Why Can't the Major Parties Produce Good Candidates? Why Can't We Elect Good Candidates?

[Blues Man]

We produce selfish, ignorant egotistical politicians with no vision because we as Americans are selfish, ignorant and egotistical with no vision.

It's really that simple and it is sad that this is the best we can do.

 

[sartre play]

I voted for a Libertarian in a state election, both the Dem & the Rep running had nothing of value,
It takes a lot of time & effort to try and find those who will ad least try and work for the people.

Have you EVER actually voted for libertarian?

I didn't think so.

 

[my2¢]

I'm for non-partisan elections using ranked choice voting.

 

[dblack]

I'm for non-partisan elections using ranked choice voting.

RCV would be a genuine improvement. But the two dominant parties will fight that tooth and nail. We have to stop voting for them first.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thank you for this rational post.

glad to be of help....

 

[sartre play]

Trump had several right ideas. Just not enough to overcome all the unhinged garbage.

We need, now more than ever, leadership that unites us. Neither party seems capable or, or even interested in, nominating such a candidate.

Unite Us..... That's the winner.

 

[jc456]

I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?

In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.

There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.

Dude, it’s money. Come on man

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The real problem is that people who are in third parties tend to be nuts...

That and people in third parties are fundamentally Republicans and conservatives, offering no real difference or options – the tea party being the most recent example.

They may differ from Republicans on one or two issues – such as being isolationists – but in essence they advocate for the same failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

Indeed, that’s why Ross Perot was a spoiler for GHWB, Perot voters where overwhelmingly Republican and conservative.

 

[Blues Man]

That and people in third parties are fundamentally Republicans and conservatives, offering no real difference or options – the tea party being the most recent example.

They may differ from Republicans on one or two issues – such as being isolationists – but in essence they advocate for the same failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

Indeed, that’s why Ross Perot was a spoiler for GHWB, Perot voters where overwhelmingly Republican and conservative.

The Tea Party is just a fringe group within the Republican Party . It does not put up it's own candidates to run against republicans but rather just endorses republicans that are already running so it's not really a 3rd party

 

[Hector12]

Trump was President for one term how the fuck can that be equated to a professional politician. Biden however fits the definition to a T. He has never had a real job and been a politician his entire adult life.

Trump claims that non professional politicians make better leaders. He proved with his example that this is not true.

Businessmen are used to being treated with deference. They are not used to being criticized openly by those beneath them in status. Politicians need to get used to that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again I say this, we need to return to the idea of citizen servants. Bring people in from the private sector, they serve one to two terms, max, and then return. Trump had the right idea, as did the Founders.

Wrong.

Trump was further proof that ‘citizen servants’ is a dreadful, disastrous idea.

The last thing we need are elected officials like Trump who are ignorant of the law, Constitution, and sound, responsible public policy.

Indeed, such individuals are likely to have contempt for responsible governance, the rule of law, and our democratic institution as clearly demonstrated by Trump.

The founders never advocated for that kind of incompetence.

 

[dblack]

Trump claims that non professional politicians make better leaders. He proved with his example that this is not true.

Businessmen are used to being treated with deference. They are not used to being criticized openly by those beneath them in status. Politicians need to get used to that.

Agreed. The notion that the skills required to run a business translate to politics is fundamentally flawed. The goals are entirely different.

 

[YoursTruly]

I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?

In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.

There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.

Because it's their game and their rules. They just let us believe we have something to do with it.

If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it.

 

[dblack]

Because it's their game and their rules. They just let us believe we have something to do with it.

If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it.

I used to think that way. But Trump's election proved otherwise.

 

[francoHFW]

I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?

In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.

There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.

The Democrat candidates are just fine and have plans for reform and helping the country (have been blocked since LBJ), whereas the New BS Reaganist GOP parrots conspiracies, votes for tax cuts on the rich only, is a catastrophe of Bologna. The GOP has also gerrymandered much worse than the Democrats, so really radical candidates being possibly elected like Bobert and Green who couldn't get elected in a normal district anywhere LOL.

I saw a survey a few years ago that said that 3% of the electorate make up their minds in the voting booth LOL. We have an electorate of brainwashed bozos on the right and way too many people who don't know what is going on at all. Mainstream media is NOT Democratic, it is rhino and corporate and they never mention the incredible inequality and terrible upward mobility we have after 40 years of giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. We need to tax the rich and invest in America again, like infrastructure and cheap college and training like every other modern country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because that's what every fucking Liberal wants. The GOP to completely cave in.

And this is why we have political conflict and dysfunction – such ridiculous fearmongering and lies coming from the right.

“But Democrats/liberals are as just as bad.”

Wrong.

‘Both sides’ are not ‘the same’; whatever the faults and failings of Democrats and liberals – and there are many – they don’t rise to the same level of dishonesty, falsehoods, and contempt for facts and the truth as practiced by conservatives.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?

In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.

There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.

We have many on the he Republican side. The PEOPLE have chosen.

 

[francoHFW]

Because it's their game and their rules. They just let us believe we have something to do with it.

If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it.

It has been so long since the Democrats could pass anything, since LBJ really, we are living in a new BSGOP Mess, hopefully 2024 will be the landslide we are desperate for.... There was Obama care, but that is A GOP big pharma big health scam and still didn't get any GOP votes LOL.... At least the poor have been helped....

 

[Flash]

Can you imagine how dumb somebody would have to be to have voted for Slick Willy, Moon Beam Gore, Gay Barry, Crooked Hillary or Joe Potatohead?

Of course McCain and Romney were RINO idiots, weren't they? The two Bush RINOs were Democrat Light.

 

[YoursTruly]

Can you imagine how dumb somebody would have to be to have voted for Slick Willy, Moon Beam Gore, Gay Barry, Crooked Hillary or Joe Potatohead?

Of course McCain and Romney were RINO idiots, weren't they? The two Bush RINOs were Democrat Light.

Slick Willie was more conservative than Trump.