Someone has to say it

[Pyrate Jim]

Mid Term Elections.

Yeah, I know it'll turn into a firestorm when we discuss Nationals, but for now I wish to point out something local to me.
Just this little corner of Virginia, where early in-person voting started today.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/voting-in-the-valley-early-in-person-voting-begins-friday-sept-23/ar-AA128Hqp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=b5558f44955645b4b8560e99651fa5bf

I'll save you the trouble of looking at the numbers of candidate affiliation
4 are Republican
4 are Democrat
97 are Independent

What would be the odds of that? What does it say about the local "political persuasion"?
I look at numbers. I see statistics, averages, trends, try to separate the wheat from the chaff and calculate odds.
At first glance, it seems the predominant percent of this local, very rural, population is not interested in either Democrats or Republicans.
Or...
The majority of Candidates are unwilling to align with either party in fear of fallout depending on the results of the 2024 election.
Or... I could keep going, but it's no more than speculation at this point. We will know in, what? 45 days? Or six months, depending.

(searches Ebay for proximity suit)

[BigEvil]

With all of the mainstream media and political persecution of Trump supporters, many are NOT affiliating. There was actually a term they call it now I just dont recall it.

[Nobody]

With all of the mainstream media and political persecution of Trump supporters, many are NOT affiliating. There was actually a term they call it now I just dont recall it.

Maybe if the supporters stop breaking the law, then they won't get prosecuted. I am not really seeing everyone get indicted nor am I seeing charges being dropped at any rate, from people who follow the laws in the country. So it is not a arrest them now, sort them out later policy, no matter what bogus news source ever you choose to follow.

But overall, it is because of partisan politics. No one in any party can do much without the need to go down party lines, and if you do go against them, you are vilified for it. Likewise there is no real attempt by one side, IMO, that even attempts to go against the party, regardless of if it actually against their own beliefs, for fear of party reprisals.

To me, this is actually good. We have become a de facto 2 party system in this country because those 2 parties became powerful entities, pushing and diminishing any other party out of the way. With that, you would have to weigh personal politics with whatever lesser of 2 evils party matches with you to get noticed or have resources necessary in today's political world.

So people are going, literally back down to the roots and running as an individual, with no ties to any one party. You can't label them as there is no label to apply and that is good. Now you have to listen to that person and not just vote for party only. Heaven forbid that we should listen to what the candidate is saying and make judgements based upon their actions and words instead of what letter Is behind there name.

[BigEvil]

Maybe if the supporters stop breaking the law, then they won't get prosecuted. I am not really seeing everyone get indicted nor am I seeing charges being dropped at any rate, from people who follow the laws in the country. So it is not a arrest them now, sort them out later policy, no matter what bogus news source ever you choose to follow.

But overall, it is because of partisan politics. No one in any party can do much without the need to go down party lines, and if you do go against them, you are vilified for it. Likewise there is no real attempt by one side, IMO, that even attempts to go against the party, regardless of if it actually against their own beliefs, for fear of party reprisals.

To me, this is actually good. We have become a de facto 2 party system in this country because those 2 parties became powerful entities, pushing and diminishing any other party out of the way. With that, you would have to weigh personal politics with whatever lesser of 2 evils party matches with you to get noticed or have resources necessary in today's political world.

So people are going, literally back down to the roots and running as an individual, with no ties to any one party. You can't label them as there is no label to apply and that is good. Now you have to listen to that person and not just vote for party only. Heaven forbid that we should listen to what the candidate is saying and make judgements based upon their actions and words instead of what letter Is behind there name.

Wow you idiocy has reached epic new heights. Bravo

[Nobody]

Wow you idiocy has reached epic new heights. Bravo

As opposed to what? The facts that when you have people do criminal acts that the justice system should look elsewhere because of a letter behind their name or that there are people who don't care for the partisan aspects of the job, that actually want to help with the government, to improve lives? Cause your views seem only to, well be hypocritical of what your political party says and what they do.

[vintage]

same thing is going on with Dems in certain areas, they are hiding their affiliation to avoid conflict. i am not one of them and am no longer registered as a Dem.

[maniacmechanic]

wow you idiocy has reached epic new heights. Bravo

truth

[Pyrate Jim]

How about we stir it up with a hypothetical.
Let's postulate that the 97 Independents vs 4 Democrats vs 4 Republicans is a trend that extends beyond my little area and continues to grow.
Extrapolate that through a few election cycles and you could see the Democrats implode worse than Enron, while the Republicans fade away like Hare Krishna and saffron robes. What does that leave us? A House and Senate comprised of independents, each with their own agenda?
Is a two-party system worse than a 100-party system?

Pure conjecture. The odds of that are low compared to other Global issues that may be more immediate.

[Nobody]

How about we stir it up with a hypothetical.
Let's postulate that the 97 Independents vs 4 Democrats vs 4 Republicans is a trend that extends beyond my little area and continues to grow.
Extrapolate that through a few election cycles and you could see the Democrats implode worse than Enron, while the Republicans fade away like Hare Krishna and saffron robes. What does that leave us? A House and Senate comprised of independents, each with their own agenda?
Is a two-party system worse than a 100-party system?

