Yang Gang Party
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2021, 09:48:57 AM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, TJ in Oregon, YE, ON Progressive)
  Yang Gang Party
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Yang Gang Party  (Read 386 times)
tosk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 732


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 10, 2021, 07:16:24 AM »

For those who haven't seen:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/571615-andrew-yang-planning-to-launch-third-partyreport

Do you think it could make a showing in 2024? My answer is pretty resounding "no" even though I'd be very interested in supporting it. Depends on what the platform looks like, but even then if they cracked 2% I'd be really surprised.

The non-2024 questions is, where (if anywhere) can they make enough of a showing to elect candidates? New England comes to mind as a possibility, at least in the smaller states. Mountain west *maye* if they're big tent enough. Maybe some city council seats around the country? That would be pretty big.
Logged
DPKdebator
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,739
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2021, 08:04:06 AM »

Yang's base of supporters is very passionate but also extremely small, so I'm doubtful Yang's party would be able to get much of a foothold anywhere.
Logged
IíM GONNA TOOOOOOOOM
TheTarHeelGent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,726
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2021, 09:07:53 AM »

This will get 1% of the vote in the GE. I donít oppose third parties on principle but Iím merely being realistic.
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2021, 11:39:38 AM »

This will get 1% of the vote in the GE. I donít oppose third parties on principle but Iím merely being realistic.

You should.  Presidential systems like ours require two parties in order to operate effectively.  Third parties, somewhat counterintuitively, make our system less representative and less little-d democratic.
Logged
TodayJunior
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 303
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2021, 11:52:58 AM »
« Edited: September 10, 2021, 12:05:26 PM by TodayJunior »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!
Logged
Canis
canis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,711


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2021, 12:08:47 PM »
« Edited: September 10, 2021, 12:20:50 PM by Canis »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!
Maine uses RCV for all races. Alaska just voted to switch a hybrid system of RCV and the open primary system where the primary has all the candidates of all the parties and the general election is between the top 4 candidates from the primary regardless of party and then the general uses RCV. Which is a really cool idea I hope it works out and is implemented elsewhere it fixes the main problems of RCV (potentially having too many candidates to rank and stuff etc) while also fixing the problems with Jungle Primaries (party lockouts etc). NYC uses RCV as well and St Louis just adopted Approval voting.

I want the two-party system to end but Yang starting a third party that could potentially spoil races for democrats doesn't help with that. IMO the right thing to do is focus on running candidates in primaries and getting them elected at the local level all the way up to the national level like DSA and Our Revolution is doing.

I saw that theirs a march for UBI (like the march for Medicare for All) coming up close to Yang's book release date. Maybe that's where Yang will launch his party?
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2021, 12:49:06 PM »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.
Logged
AltWorlder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,153


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2021, 01:13:24 PM »

Like all new third party creators, Andrew Yang reveals his lack of understanding of how third parties actually work in the U.S. He'd be better off trying to invade the Alliance Party with his followers, because getting ballot access is really important.
Logged
The Timorous May Stay At Home
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,945
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2021, 01:30:25 PM »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.

The two major parties in this country have locked out the competition by creating voting systems that gravitate towards a two-party system. Until this system is ended by the installation of nationwide ranked-choice voting, the Democratic and Republican parties should be considered enemies of "small-d democracy."
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2021, 02:20:38 PM »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.

The two major parties in this country have locked out the competition by creating voting systems that gravitate towards a two-party system. Until this system is ended by the installation of nationwide ranked-choice voting, the Democratic and Republican parties should be considered enemies of "small-d democracy."

