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

[jotathought]

Many Americans are low information voters -- especially on the Democrat side. They know more about sports and pop culture than they do about politics and voting. All you have to do is look at the current declining rates of public education (ruled by Democrat policies), social media tech platforms (ruled by Democrats) and the media (ruled by Democrats) to answer the question of why people don't vote for good candidates.

Democrats don't care who you vote for .. as long as they maintain the power. Retarded Fetterman, Hiden' Biden and Venn Diagram Harris are perfect examples.

 

[initforme]

You mean rich LAWYERS!!!

Not even pond scum sinks so low.

And business people too. Time for a regular working person who knows what hard work is.

 

[dblack]

I really do think ranked choice voting would be a big help. Of course we can't rely on the Ds or Rs to champion it, so it's strictly grass-roots effort for now, but progress is being made.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Many Americans are low information voters -- especially on the Democrat side. They know more about sports and pop culture than they do about politics and voting. All you have to do is look at the current declining rates of public education (ruled by Democrat policies), social media tech platforms (ruled by Democrats) and the media (ruled by Democrats) to answer the question of why people don't vote for good candidates.

Democrats don't care who you vote for .. as long as they maintain the power. Retarded Fetterman, Hiden' Biden and Venn Diagram Harris are perfect examples.

It is so cute how you think your beloved Repubs are some how different.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Probably the primary process. Primary voters tend to be the most politically extreme.

 

[jotathought]

It is so cute how you think your beloved Repubs are some how different.

I don't .. Republicans nominate ridiculous candidates .. but it's also just fact that Democrats control many of the establishments including big tech platforms, media and education -- all components that curate voters for elections.

 

[1srelluc]

Meh, I'm voting for DeSantis in the primary.

 

[initforme]

If faced with the last elections choices I'm sitting the next one out. They aren't worthy of my vote.

 

[dblack]

If faced with the last elections choices I'm sitting the next one out. They aren't worthy of my vote.

Don't sit it out, vote for someone who is worthy of your vote! There's usually someone on the ballot who's worth a shit, and if there's not, write someone in.

And no, it's not a "waste" to vote for someone who probably won't win. It's far, far more productive that voting for a shitty candidate "because everyone else is".

 

[CowboyTed]

I really do think ranked choice voting would be a big help. Of course we can't rely on the Ds or Rs to champion it, so it's strictly grass-roots effort for now, but progress is being made.

Ranked choice...
Is the solution but GOP is dead against it and Democrats have shown more support but generally Turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving...

It increases the full choice with voters allowed to vote with out spoiling there vote.

 

[CowboyTed]

Probably the primary process. Primary voters tend to be the most politically extreme.

Again Ranked Choice/ Preference voting with multi-seat districts puts an effective end to all that...

Either of the big parties would be running 2-3 candidates in each district...

Parties usually run one more than expected seats because :
Has an extra campaigner out there pushing their party line
Extra in the Debate
Gets name recognition for a possible future (also tests the ground)
Both candidates ask for the first for them shelves and no.2 to goto their running mate.

 

[Mac1958]

"And how can we fix it?"

Get the money game out

That's certainly a big part of it. Our system needs to be fixed before it's too late.

The problems are, obviously, that those who could fix it don't want to, and too much of the country doesn't care enough to make them.

And then we wonder why we can't find good people.

 

[justoffal]

It seems for the most part nobody worth voting for will even run for national office, especially POTUS, due to not being willing to put themselves and the families though the forth coming attacks.

No matter which party you belong to, if you run you will automatically have 1/3 or more of the country instantly hate you and attack everything you do. Your family will be fair game and any mistake you made in your life will be brought to the light of day for the whole world to know about.

Well said....
Every POTUS that I can recall had had his personal life torn to shreds mercilessly.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

That's certainly a big part of it. Our system needs to be fixed before it's too late.

The problems are, obviously, that those who could fix it don't want to, and too much of the country doesn't care enough to make them.

And then we wonder why we can't find good people.

Political parties should be illegal. They are and continue to be the real problem.

 

[dblack]

Again Ranked Choice/ Preference voting with multi-seat districts puts an effective end to all that...

Either of the big parties would be running 2-3 candidates in each district...

Parties usually run one more than expected seats because :
Has an extra campaigner out there pushing their party line
Extra in the Debate
Gets name recognition for a possible future (also tests the ground)
Both candidates ask for the first for them shelves and no.2 to goto their running mate.

There's no reason at all, other than partisan paranoia, to think RCV would benefit one side more than the other. With RCV, Clinton wouldn't have been elected. That's right, most of the people who voted Perot would have picked Bush for their second choice and he Bush would have won instead. No Bill, no Hillary, no Monica.

RCV gets rid of the spoiler effect. Trumpsters are convinced the spoiler effect impacts Democrats more than them, so they want it to remain the status quo. That's the ONLY reason they oppose it. They don't give a single shit that it's an obvious flaw in the system that produces worse and worse results.

 

[CowboyTed]

There's no reason at all, other than partisan paranoia, to think RCV would benefit one side more than the other. With RCV, Clinton wouldn't have been elected. That's right, most of the people who voted Perot would have picked Bush for their second choice and he Bush would have won instead. No Bill, no Hillary, no Monica.

RCV gets rid of the spoiler effect. Trumpsters are convinced the spoiler effect impacts Democrats more than them, so they want it to remain the status quo. That's the ONLY reason they oppose it. They don't give a single shit that it's an obvious flaw in the system that produces worse and worse results.

They see the numbers which has them loosing on the major issues... That is why they drive the wedge issues (e.g. Abortion, LGTQ, CRT...) or personal politics (Biden's Age, Harris's pervious dating....).. These are hard issues to win when there is a rush to the middle...

RCV politics is about winning transfers.. The case in these races are 'Are you Transfer friendly?' Especially in multi-seat districts... If you spend your time attacking others you loose that transfer friendly appeal.. You win favour with your base but appeals less to your non core.

What is would give is a better chance is to moderates... It also changes the way coverage happens as well, moderates want moderate well informed public... Equal time for each side and less polarising coverage and they bring in laws to encourage this especially around misinformation and deliberate lying in certain media quarters..

 

[Kosh]

"And how can we fix it?"

Get the money game out

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–155 (text) (PDF), 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356), commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA (/ˈbɪkrə/ BIK-ruh), is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

 

[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.

Whe had a great candidate. Best president in my lifetime. Then I get Democrats played their Covid games

 

[dblack]

They see the numbers which has them loosing on the major issues... That is why they drive the wedge issues (e.g. Abortion, LGTQ, CRT...) or personal politics (Biden's Age, Harris's pervious dating....).. These are hard issues to win when there is a rush to the middle...

RCV politics is about winning transfers.. The case in these races are 'Are you Transfer friendly?' Especially in multi-seat districts... If you spend your time attacking others you loose that transfer friendly appeal.. You win favour with your base but appeals less to your non core.

What is would give is a better chance is to moderates... It also changes the way coverage happens as well, moderates want moderate well informed public... Equal time for each side and less polarising coverage and they bring in laws to encourage this especially around misinformation and deliberate lying in certain media quarters..

It's essentially the same thing that several states are already doing with runoff elections. In those, if no candidate has a majority on the first round, they drop bottom candidates and vote again. RCV just saves us the trouble of holding another vote, and lets you specify how you'd vote in those runoffs, should they happen.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

It boils down to this: Only a stupid idiot moron would want to be president so we only get stupid idiot morons running for president. The only qualification for the job is being OK with wearing a shirt that says kick me on the back. Oh yeah, I forgot, you have to be US citizen and you have to be at least 37.