Pure conjecture. The odds of that are low compared to other Global issues that may be more immediate.

The cream will always rise to the top. So if there are legitimate political parties that do separate themselves from the established 2, then it is all for the better. Look at the elections of the first 100 years of this country; there were plenty of 3 party elections, and though some like JQ Adam's and Jackson in 1822(?, going off the top of my head) were messy, the constitution did provide a solution to the situation, much to the chagrin of the participants(, lol, sounds like 2020).

But the only thing that the Democrats and Republicans can and do agree upon is that keeping only 2 major parties ensures their viability. Look at your own lives, where do you make a decision that is only from 2 choices? And who is to say that you can only have 2 choices in anything?

It has long been postulated that a 3rd party only takes away from either or both parties in number of votes but that tells me that the 2 parties don't really represent the majority of the people. Candidates under the independent label is not new. You could say it is skirting the notion of the 2 party system, but where does it say in the constitution that you can only have 2 parties or even be affiliated with a political party? Independent candidates only hurt the various political parties and confuse those people who only judge people by the letter behind their name without actually hearing their message. That is where partisan politics fails. They have become way to big, to a point where they wish to be jack-of-all-trades but rarely even stick to 1 policy or a set of codified policies.

Now the biggest difficulty of being an independent is, of course the large coffers that the parties can draw on for national or at least statewide races. A local comptroller or freeholder, won't need that help, but a US senator or a preside trial run, does. If you haven't paid attention, it costs money, lots of money. Not even the looser who won in 2016 but lost in 2020 uses their own money. Yes he did say he did but what fool wouldn't use someone else's money to run? Which he did do. Look at his contributions lists. He'll, look at his own Super PAC. Any conman loves it when people freely(and sometimes not so freely) gives you money. So an independent candidate will not have much help nationally beyond their own fund raising.

But, from your own extrapolation, who is to say that a 100 individuals isn't what we have now? Why should party affliations be more important than personal goals? A congress person is there to be a representative of their state, not for a single party. They work with the other reps to not only get like laws made into laws and push like agendas on how they and how the people who elected them and forwarded. By the partisanship now, the congress could be an interchangeable set of flags and no one would really notice, and to a point, you only 3ver notice the bad ones on either side of the divide, regardless of party.

So I see your query as not a dark abyss leading to ruin but entering a new dawn, one that is more akin to those that stood in the first congress than what we are dealing with today. A democracy or a representative democracy is still made up of the people, no where does it say that you have to have a party affiliation to participate.

[maniacmechanic]

How about we stir it up with a hypothetical.
Let's postulate that the 97 Independents vs 4 Democrats vs 4 Republicans is a trend that extends beyond my little area and continues to grow.
Extrapolate that through a few election cycles and you could see the Democrats implode worse than Enron, while the Republicans fade away like Hare Krishna and saffron robes. What does that leave us? A House and Senate comprised of independents, each with their own agenda?
Is a two-party system worse than a 100-party system?

Pure conjecture. The odds of that are low compared to other Global issues that may be more immediate.

Just because someone claims to be something , doesn't really mean it's true , Seems politicians are the biggest liars there are

[Pyrate Jim]

The cream will always rise to the top.

Really? If you think the top of our administration is the cream of society, then I think you're milking a bull.

[Nobody]

Really? If you think the top of our administration is the cream of society, then I think you're milking a bull.

Think about this. In a primary, or even better yet, the presidency, what is the determining factor? Is it policy, experience, or even vision for the job, or is it literally the amount of money that they can pour into their campaign to win their race for their party? How does having money mean you are better than everyone else? It is moreso the ability to outspend or outraise an opponent than it is to be better apt for the job.

Now for this admin, no. No matter what I say, your opinion does not look kindly upon them, just as I will say that the last admin should all be put into jail. I prefer to discuss this abstractly, as this is much better than the normal shouting matches of "my party is better".

But there is a crucible of sorts that does happen to where a person is placed in a position to be noticed, and they have the opportunity to raise up like cream to do the best they can. You can say there is or are always hindrances of opposition to that job but they are in position to do it, for better or for worse, because you and I didn't even rate a chance at that position.

[going_home]

[Loguzzzzzz]

Think about this. In a primary, or even better yet, the presidency, what is the determining factor? Is it policy, experience, or even vision for the job, or is it literally the amount of money that they can pour into their campaign to win their race for their party? How does having money mean you are better than everyone else? It is moreso the ability to outspend or outraise an opponent than it is to be better apt for the job.

Now for this admin, no. No matter what I say, your opinion does not look kindly upon them, just as I will say that the last admin should all be put into jail. I prefer to discuss this abstractly, as this is much better than the normal shouting matches of "my party is better".

But there is a crucible of sorts that does happen to where a person is placed in a position to be noticed, and they have the opportunity to raise up like cream to do the best they can. You can say there is or are always hindrances of opposition to that job but they are in position to do it, for better or for worse, because you and I didn't even rate a chance at that position.

So much hypocrisy I don't even know where to start...

[Pyrate Jim]

Think about this. In a primary, or even better yet, the presidency, what is the determining factor?

I take it you don't know the Peter Principle.
But I'm told 81 million people voted for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ix8ypSk0I