A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

the goal of parties has been to make public what persons of common values intend by way of joint exercise.

Can't see why a lack of formal parties changes that. Joe Schmo, Stan Whatsis, Rosie Palm, and Leo Lion, all have to get their keisters out and campaign. They have to advertise themselves and their positions . They have to contrast themselves with their opponents. They may participate in debates with their opponents. And they have to do all this, and more, whether or not formal parties exist.

That works well at the very local level. How big a country do you hope to live in, though? Just one town? One parish? One state? Or a whole country? At each level, it's going to require the coordination of more functionaries. And "party" just means that these people agree to coordinate their efforts in service of a common goal that can be realized only at the larger level.

They can specify what that goal should be. And I agree that in a democratic situation, they owe it to the electorate to do that. But whether it's an individual, a small party or a big one doesn't really seem to me to matter so much as what this "common goal" is that they set out to serve.

Without formal parties nuthin' really changes except, as I say, most of the behind-close-doors wheelin' & dealin' the average citizen is not privy to, can't participate in, and has no effect on, goes away. There are no political machines formally callin' the shots. There's no pre-made schtick for a candidate to shelter behind. Things become clean (well, cleaner) and clarified. The voters still vote, the candidates still sell themselves, power brokers still broker ('cept now they have to be open and public about it).

I agree that all these pernicious side-effects happen within parties. But we're dealing with a trade-off situation: how much of a risk of that are we willing to accept, so that we can get coordination aimed at common projects and goals? Whatever we decide, we're going to end up living with something perilous and less than ideal. So we need to decide what kind of trade-offs we're willing to make.

For example, it might be quite possible for a single, solo candidate to manage affairs in your town. Let's call him the "mayor." But it's not possible for this mayor to negotiate the building of a road to the next town without coordinating something with the next town's mayor. And it's not possible for them to have a state network of roads, services and economics without coordinating with all kinds of other mayors. And no matter how many mayors there are in the state, they're not capable of defending a whole subcontinent against an aggressive power...and so on. So we have to decide what we're willing to accept by way of party coordination, in order to get roads, militaries, foreign policies, trade agreements...and in some cases, even fresh water or basic necessities.

That's just life: less than ideal, and always a trade-off. What the key is, is to make good trade-offs and win more than you lose.

The only drawback for voters: we have to give up not payin' attention.

Yes, that would be good. But it's far from the only drawback, if we can't manage coordination with other people and locales.

[henry quirk]

At each level, it's going to require the coordination of more functionaries. And "party" just means that these people agree to coordinate their efforts in service of a common goal that can be realized only at the larger level.

In context, party means a helluva lot more than that. And why do candidates need formal parties to organize their campaigns? Sure, parties offer preexisting structures and machine financing, makin' the whole process easier, but are those necessary? Doesn't, to my way of thinkin', seem so.

it might be quite possible for a single, solo candidate to manage affairs in your town

I didn't say diddly about such a situation.

Without formal parties, a president, governor, mayor, sheriff still gets elected as usual. Federal and state legislators still get elected as usual. What changes is all the folks we elect for these jobs get hired based on what they bring to the table (their philosophies, ideologies, etc.) not on how well any one of them fits into a prepackaged slot (sumthin' the party system excels at).

we have to decide what we're willing to accept by way of party coordination, in order to get roads, militaries, foreign policies, trade agreements...and in some cases, even fresh water or basic necessities.

How is coordination hampered without formal parties? Joe is elected governor, a whole whack of folks are elected to the upper and lower houses. How is the lack of a R or D behind their names a brake on coordination?

[Immanuel Can]

How is coordination hampered without formal parties?

Welll the party labels aren't important, of course. They do no work, except to serve as a shorthand for "these are the people who are promising X package of policies." But the policies are very important. And it's pretty handy to have a shorthand way of identifying which policies are going to be available to which voter for which vote. That's what the party labels are supposed to achieve...quick policy-recognition.

So let's say I am in the polling booth. Which checkbox supports my right to bear arms? Which one affirms my right to free speech? Which one guarantees that men will not be put in women's jails, restrooms and change rooms? Which one will be reforming education in my area? Which one is willing to fund the repair of the levees? Which one will bomb Russia or Ukraine? I want to vote for the policies I want enacted. But there are only names...so many names...for city, region, state and nation...for dog catcher and DA, for president and chair of the police board...

