A new poll captures just how dysfunctional our elections have become under the duopoly exercised by the two parties. Over half of the public say that they cannot support Trump, Cruz, or Clinton in the general election. Indeed, the two frontrunners, Trump and Clinton, have the highest negatives in their respective parties. The system has produced frontrunners that 6 out of 10 voters say they cannot support. If that is not an indictment of our current system, I am not sure what it takes to push toward reforms.
Sixty-eight percent said they cannot support Donald Trump, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz generates opposition at the level of 61 percent. Now over on the democratic side, Clinton is equally radioactive with many voters with 58 percent saying that they cannot support her. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (at 48 percent) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (at 47 percent) seem positively popular in comparison.
The poll captures why the public is so dissatisfied with the political system. The system has generated two frontrunners with record levels of opposition for the general and states like New York bar independents from even voting in the primary. Thus, independents (who are key to the victory in November) are barred from voting — a disadvantage for candidates like Sanders who overwhelmingly wins independents over Clinton.
Once again, the two parties appear poised to win the “lesser of two evils” contest by trashing the other candidate rather than advancing a candidate that truly resonates with a broad majority of Americans.
Ironically, both Kasich and Sanders do better against the opposing frontrunners in the general election. Indeed, where Clinton would defeat Cruz by just 2 points according to the poll, Sanders would defeat him by 12 points.
I am less interested in the merits of these candidates for the purposes of this story as I am the counterintuitive position of our modern elections. The least popular candidates are most likely to prevail in this bizarre process. While some may be satisfied with this process, most Americans are clearly not happy with the choices. Yet, the view of the majority seem entirely irrelevant to this supposedly democratic process. In addition to the reforms that I proposed earlier, one obvious way to avoid such a disconnect with the public is to change rules like those in New York barring independent voters from primary choices. One would think that parties would want to advance candidates with broader support into the general. However, barring the rising number of independent voters is a way to protect incumbents and the party establishment. The result is this shocking poll.
There are other people running for president. Some how we have to have the courage to go outside the box. We have one political party with 2 wings.
Given that Gallup’s research reveals that in 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in ten U.S. adults identified as political independents (with 29% identifying as Democrats and 26% as Republicans), the right of a MAJORITY of Americans, having neither a Democratic or Republican affiliation, to vote in closed primaries such as New York’s are effectively being denied their constitutional right to vote.
I have zero faith in the integrity in the country’s voting apparatus. The elephant in the room is, of course, the Diebold et al. proprietary software voting machines, where tampering with the vote totals is apparently quite easy and where software is written to “eat up” the evidence within the software from which tampering took place. And despite hard evidence of these machines erroneously giving the winning votes to the wrong candidate, NOTHING IS DONE. Astounding.
I no longer am shocked at the myriad ways in which both the Republican and Democratic parties and their operatives work to suppress Americans’ voting rights. Yes, it’s a rigged system, and while getting money out of the election process is crucial, even if that were achieved, the games of suppression would just continue in other ways. And, the Diebold, et al. machines would still be in place even without the destructive effect that money has had on the election process.
“We have only one political party in the United States with two right wings.”—Gore Vidal
Paul Schulte: You’re right in the broad sense of discriminate. I believe all organizations and all humans discriminate. As an example, I prefer steak to liver, and I definitely discriminate between the two when both are available on the menu. However, I used the term in a single sentence that deals with membership, not the overall positions of the parties. I could have used “illegally discriminate,” but that would constrain my point. In fact, in every place I have lived and registered to vote–and that’s many–the parties weren’t involved in the registration process, so the parties couldn’t discriminate.
po
My response was held in moderation because of links.
Asked and answered.
KF
After you ask and answer internally, you must share it with us, outwardly.
“you appeal to authority”
You misused the phrase, which refers to the logical fallacy where “the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.”
It does not mean one cannot cite an authority on the subject of their expertise.
Such a claim is ludicrous on its face.
“Frankly, I don’t know where to start”
As you appear to know little or nothing about the topic of socialism, you should start with at least this book:
Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik
I will not do your homework for you however.
