Why is our system producing 2 weak canididates?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Its pretty close to objectively clear that, unless something significant changes, our viable options for president will both be very weak.


The vast majority of Americans believe both likely candidates are poor choices and express that they would like better choices...


What is it about our system that produces this effect? Why wouldn't we get better choices and what systemic changes can/should we make to get better presidential and other political choices?




To me a huge part of the problem is cultural idea that these choices are binary. There are in fact a huge number of passable condonations of issue stances and ideologies that we could present and have a robust debate over, but somehow we are stuck in this binary choice where almost always certain issues must be packaged with other only tangentially related issues.

Does Pro-LIfe always have to travel with lower taxes? These two ideas are not very well connected, but they seem to ALWAYS travel together. One could argue that the party that wants less government would want lower taxes and LESS regulation over abortion. Why does prayer in school run with less funding for education?

I can make an argument both ways why these issues are/are not naturally bundled together, so why are they so tightly bound? Is it marketing?


What can we do to create more options and a better mix of positions.

I believe our DEMOCRACY would be stronger if we could break this system of binary choices and get a better mix of issue bundling and more than two sides of every issue represented.


The European Parliamentary system seems to be one option, where after an election several parties often have to build a power sharing coalition and build a government. Any thoughts on this or other ideas?
 
We love to talk about our democracy yet are quite content with the two parties basically colluding to keep out any competition. So that creates a culture and mindset where people say "if you vote third party/independent then you are throwing your vote away" which only adds to the two party's power.

Now I don't know that the European system is the answer either. I love the idea of the No Labels party which is a bi-partisan mix of people. Of course with a group like that many of us will find some positions we like and others we don't (likely far more than we do with whichever party we are currently a member of) but if given a shot it will allow people to determine are they as fed up with the two party system (as many polls claim) or is it a case of the grass is greener and in reality the status quo is fine?
 
Jarod said:
Its pretty close to objectively clear that, unless something significant changes, our viable options for president will both be very weak.


The vast majority of Americans believe both likely candidates are poor choices and express that they would like better choices...


What is it about our system that produces this effect? Why wouldn't we get better choices and what systemic changes can/should we make to get better presidential and other political choices?




To me a huge part of the problem is cultural idea that these choices are binary. There are in fact a huge number of passable condonations of issue stances and ideologies that we could present and have a robust debate over, but somehow we are stuck in this binary choice where almost always certain issues must be packaged with other only tangentially related issues.

Does Pro-LIfe always have to travel with lower taxes? These two ideas are not very well connected, but they seem to ALWAYS travel together. One could argue that the party that wants less government would want lower taxes and LESS regulation over abortion. Why does prayer in school run with less funding for education?

I can make an argument both ways why these issues are/are not naturally bundled together, so why are they so tightly bound? Is it marketing?


What can we do to create more options and a better mix of positions.

I believe our DEMOCRACY would be stronger if we could break this system of binary choices and get a better mix of issue bundling and more than two sides of every issue represented.


The European Parliamentary system seems to be one option, where after an election several parties often have to build a power sharing coalition and build a government. Any thoughts on this or other ideas?
Click to expand...

You have to look beyond the candidates and look at the party. Presidents surround themselves with intelligent, experienced advisors. They make decisions after talking to their advisors and others. Which candidate is more likely to listen to and heed the words of his advisors?
Which party would you rather have power? A party with the likes of Marjorie Traitor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boobert, Paul Gosar, George Santos, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Jim Jordan? Or the Democratic Party.

Fat-Trump-Funnygif.gif
 
Jarod said:
Its pretty close to objectively clear that, unless something significant changes, our viable options for president will both be very weak.


The vast majority of Americans believe both likely candidates are poor choices and express that they would like better choices...


What is it about our system that produces this effect? Why wouldn't we get better choices and what systemic changes can/should we make to get better presidential and other political choices?




To me a huge part of the problem is cultural idea that these choices are binary. There are in fact a huge number of passable condonations of issue stances and ideologies that we could present and have a robust debate over, but somehow we are stuck in this binary choice where almost always certain issues must be packaged with other only tangentially related issues.

Does Pro-LIfe always have to travel with lower taxes? These two ideas are not very well connected, but they seem to ALWAYS travel together. One could argue that the party that wants less government would want lower taxes and LESS regulation over abortion. Why does prayer in school run with less funding for education?

I can make an argument both ways why these issues are/are not naturally bundled together, so why are they so tightly bound? Is it marketing?


What can we do to create more options and a better mix of positions.

I believe our DEMOCRACY would be stronger if we could break this system of binary choices and get a better mix of issue bundling and more than two sides of every issue represented.


The European Parliamentary system seems to be one option, where after an election several parties often have to build a power sharing coalition and build a government. Any thoughts on this or other ideas?
Click to expand...

