What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Traitorfish]

Gerrymandered safe seats produce primary battles increasingly in favor of 'purists' further from the center. I'm not sure how we can measure moderation or extremism in Congress without considering partisanship. Maybe the number and nature of laws passed by Congress would help but greater partisanship does indicate movement toward the extremes.

How far from the centre? Even candidates in gerrymandered seats still have to win primaries, then elections, so even with a favourable electoral they're still trying to assemble an electoral majority. The beneficiaries of gerrymandering are almost invariably the entrenched party leadership, who by dint of being an entrenched leadership do not tend to be very radical.

Or do you imagine that Boss Tweed was the most dangerous radical in the history of the United States?

 

[Patine]

How far from the centre? Even candidates in gerrymandered seats still have to win primaries, then elections, so even with a favourable electoral they're still trying to assemble an electoral majority. The beneficiaries of gerrymandering are almost invariably the entrenched party leadership, who by dint of being an entrenched leadership do not tend to be very radical.

Or do you imagine that Boss Tweed was the most dangerous radical in the history of the United States?

Ah, Tweed, and his Republican (and somewhat later, temporally) analog in 1800's New York City, Roscoe Conklin. Architects, pioneers, and innovators of American partisan politics and stolen and cheated elections.

 

[Berzerker]

How far from the centre? Even candidates in gerrymandered seats still have to win primaries, then elections, so even with a favourable electoral they're still trying to assemble an electoral majority. The beneficiaries of gerrymandering are almost invariably the entrenched party leadership, who by dint of being an entrenched leadership do not tend to be very radical.

Or do you imagine that Boss Tweed was the most dangerous radical in the history of the United States?

If a Republican closed primary was run in a gerrymandered safe district, would the winner reflect the overall state's center? No... If that primary was open for everyone would the nominee be closer to the center? Yes. One of the reasons party purists dont like open primaries is because it dilutes their voices in favor of the center.

How far can a party go? As far as the other side will allow with a corresponding move the other way. But if both sides let the purists pick their nominees at some point the middle becomes fertile ground for a centrist to challenge both parties. That prospect limits how far right or left the parties can go.

edited to clarify my 1st question

 

[Patine]

If a Republican closed primary was run in a gerrymandered safe district, would the winner reflect that population's center? No... If that primary was open for everyone would the nominee be closer to the center? Yes. One of the reasons party purists dont like open primaries is because it dilutes their voices in favor of the center.

How far can a party go? As far as the other side will allow with a corresponding move the other way. But if both sides let the purists pick their nominees at some point the middle becomes fertile ground for a centrist to challenge both parties. That prospect limits how far right or left the parties can go.

As I've been saying, the two-party system in the U.S. is rigged, corrupt, unrepresentative, and has cheated and stolen a lot of elections. Thus, logically, harsh judgements or praises of electoral wisdom based on which party an American voted for on the face value of the party in question - or condemning voters for "wasting a vote on a Third Party or Independent candidate, a write-in, or sitting at home," are not really as well-founded or fair as judgements as they would be in a true multi-party system, become Americans are robbed of true choice. But many people - including a number on these forums - don't see it that way, but in truth, they're the ones who have been hoodwinked. I mean really - Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton is such a monstrous and horrid choice, bankrupt of any ethics or palatability, that no First World electorate should ever have been straddled with. A true pick your poison of the worst sort. But even now, those who voted for the Smarmy Demon Lord (or just made protest vote for a Third Party, Independent, or write-in) are excoriated for not voting for the Duchess of Hell. A wretched situation, to be frank. This is why the American voters need to take back the ballot box from the corrupt party bosses and the plutocrats they kowtow to and bring real choice, transparency, and accountability of government (or, at least, as much as is possible, in truth). And to do this, an electoral revolt is needed - both the Democrats AND the Republicans have to lose the same election TOGETHER to send a message.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yeah that sounds really realistic in what is essentially an election with only two choices

 

[IglooDame]

And how do you get an electoral revolt when you have 30% of the population that will vote for the Republican candidate even if they're Donald Trump and 30% of the population that will vote for the Democratic candidate even if they're Hillary Clinton? The only true bipartisan cause is one that blocks any third parties. You think the Federal Election Commission (deliberately made up of half Rs and half Ds) is going to allow any voting mechanism that dilutes RNC/DNC strangleholds?

I'm with you in spirit, but an 'electoral revolt' seems pretty inconceivable right now, even with how Trump is eroding public faith in US democratic institutions lately.

 

[El_Machinae]

" millions of illegal voters"

That one unsourced claim of his was one of the scariest Call to Arms I've watched in real time. Obama and Kenya, weird hurricane directions, the ratio of criminal immigrants. All of them were weirdly terrible in their own way. But golly, that first Trump quote was scary

 

[amadeus]

The beneficiaries of gerrymandering are almost invariably the entrenched party leadership, who by dint of being an entrenched leadership do not tend to be very radical.

The only case where gerrymandering results in extremists is in the “victim” districts where all of that party’s voters have been corralled.

It’s simple math, but people that hear “gerrymandered district” somehow think that means the opposite of the result it ends up producing.

 

[Patine]

The only case where gerrymandering results in extremists is in the “victim” districts where all of that party’s voters have been corralled.

It’s simple math, but people that hear “gerrymandered district” somehow think that means the opposite of the result it ends up producing.