“I asked some questions you refuse to answer…”
No, you did not.
I ask an elementary question…..if the reason for 1237 is to ensure “majority support” at least within the party….how does winner take all do that? How does colorado or wyomong do that? If the rnc holds primaies at all…..with 1237….why? This is a basic wm question….what is the 1237 suppose to mean? Where does 1237 get it’s meaning? They can say 1237 is a rnc rule…..for “majority” support….which begs a majority of who? Bootstraps? Or voters. That is if colorado and wyoming et al. Never polled thev pppl then a majority of what? Fine let the grand old party pick their candidate, those 2800 willl be out numbered a thousand to one in the general. Why they playing with matches? I hate hilkarray….but i will vote for her if the gop forgets the ppl. Because if you wont listen now youll never listen,..so i might as well join em, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And maybe my house vote will count. Ya know bobby bright wasn’t. The last blue dog. We can still take our country back. Fantasy land forsure…..then again my coworker told me about 911 three years out.
You’ve offered nothing in rebuttal.
Frankly, I don’t know where to start, so much of it is wrong.
I asked some questions you refuse to answer…that would at lead us somewhere.
Although you clearly present the problem, your proposed solution is far off target. Keep in mind political parties are first, foremost, always, and forever private associations. If people aren’t members, and independents are not, they don’t get a say (vote in this case) in how the associations function. It’s inconceivable–and I doubt you’d advocate–for nonmembers to create rules and vote in NAACP, NRA, or any other private organizations’ elections. Here’s a better approach: Voters who want a say in the candidate selection process should register in the party of their choice and then vote. If, however, they want to remain registered as independents, they should establish The Independent Party (or name of their choice), run candidates, and vote in their private association. Finally know that the two major parties don’t discriminate, and they charge no membership fee to join as a registered voter. Absent registering with a party, independents need to accept their roles as voters in the general elections–and leave the primaries to others.
ATCCCCX – both parties discriminate. We, the voters, have found that out in this election.
Invincibly ignorant you remain.
Said the guy confusing communism, fascism, democratic socialism and nationalism…
Keep reading, and please, comprehend what you read 🙂
Those books should clear up your errors.
Considering they might have created your errors, I’ll pass.
Thank you though.
“I am lost.”
I advise instruction.
Start here:
The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History
by Robert Conquest
and
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
by Jean-Louis Panné
Thanks for the reading recommendation, FC, but I am not lost ,historically, I am lost in your argument 🙂
“He’s not a corporatist..”
He’ll be bowing to them just as deep as Obama did.
You’ll see.
Yep that committee on UnAmerican Activities was really great wasn’t it and soooo American.
Bernie isn’t a communist..he’s a Democratic Solicalist. He’s not a corporatist and that’s good enough for me.
“Yes, Bernie is indeed a fascist????!!!!!!”
A national socialist favoring a country run by crony capitalists is, indeed, a fascist.
Unless you are arguing that Sanders is going to nationalize all US industries.
KCF, you are offering the definitions, you are selecting the ahistorical sources and misusing them, you are the one deriving false conclusions from your own premises, you are the one conflating different things and then argumenting against those premises.
You are arguing that Bernie’, because/despite (being) he is a communist wont nationalize the industries in spite of the fact that as a fascist, he will/won’t nationalize the industries?
Is bernie a fascist or a communist?
I am lost.
“Oh, I guess then China does not exist!”
China favors international communism, and exports it however they can.
They support North Korea, for example.
I do not think you understand these concepts very well.
You did not explain them very well…:)
So now there is a difference between unpracticed communism and practiced communism?
Communists, good social justice warriors that they are, always lie.
Even about being communists.
DSA is a commie organization.
“Democratic socialism” is a communist front term, because frankly no-one likes commies. Not even other commies.
There’s little difference between communism and national socialism, except the former claims to be for ‘international’ political control with gulags, while the latter are happy with national political control and gulags.
Like arguing between the terms ‘serial killer’ and ‘mass murderer’.