Strategic Party Affiliation
- Thread starter stfoskey12
- Start date
-
- Tags
- political party
You're making it more complicated than it is. The joke was just about the phrase itself.
Its kindof a "yeah that's what she said" or "Haha!.. You said X..." joke.
I do not see how honour comes in to it at all. One is an arguably wrong administrative requirement for you to exercise your democratic right how you wish, and the other is about how you spend your free time. I do not see how they should interact at all.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
You don't see how it's more honorable to declare your identity to be the thing you do and support?
Not if it means giving up some of the small amount of power you are allowed in this world.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Please break it down.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I don't understand the concept of political affiliation. When each election rolls around I look at the candidates, their platforms, and the strategic situation in my riding. This all determines how I will vote. Politics isn't a sport, why would I throw my hat in the ring of one political party and ignore everything else? That just dumbs it all down and doesn't really seem conductive to the democratic process.
Yes, I understand that in the U.S. you need to be a part of a party to vote in primaries. That just seems backwards to me. Let the parties decide who the candidates are and let me vote on them in the election. Forcing people to throw their hat in the ring of a political party well ahead of time just seems like something that will divide people into sports-like camps, which seems backwards to me. How are you supposed to objectively discuss political issues when your mind is already made up even before you've heard what the political issue is or before you understand any of it?
I've never been affiliated with any one political party and I never will be. I'm not buying into that silly game.
Yes, I understand that in the U.S. you need to be a part of a party to vote in primaries. That just seems backwards to me. Let the parties decide who the candidates are and let me vote on them in the election. Forcing people to throw their hat in the ring of a political party well ahead of time just seems like something that will divide people into sports-like camps, which seems backwards to me. How are you supposed to objectively discuss political issues when your mind is already made up even before you've heard what the political issue is or before you understand any of it?
I've never been affiliated with any one political party and I never will be. I'm not buying into that silly game.
I think it is worse than that. In much of the US to have any power at the primary stage you have to publicly declare support for one party or other. From the UK, where any attempt at making your vote public is strictly against the law it seems really strange.
I think I can answer this a bit more formally.
Axioms:
- Utilitarianism
- stfoskey12 is left of the average Oklahoma voter
- stfoskey12 believes left politics will maximise utility
- Doing the honourable thing is choosing the path that maximises utility
- Registering as Republican maximises the power one has, in that it increases the amount of influence one has over the decisions made by the state
Logic:
- Registering as Republican allows one to direct decisions to be more left
- Decisions being more left increases utility
- Therefore registering as Republican is choosing the path that increases utility
- Therefore registering as Republican is the honourable thing to do
Klaus Hergersheimer
Emperor
It's evidence that political parties in the US are, structurally, quite weak organizations in actuality. That anyone who registers a few weeks before a primary (if not that same day) gets to decide the nominee. It's just that they have strong name-brand recognition like Coke v Pepsi.
I don't know why I hear complaints that the ''Founding Fathers would be disappointed that we have political parties''. They would've seen two big camps whose members just lead them around by the nose. Discipline means nothing, platforms are nothing. A few big influencers with a lot of money mean everything.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Why don't the parties themselves decide who their nominee should be? i.e. those who have been elected into office already. Do they not trust other party members to do a good job of that? It seems to me that all of them would have the same goal in mind - to pick someone who has the best chance of winning for their party, which would help all of them. Meanwhile a primary can be a bit unpredictable, can't it?
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
I have a coworker who did this in the lead up to 2016 to try to stop Trump, and she still gets GOP political mail to this day, in addition to all her Dem political mail. Not worth it. That stuff is incredibly annoying.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Sure, but he also said:
Because somewhere there is an intuitive understanding that identity should be worn cleanly.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The Democratic Party is the democratic party. We opt in as party members and then democratically decide who we want to represent our democratically assigned values.
From there, we agree to support the candidate with our collective resources as a party, with labor, volunteering, money, access, everything.
And the parties do more than just run candidates. The people who want democracy, the Democrats, want to share and build an institution that is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. And we don't want random party insiders deciding who we're going to follow. Like, I didn't want Biden at all. He turned out great. I didn't want him to step down, but it's turning out great. I'm pretty smart and "know" politics and that's a couple of big misses. Thank God. The crowd, the demos, generally knows better than individual smart experts. We believe that we are the institution that best protects America from bad actors, and we are stronger as instution, and we are more correct staying democratic and voting for who we believe in.
We don't want to only elect selected nobility, even if one could argue that Harris is that. But she was our VP we voted for and this moment is rather unusual.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Reminds me of the NYRB emails I still get to this day just because I attended a soccer game at their stadium once. No, I am not interested in season tickets. Each time I get one of those emails I feel like I've wronged my team somehow. Only they should be emailing me.. Am I a traitor? Surely not, but a bit of that feeling is there. Maybe that's how your friend feels.
The phrase "honorable as a Democrat". He regards that as an oxymoron, and was mocking it as such. That's it. That's the joke.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
Here is a local news article describing them. Neither one stands out, except Mike Whaley seems extremely religious.
HD 20 runoff: Former firefighter faces retired OSSAA executive in Newcastle, Blanchard area
Coming out of Oklahoma's June 18 Republican primary, HD 20 candidates Jonathan Wilk and Mike Whaley are competing in a Aug. 27, 2024, runoff.
nondoc.com
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
ack im still on ignore
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
I just want to say that you and Samson basically summed up my internal debate very well.