Any political party that gains the power of apportionment in a first-past-the-post system can (and usually does) gerrymander. Where I live, in the Canadian Province of Alberta, we tend to have "dynasties" of the same political party holding repeated majorities (except for the recent NDP government, that only held one - but it was still a majority), and then a big tumult and upset switches it to another party for a series of majorities. If you compare the electoral maps at the height of each of the Liberal, UFA, Social Credit, and PC dynasties, you can see sharp differences, based on their perceived centres of power and strongholds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You think the Federal Election Commission (deliberately made up of half Rs and half Ds) is going to allow any voting mechanism that dilutes RNC/DNC strangleholds?

The FEC isn't even working anymore, last I heard. The GOP has refused to staff it so it no longer has a quorum. They can still do some functions but at a high level its defunct at the moment.

 

[Patine]

The FEC isn't even working anymore, last I heard. The GOP has refused to staff it so it no longer has a quorum. They can still do some functions but at a high level its defunct at the moment.

The United States is only one, I believe, three First World nations whose electoral agency is NOT mandated by law and/or Constitution to be a NON-PARTISAN organization - and thus it's not. I believe the other two are Hungary (all Fidesz/KDNP, with a token MSZDP member, I think), and Singapore (all PAP).

 

[stinkubus]

"Make America Great Again" is an empty slogan completely devoid of content. The whole point is to tap into people's anxieties about the present and future and let them project for themselves what the slogan is supposed to mean. It's not any different from Obama's "Hope" and "Change" slogans from 2008.

 

[Lexicus]

And how do you get an electoral revolt when you have 30% of the population that will vote for the Republican candidate even if they're Donald Trump and 30% of the population that will vote for the Democratic candidate even if they're Hillary Clinton? The only true bipartisan cause is one that blocks any third parties. You think the Federal Election Commission (deliberately made up of half Rs and half Ds) is going to allow any voting mechanism that dilutes RNC/DNC strangleholds?

I'm with you in spirit, but an 'electoral revolt' seems pretty inconceivable right now, even with how Trump is eroding public faith in US democratic institutions lately.

The most important bipartisan cause is the aggrandizement of the capitalists, not blocking third parties. It's first-past-the-post voting that makes third parties unviable, not some sort of conspiracy of the two major parties.

 

[cardgame]

The most important bipartisan cause is the aggrandizement of the capitalists, not blocking third parties. It's first-past-the-post voting that makes third parties unviable, not some sort of conspiracy of the two major parties.

FPTP's continued existence is a conspiracy of the two major parties

Otherwise we would have replaced it with something sane, like ranked choice or run-off or preferential or fudging anything fudging else.

 

[Traitorfish]

If a Republican closed primary was run in a gerrymandered safe district, would the winner reflect the overall state's center? No... If that primary was open for everyone would the nominee be closer to the center? Yes. One of the reasons party purists dont like open primaries is because it dilutes their voices in favor of the center.

How far can a party go? As far as the other side will allow with a corresponding move the other way. But if both sides let the purists pick their nominees at some point the middle becomes fertile ground for a centrist to challenge both parties. That prospect limits how far right or left the parties can go.

But as I said, candidates in gerrymandered districts still have to assemble functional majorities. Gerrymandering doesn't force people to vote for the party to whose fiefdom they have been allocated, still less a given candidate, so there is still a process of assembling and running a campaign. Gerrymandering changes the political composition of the voters out of whom the candidates are trying to assemble a majority, and while it is intended to render only one party competitive, it does not fundamentally change the process of assembling that majority, and candidates who are too radical to assemble majority will not be reliably successful even if they have the right party credentials.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont see how thats different from what I said:

How far can a party go? As far as the other side will allow with a corresponding move the other way. But if both sides let the purists pick their nominees at some point the middle becomes fertile ground for a centrist to challenge both parties. That prospect limits how far right or left the parties can go.

If a state is 50/50 Dem-GOP and a district is gerrymandered as a safe seat 75/25 Dem-GOP, the Dems can pick someone from their center, not the overall state's center. If all districts are drawn to make safe seats the nominees will be further from the center, so even a 50/50 state can have polarized representation.

 

[Nexlev]

The hat is going to symbolize different things to different people. For some people I think it's come to represent defiance and independence, sort of how (imo) ignorant rednecks use the confederate flag. I purchased one because I thought it looked cool, but as it took on baggage I've never wanted to wear it.

The slogan itself is innocuous. Some people would like America to be great and perceive that it's greatness has declined. At one point in many of our lifetimes America had a greater economy, with more economic equality, a larger middle class, more functional politics, and more dignity/prestige on the world stage. There were bad things too but to say that the slogan appeals to those that want to bring back the bad things, it's like saying that women only date *******s. It's butthurt feelings. Women don't date *******s because they're *******s, it's because you're boring and afraid to take risks.

 

[Yeekim]

At one point in many of our lifetimes America had /.../more dignity on the world stage

I'm rather sure it never had less.

 

[Nexlev]

Well then, the desire to MAGA would make a lot of sense on that variable, but not as applied to Donald Trump.

As American Exceptionalism becomes American Exceptionallybadism, you can look forward to further deterioration of our place in the world. My condolences to anyone that is counting on us for national defense or economic stability.

 

[Commodore]

My condolences to anyone that is counting on us for national defense or economic stability

Why? Anyone who was banking on the US being their sugar daddy forever and ever kinda deserves what happens to them once we aren't around or just plain not interested in supporting them anymore.

This is what bothers me the most about global anti-Americanism. All these nations hem and haw about how horrible we are...until we open up the checkbook. Then all of a sudden our actions seem a lot less immoral in their eyes and the criticism dies down until they need some more of those sweet, sweet dolla billz.