Is democracy served well if I don't know who I'm voting for, or what policies they all represent? Which candidates are sympathetic to each other in agenda, so they have a chance of coordinating large projects together? How do I know? But if I can't keep track of hundreds and hundreds of scattered names, each unattached to a specific package of policies, how am I to serve my personal interests?

Maybe all I can do, then, is vote for the one candidate in my area, my "mayor," and leave the rest to chance. But then, I've lost my ability to weigh in on regional, state and national policies which may well have a serious impact on me.

So party names help people orient themselves, in a superficial way, perhaps. Party policies are the key thing, though. I need to know what my vote will produce.

[henry quirk]

That's what the party labels are supposed to achieve...quick policy-recognition.

Any number of repubs, for example, support gun control, and any number of dems oppose gun control. The labels aren't worth spit as shorthand for policy or individual stances.

No, a voter actually has to interrogate, in some fashion, the candidate, and leave party behind.

hundreds and hundreds of scattered names

I don't know how it runs where you are, but, here, no election -- local, state, or national -- features hundreds and hundreds of scattered names. Sure, across all 50 states there might be a huge number, but, as a Louisiana citizen, I don't get to vote in the other 49 (and the citizens of the 49 don't get to vote in mine). I like the Pauls (Ron and Rand) but I don't live in Texas or Kentucky so I never could vote for either.

Anyway, here, gettin' to know candidates and their positions doesn't involve wadn' thru the resumes of hundreds and hundreds of scattered names. The list of who's on the ballot for any election is small. Really, here, there's no reason to rely on the shorthand of party to figure out who's who and what's what.

[Immanuel Can]

That's what the party labels are supposed to achieve...quick policy-recognition.

Any number of repubs, for example, support gun control, and any number of dems oppose gun control. The labels aren't worth spit as shorthand for policy or individual stances.

No, a voter actually has to interrogate, in some fashion, the candidate, and leave party behind.

hundreds and hundreds of scattered names

I don't know how it runs where you are, but, here, no election -- local, state, or national -- features hundreds and hundreds of scattered names. Sure, across all 50 states there might be a huge number, but, as a Louisiana citizen, I don't get to vote in the other 49 (and the citizens of the 49 don't get to vote in mine). I like the Pauls (Ron and Rand) but I don't live in Texas or Kentucky so I never could vote for either.

How many positions do you actually vote for? One American has posted that it's 34, for him; on the same site, another says 100, including a whole bunch of judges he doesn't know.

How many for you? And how many of them have you been able to interrogate personally? And for those you can't, what do you do? Do you skip voting at all for that person, or throw in a vote without knowing what you're going to end up supporting?

Honest question.

[henry quirk]

How many positions do you actually vote for?

Overall, across multiple cycles? Hell if I know.

One American has posted that it's 34, for him; on the same site, another says 100, including a whole bunch of judges he doesn't know.

Over multiple cycles it's possible. But if they're sayin' that in any particular election they have to vote in 34 or 100 different races, they're lyin'. Not even in Los Angles or New York, in either place's most chockablock election, is there gonna be 34 or 100 slots to fill at one time. You understand we have multiple elections spread out over a year, and cycles features different kinds of elections (prez every 4, senators every 6, reps every 2 years, etc). It's not a huge investment of time to know who's runnin' in any particular race.

And how many of them have you been able to interrogate personally?

I wrote, a voter actually has to interrogate, in some fashion, the candidate. In some fashion: that can be attending rallies, reading campaign material, doin' web searches. And, if the candidate has already served, you can look at his performance in office (how he voted while on the city council, etc). You don't have to actually talk to him (though it's good if you can).

And for those you can't, what do you do?

Never really been a problem for me.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a huge investment of time to know who's runnin' in any particular race.

But it must be, to know all their positions on all possible issued before casting your vote, especially if we sever them from any "party line" that you or I can expect to rely on.

And how many of them have you been able to interrogate personally?

I wrote, a voter actually has to interrogate, in some fashion, the candidate. In some fashion: that can be attending rallies, reading campaign material, doin' web searches. And, if the candidate has already served, you can look at his performance in office (how he voted while on the city council, etc). You don't have to actually talk to him (though it's good if you can).

That's one.

For how many can you do that much work? And can we reasonably anticipate that other voters will be similarly inclined to investigate?

[henry quirk]

to know all their positions on all possible issues

Ah, but you don't need to. All you need to know is his ethic. His ethic will undergird all his choices and how he uses his position and borrowed power.

If that's too diffuse a rule then get practical and pick that one issue that most, to you, exemplifies an ethic.