You make some valid points but like most of your posts there's a lot of bullshit. Is calling America a democracy akin to your preferred pronoun, it's not true but you feel it so that makes it true? I do however agree we need more than 2 parties. I never liked the parliamentary system. We can't get 2 parties to work together left alone having more being added. Besides Democrats rarely work with anyone.

I think the main reason we don't have stronger candidates is the overwhelmingly biased coverage of candidates. Why would any healthy minded person want to put themselves through the wringer that is the main stream media? I have a challenge for you to prove my point, find me a citation from a main stream media source that uses the term "left wing extremist" when referring to a democrat.
 
Last edited:
Washington himself warned about the threat of political parties

Due to the sharp divide in the country, which I’d say was put on steroids by our information sources, actual issues have taken on less relevance. If where you go for news or opinion, be it the media or social media, if that source is selling melodrama, which many do to attack attention, the good guy bad guy scenario is bound to surface

I almost agree with the Parliamentary structure, would allow for varying ideologies to exist and compete on their principles while having to compromise inorder to get anything done. The problem there though, as it is here, especially today, people get obstinate, their way or the highway, so even if it risks damaging the country, they won’t compromise
 
archives said:
Washington himself warned about the threat of political parties

Due to the sharp divide in the country, which I’d say was put on steroids by our information sources, actual issues have taken on less relevance. If where you go for news or opinion, be it the media or social media, if that source is selling melodrama, which many do to attack attention, the good guy bad guy scenario is bound to surface

I almost agree with the Parliamentary structure, would allow for varying ideologies to exist and compete on their principles while having to compromise inorder to get anything done. The problem there though, as it is here, especially today, people get obstinate, their way or the highway, so even if it risks damaging the country, they won’t compromise
Click to expand...

You agree with me that the lack of compromise occurs on both sides of the aisle, correct?
 
Joe Capitalist said:
You have to look beyond the candidates and look at the party. Presidents surround themselves with intelligent, experienced advisors. They make decisions after talking to their advisors and others. Which candidate is more likely to listen to and heed the words of his advisors?
Which party would you rather have power? A party with the likes of Marjorie Traitor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boobert, Paul Gosar, George Santos, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Jim Jordan? Or the Democratic Party.

Fat-Trump-Funnygif.gif
Click to expand...

Yeah you cockroaches love Robert byrd George Wallace talib and Omar. Very good
 
the 'system' is able to do this because a majority of our populace has been dumbed down to the point of reacting in terror about what the 'other side' would do if they win. Look at the 2016 election. Trump was saying 'vote for me or you'll end up with hillary', and vice versa.........hillary was saying 'vote for me or you'll end up with trump............with that kind of rampant fear in people, it's easy for two political parties to collude and take power away from people. Even now you are on this board saying 'god bless president biden' when you can clearly see that he's just as awful as trump ever was..........but you don't care about that because you live in fear over what the republicans might do, should they have power.
 
Jarod said:
Its pretty close to objectively clear that, unless something significant changes, our viable options for president will both be very weak.


The vast majority of Americans believe both likely candidates are poor choices and express that they would like better choices...


What is it about our system that produces this effect? Why wouldn't we get better choices and what systemic changes can/should we make to get better presidential and other political choices?




To me a huge part of the problem is cultural idea that these choices are binary. There are in fact a huge number of passable condonations of issue stances and ideologies that we could present and have a robust debate over, but somehow we are stuck in this binary choice where almost always certain issues must be packaged with other only tangentially related issues.

Does Pro-LIfe always have to travel with lower taxes? These two ideas are not very well connected, but they seem to ALWAYS travel together. One could argue that the party that wants less government would want lower taxes and LESS regulation over abortion. Why does prayer in school run with less funding for education?

I can make an argument both ways why these issues are/are not naturally bundled together, so why are they so tightly bound? Is it marketing?


What can we do to create more options and a better mix of positions.

I believe our DEMOCRACY would be stronger if we could break this system of binary choices and get a better mix of issue bundling and more than two sides of every issue represented.


The European Parliamentary system seems to be one option, where after an election several parties often have to build a power sharing coalition and build a government. Any thoughts on this or other ideas?
Click to expand...

Americans are sold on the idea that they should have a voice in choosing POTUS.

Election to the Oval Office reasonably requires a majority--
we can't have an executive presiding that more than half the electorate opposed--

and a majority is only attainable, fringe candidates notwithstanding, with a BINARY choice.
Three truly viable candidates, no majority, no president chosen via election.

Americans don't appear ready to accept the constitutional next step.

And here is yet another way that our founders screwed with a stupidly designed, grossly inefficient form of government.

A simple parliamentary representative democracy would have worked fine,
but we have our federal system shit show
and the republic probably won't survive it for much longer.
 
You have to be kind of crazy to want to run for President.

Biggest flaw in our system, imo. No one who is really intelligent wants to go through what it takes to campaign for President now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top