|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 14, 2020, 11:49:38 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Kalwejt)
  Opinion of taking party membership off of ballots
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should party affiliation be removed from beside the candidates' names on ballots?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: Opinion of taking party membership off of ballots  (Read 890 times)
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 24, 2020, 10:57:30 pm »

I am very much for this. We should take away the easy shorthand we give to voters and force them to do a little extra research. Even if that research only amounts to Googling "Candidate X political party" and picking the one they like, that is a step in the right direction. In a best-case scenario, we get voters who actually take a minute to look into the candidates' positions, who might have otherwise simply filled in every bubble next to an "R" or a "D."
Logged
Sword of Damocles
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 304
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2020, 11:21:38 pm »

No. One of the core and essential functions of political parties is that they help solve the problem of adverse selection. As a voter, you are expected to make a choice about what sort of policies you would like, without necessarily having perfect information. When you vote for a party candidate, you can generally be sure what the candidate stands for.

If they’re a Democratic candidate, they probably favor things like progressive taxation, environmental regulations, and affirmative action for minorities.

If they’re a Republican candidate, they probably favor lower taxes across the board, fewer regulations, and generally laissez faire economics and social policies.

Pretending parties don’t exist is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going, la la la. Pretending that groups of people with similar ideas won’t join up and form an organization to economize on campaign costs and advocate collectively for shared policy planks is ludicrous.

They are an inevitable outcome of virtually any representative democratic system and rather than fight them, it is critical that major and minor party candidates compete in a political system that is fair to all of them.
Logged
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2020, 11:28:05 pm »

No. One of the core and essential functions of political parties is that they help solve the problem of adverse selection. As a voter, you are expected to make a choice about what sort of policies you would like, without necessarily having perfect information. When you vote for a party candidate, you can generally be sure what the candidate stands for.

If they’re a Democratic candidate, they probably favor things like progressive taxation, environmental regulations, and affirmative action for minorities.

If they’re a Republican candidate, they probably favor lower taxes across the board, fewer regulations, and generally laissez faire economics and social policies.

Pretending parties don’t exist is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going, la la la. Pretending that groups of people with similar ideas won’t join up and form an organization to economize on campaign costs and advocate collectively for shared policy planks is ludicrous.

They are an inevitable outcome of virtually any representative democratic system and rather than fight them, it is critical that major and minor party candidates compete in a political system that is fair to all of them.

To be clear, I don't see this as "fighting" the parties. Rather, I see it as a way to avoid institutionalizing them. There is nothing about the parties in the constitution and we should avoid providing them with institutional recognition like this. When you vote in the United States, you are voting for a candidate-- not a party, as you do in the UK. When voting for an individual, their name is what matters. If a candidate wishes to include their party affiliation in the voter information guide, they are free to do so, and that will have the added bonus of guiding voters toward that resource.

We don't have to fight the parties, but at the same time, we don't have to make it this easy for them.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2020, 01:38:49 am »

Some states already do this (and this is common in local elections); the results are, uh, not great.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,870
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2020, 04:19:04 am »

That's wrong. Candidates (mostly) are not running independently, they run as parties' nominees. Who is nominating them should be written on the ballot.
Logged
Alcibiades
Rookie
**
Posts: 156


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2020, 04:24:51 am »

No. One of the core and essential functions of political parties is that they help solve the problem of adverse selection. As a voter, you are expected to make a choice about what sort of policies you would like, without necessarily having perfect information. When you vote for a party candidate, you can generally be sure what the candidate stands for.

If they’re a Democratic candidate, they probably favor things like progressive taxation, environmental regulations, and affirmative action for minorities.

If they’re a Republican candidate, they probably favor lower taxes across the board, fewer regulations, and generally laissez faire economics and social policies.

Pretending parties don’t exist is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going, la la la. Pretending that groups of people with similar ideas won’t join up and form an organization to economize on campaign costs and advocate collectively for shared policy planks is ludicrous.

They are an inevitable outcome of virtually any representative democratic system and rather than fight them, it is critical that major and minor party candidates compete in a political system that is fair to all of them.

To be clear, I don't see this as "fighting" the parties. Rather, I see it as a way to avoid institutionalizing them. There is nothing about the parties in the constitution and we should avoid providing them with institutional recognition like this. When you vote in the United States, you are voting for a candidate-- not a party, as you do in the UK. When voting for an individual, their name is what matters. If a candidate wishes to include their party affiliation in the voter information guide, they are free to do so, and that will have the added bonus of guiding voters toward that resource.

We don't have to fight the parties, but at the same time, we don't have to make it this easy for them.

In the UK, you are also technically voting for a candidate (the MP for your constituency), a party, and if an MP switches party they are under no obligation to trigger a by-election. The parties’ names do also appear on the ballot, in fact party logos also have to be printed. Although you are right in that it is more clear what each party as a whole stands for as they run on a manifesto, the policies within which there is a much greater expectation to enact if the party wins power than those within a US party platform.

I think removing party names is an interesting proposition, but I would disagree, as often it is much harder to find out exactly what the candidates stands for than what their party does. In state legislative races, many candidates don’t even have a website or Twitter account. It would also discriminate against voters who are low information not because they’re lazy but because they don’t have internet access.