For example, my rule of thumb is *guns. A man who supports gun control more than likely will stand against me on everything else. I won't vote for him. One who opposes gun control will likely align with me on most things. I may vote for him.

It an't perfect, but gettin' to a man's ethic, and his practical exercise of his ethic, goes a long way.

can we reasonably anticipate that other voters will be similarly inclined to investigate?

You can't reasonably anticipate what others will do, full stop. Don't even try. Just do your leg work, tell others willin' to listen what you know, and then leave them be.

[Immanuel Can]

All you need to know is his ethic. His ethic will undergird all his choices and how he uses his position and borrowed power.

If that's too diffuse a rule then get practical and pick that one issue that most, to you, exemplifies an ethic.

For example, my rule of thumb is *guns. A man who supports gun control more than likely will stand against me on everything else. I won't vote for him. One who opposes gun control will likely align with me on most things. I may vote for him.

It an't perfect, but gettin' to a man's ethic, and his practical exercise of his ethic, goes a long way.

Yep, I think that's a good strategy, at least in a preliminary way. But is it enough?

It's not always easy to know a person's real ethics, though, especially from only a test issue. For example, a person might vote for gun rights only because he's a member for a rural area, where guns are valued for hunting, pest control, and other farm and country uses. In his personal ethics, he may despise guns, at the same time.

And yeah, that would be unethical for him to do, but it would also be all too common a kind of thing for a politician to do. For many politicians, ethics are at the service of the pragmatics of getting elected, not at the service of principle.

[henry quirk]

It's not always easy to know a person's real ethics, though, especially from only a test issue. For example, a person might vote for gun rights only because he's a member for a rural area, where guns are valued for hunting, pest control, and other farm and country uses. In his personal ethics, he may despise guns, at the same time.

A man at odds with himself always trips himself up...eventually. A liar always gets caught...eventually.

So, yeah, we can be fooled, but not forever, not if we're watchin'.

Anyway: it's a means that works for me, and not just with public servants. As I say: it ain't perfect, but gettin' to a man's ethic, and his practical exercise of his ethic, goes a long way.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway: it's a means that works for me, and not just with public servants. As I say: it ain't perfect, but gettin' to a man's ethic, and his practical exercise of his ethic, goes a long way.

Character...that's key. Too bad so few politicians have exhibited any.

[henry quirk]

Character...that's key. Too bad so few politicians have exhibited any.

It's the nature of politics, I'm afraid. It draws men who feel justified to seek power over others.

[Immanuel Can]

Character...that's key. Too bad so few politicians have exhibited any.

It's the nature of politics, I'm afraid. It draws men who feel justified to seek power over others.

Yes...hence the absolute necessity of things like term limits, public accountability, transparency, precise definitions of jurisdiction, prohibitions on insider trading, divesment regulations, and other such checks-and-balances on power.

[henry quirk]

Yes...hence the absolute necessity of things like term limits, public accountability, transparency, precise definitions of jurisdiction, prohibitions on insider trading, divesment regulations, and other such checks-and-balances on power.

And our constitution does that, directly & indirectly...as long as we do our job, which is: keepin' them reined in.

The second we trust 'em they screw us.

I think it was Jefferson who said government is a necessary evil. If so, we gotta keep our feet on their necks or they'll have theirs on ours.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let's talk about something everybody can agree on.

• Let's accept that both parties in the US have a continued interest in a two-party system, not a one-party or totalitarian one. That being so, both sides certainly should want the rival party to survive -- even if they, themselves, would wish to be the winner of every election from now until eternity.

• Let's further accept that the world has an interest in America remaining a democracy of at least two parties, and all voters have an interest in it, if for no better reason, than at least because they want to be able to vote, and voting means choosing among alternatives.

Okay: so everybody agrees that a party other than the current winner must survive. Fair enough?

• Furthermore, let us agree that things are not exactly working well for the Democrat Party right now. The last election, by the reckoning of both sides, was a total disaster for them. Somehow, their strategy was just not right -- assuming their goal was to win, which I think we can assume.

• And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices. Complaining about what the others do or did, whether voters or Republicans, is not going to make the Democrat Party any better or give them any advantage in coming elections. The blame-game will not pay off in terms of the future, but is likely to just repeat the past. Some new thing is needed.

All that is very hard to dispute, I think: no matter which party one might happen to favour, or none at all.

That being said, my question would be this: What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

IC, could you please reiterate the following:

And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices.

Thanks!