Geezer (a Neo-Luddite, actually), and SNL is on WAY past my bed-time . . .
Is it available to watch on Sunday afternoons, and – if so – can you provide a link??
Parties are generally more disciplined in other countries. The party can name who will be your parliamentary candidate. Doesn’t have to be from your area. Nothing in the US prevents you from voting because you’re not a member of a party.
There was no state in which Bernie was prevented from being on a primary ballot or participating in caucus.
That’s true in the General Election, but many states have Closed Primaries - you have to be a member of the party to help select that party’s candidate for the G.E.
BECAUSE he ran as a DamnocRat. Had he run as an independent, with 0.7% name recognition nationwide in 2015, he’d have had a hard time collecting enough signatures to even get on the 2016 ballot in some states.
The System is RIGGED to protect the 2 major parties’ duopoly. In effect, you play their way or you don’t play at all.
Why does there have to be a Democratic or Republican (private) party at all?
I don’t know. It’s been that way for a very long time. I think political parties play an important function in elections. They seem to form in all countries where there are elections. They seem to be helpful for bringing organization to the process and informing the voters. Our presidential election system seems to work best with major political parties because if no candidate gets a majority of votes the decision is turned over to the House of Representatives. I think the Constitution would need to be changed to make another type of system work well in presidential electoins.
MIS-informing the voters, you mean.
If that were the case, why did Washington (rather vociferously, IIRC) warn against the formation of parties? What the writers of the Constitution intended was that each district would send its (supposedly) wisest representative to the electoral college, and these wise men would select a (supposedly) very wise man to be President and a second very wise man to be Vice-President. As parties became more influential, these delegates to the electoral college began to pledge ahead of time to vote for one party’s preferred wise man over
the other parties’ preferred wise men. The system has degenerated into a bunch of wise guys selecting fools. IIRC, no changes to the Constitution would be needed if parties were abolished but some State-level election laws might be affected; and no changes to ANY laws would be needed to get rid of the DamnocRats’ damn party-hack Stupor-Delegates.
I’m having trouble finding the C99% website. Could you post a link or give more information? It sounds interesting. Thank you.
I used to agree with this. The parties do have the right to put their candidate up for the general. That was until they made it nearly impossible to run any viable 3rd party. Ralph Nader has written extensively on this. They chained Jill Stein to a chair to keep her from speaking at the debates! After John Anderson and Ross Perot tried, the Dems and GOP locked 3rd parties out. That needs to change.
How typical—when logic and facts fail, go for the gratuitous ad hominem. Are you asserting that what we have here IS working for the 99%?
Here’s a post from yesterday.
I find Bernie’s warmed over tepid liberal reforms to be pathetic. Reduce the power of superdelegates? Why not eliminate them? as they were instituted precisely to prevent genuinely progressive nominees from winning the nomination. Open primaries? Fine, I’m for that, but…The party needs to embrace ending the empire, ending the permanent wars, legislating Single Payer health care, strengthening Social Security and/or instituting a Universal Basic Income, and a Green New Deal to move toward a renewable-energy based economy asap.
I don’t know who is fooled by this crap. I’m not voting DemoCrap or Republican ever again. In fact, we need to wake up and face the fact that voting, at least at the presidential level, is a big waste of time, at least for people with genuinely progressive values. You’ll get who the oligarchs have predetermined you’ll get. #NoMoreFakeDemocracy____
YES! This was the point I wanted to make here. I have had discussions here with more than a few Progressive purists saying that Bernie or others on the left running on the Democratic Party ticket is a cop out. But the reality is, if you have third, fourth, fifth, etc… parties on the ballot, it usually results in Republican victories. Especially because there are so many different species of left from Republicans to compete with each other and water down the effectiveness of the non Republican vote. This whole direction of having one Republican Party on the right and multiple parties splitting the voters on the left has always ended up with Republican victories.
Apathy toward voting among the Democrat/ left side of the spectrum led directly to Hillary’s loss in 2016. She had a well known insider name associated with Bill’s scandal. The 2014 and 2016 elections both demonstrated Democrat apathy toward voting that gave Republicans control of congress and the White House. That is the issue that needs to be addressed.
Brand D losses in 2014 and 2016 have diddly-squat to do with “Bill’s scandal,” and everything to do with (A) Obama’s fecklessness and (B) Hillary’s throwing of Berniecrats under the bus, respectively. A pox on both D and R houses.