There would be nothing stopping candidates registering and adding Democrat or Republican to the end of their name on their filing papers if party ID was removed from ballots.
Logged
Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)
tack50
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,062
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2020, 08:30:13 am »

It seems to work pretty well in Nebraska. Support
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2020, 10:16:52 am »

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.
Logged
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2020, 05:13:32 pm »

That's wrong. Candidates (mostly) are not running independently, they run as parties' nominees. Who is nominating them should be written on the ballot.

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,870
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2020, 06:05:01 pm »

That's wrong. Candidates (mostly) are not running independently, they run as parties' nominees. Who is nominating them should be written on the ballot.

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.

I wouldn't want any additional material coming with my ballot.
Logged
thumb21
Atlas Politician
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 3,171
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2020, 08:40:43 pm »

I think that party descriptions are a display of atleast vaguely where a candidate is on the political spectrum. Its a useful piece of information even if it does increase blind partisan voting, I think the alternative is that elections are instead more based on name recognition which benefits incumbents and candidates with a money advantage.

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.

I'm sure there are plenty of people on this website dedicated to election nerdery who can't say they've researched candidates in every single downballot election, so it seems like a ridiculous judgement to say that people who are working all day and not interested in every minute piece of politics are ignorant for not doing that. You don't need to have a mental profile of every single candidate to know generally what you want from politicians.
Logged
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2020, 11:27:33 pm »

That's wrong. Candidates (mostly) are not running independently, they run as parties' nominees. Who is nominating them should be written on the ballot.

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.

I wouldn't want any additional material coming with my ballot.

Well I'm not sure how it's done in Italy, but California absentee ballots always come with a voter information guide. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,870
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2020, 05:20:36 am »

That's wrong. Candidates (mostly) are not running independently, they run as parties' nominees. Who is nominating them should be written on the ballot.

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.

I wouldn't want any additional material coming with my ballot.

Well I'm not sure how it's done in Italy, but California absentee ballots always come with a voter information guide. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

Well in Italy to my knowledge the only people who vote "absentee" are Italians living abroad, who are sent mail ballots complete of voter instructions etc. by the government.
Also, in Italy it's mostly open party-list proportional representation, so a different ballgame.
Logged
Gulf Coastal Elite
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,271
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2020, 10:41:04 am »

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.
You do realize that most states do not do this, right? There is no pamphlet that comes with your ballot, and your ballot is not mailed to your home; you walk into your local church parish hall on Election Day, fill out your ballot and leave.
Logged
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2020, 01:41:53 pm »

And they're free to include that information in the pamphlet of positions and statements that comes with your ballot.
You do realize that most states do not do this, right? There is no pamphlet that comes with your ballot, and your ballot is not mailed to your home; you walk into your local church parish hall on Election Day, fill out your ballot and leave.

Yes, and states that don't do this should start.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,089


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2020, 06:03:08 pm »

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.

You realize that my ballot usually has sixty-odd races on it, over half of which are various judge candidates? My memory isn't THAT good.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2020, 06:58:34 pm »

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.

You realize that my ballot usually has sixty-odd races on it, over half of which are various judge candidates? My memory isn't THAT good.
oh judges are easy, I vote against them all unless I have reason to vote for one of them
Logged
Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)
tack50
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,062
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2020, 04:59:26 am »

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.

You realize that my ballot usually has sixty-odd races on it, over half of which are various judge candidates? My memory isn't THAT good.

Tbf if anything that just means there are too many elected positions. Stuff like idk; land comissioner or whatever is stuff that should be appointed by the governor, not elected
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,049


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2020, 08:54:30 am »

For local positions, especially local judges? Sure. For everything else, no.

Parties occur naturally and inevitably in any legislative body. Party labels can be a useful (though imperfect) heuristic for lower-information voters.  The alternative tends to be low-information voters picking names at random. Even in Nebraska the candidates are endorsed and advocated for by the two major parties. There are ways that our two party system could be reformed, but pretending that parties don’t exist isn’t one of them.
Logged
Tamika Jackson
beeman
Rookie
**
Posts: 92
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2020, 06:42:11 am »

Some states already do this (and this is common in local elections); the results are, uh, not great.

For local elections, that's because those are usually non-partisan positions (at least in Arizona Smiley)
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,183


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2020, 08:11:01 am »

I love the assertion that this would lead people to "do more research". No, people would just vote based on the candidates' last names instead.
Logged
Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)
tack50
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,062
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2020, 08:54:32 am »

I love the assertion that this would lead people to "do more research". No, people would just vote based on the candidates' last names instead.

I mean, I suppose you could "fix" this by making all elections write-in only and allowing only people who file to run as valid write-ins

Though as I said turnout would plummet
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,218
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2020, 12:03:43 pm »

What happens is that political parties just distribute leaflets or cards telling voters who their candidates are.
Logged
The Flying Dulishman
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,089
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2020, 05:21:26 pm »


Seems like a win-win.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,870
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2020, 03:39:11 am »

If you're so uninformed about the elections you are voting in that you don't even know what party the candidates are in, perhaps your ignorant ass should not be voting.  Which is why it makes sense that most Dems and Pubs would be against it, they prefer an ignorant voter.

You realize that my ballot usually has sixty-odd races on it, over half of which are various judge candidates? My memory isn't THAT good.

Tbf if anything that just means there are too many elected positions. Stuff like idk; land comissioner or whatever is stuff that should be appointed by the governor, not elected

JUDGES
Electing judges is so weird.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.147 seconds with 16 queries.