No.  A functioning presidential system is almost by definition a two-party system.  That's the nature of winner-take-all competition.  It's not because Ds and Rs "locked out the competition"--it's because the men who drafted our Constitution created a chief executive chosen by popular vote (in practice, at least--let's just ignore the Electoral College for a moment).  In practice, all that third parties do is dilute the majority's will and undermine democratic accountability. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the presidential system is necessarily the best form of government that's out there.  But it is the system we have, and in all honesty it's performed pretty well relative to all its alternatives. Its dysfunctions are not a result of its two-party nature, but of the deeply antidemocratic rules surrounding Senate apportionment, partisan gerrymandering, and judicial appointments.  Ranked Choice Voting or whatever might be worth adopting, but it's not going to address those problems and it's not going to somehow magically undo the logic of two-party competition in a presidential system.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,172


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2021, 02:26:01 PM »

Given that we are moving away from the primary system with the rising usages of conventions, relying on a two party system wholly dominated nationally by one faction for each is really dumb.
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2021, 02:34:28 PM »

Given that we are moving away from the primary system with the rising usages of conventions, relying on a two party system wholly dominated nationally by one faction for each is really dumb.

How are we moving away from the primary system?  To me, it seems like we're doing just the opposite.  Even caucuses, those ridiculous hybrids of primary and convention, are justifiably being rejected by more and more people in favor of straight-up one-person-one-vote primaries.
Logged
tosk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 732


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2021, 03:38:39 PM »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.

The two major parties in this country have locked out the competition by creating voting systems that gravitate towards a two-party system. Until this system is ended by the installation of nationwide ranked-choice voting, the Democratic and Republican parties should be considered enemies of "small-d democracy."

No.  A functioning presidential system is almost by definition a two-party system.  That's the nature of winner-take-all competition.  It's not because Ds and Rs "locked out the competition"--it's because the men who drafted our Constitution created a chief executive chosen by popular vote (in practice, at least--let's just ignore the Electoral College for a moment).  In practice, all that third parties do is dilute the majority's will and undermine democratic accountability. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the presidential system is necessarily the best form of government that's out there.  But it is the system we have, and in all honesty it's performed pretty well relative to all its alternatives. Its dysfunctions are not a result of its two-party nature, but of the deeply antidemocratic rules surrounding Senate apportionment, partisan gerrymandering, and judicial appointments.  Ranked Choice Voting or whatever might be worth adopting, but it's not going to address those problems and it's not going to somehow magically undo the logic of two-party competition in a presidential system.

France says hello
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2021, 04:48:47 PM »
« Edited: September 10, 2021, 04:58:28 PM by Heebie Jeebie »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.

The two major parties in this country have locked out the competition by creating voting systems that gravitate towards a two-party system. Until this system is ended by the installation of nationwide ranked-choice voting, the Democratic and Republican parties should be considered enemies of "small-d democracy."

No.  A functioning presidential system is almost by definition a two-party system.  That's the nature of winner-take-all competition.  It's not because Ds and Rs "locked out the competition"--it's because the men who drafted our Constitution created a chief executive chosen by popular vote (in practice, at least--let's just ignore the Electoral College for a moment).  In practice, all that third parties do is dilute the majority's will and undermine democratic accountability.  

To be clear, I'm not saying that the presidential system is necessarily the best form of government that's out there.  But it is the system we have, and in all honesty it's performed pretty well relative to all its alternatives. Its dysfunctions are not a result of its two-party nature, but of the deeply antidemocratic rules surrounding Senate apportionment, partisan gerrymandering, and judicial appointments.  Ranked Choice Voting or whatever might be worth adopting, but it's not going to address those problems and it's not going to somehow magically undo the logic of two-party competition in a presidential system.

France says hello

France has a weird hybrid presidential/parliamentary system, but even there politics has generally operated along the lines of a two-party system in which power alternates between relatively stable coalitions, each being led by a major party: on the left, the Socialist Party, on the right, Les Rťpublicains and its predecessors.
Logged
KoopaDaQuick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,648
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2021, 11:55:37 PM »

I fully support third/fourth/fifth, etc. party options. It forces the STALE mainline two-party system to build broader coalitions and make compromises to govern. My political compass is fairly heterodox, which is why I'm unaffiliated with either D or R. Actually, I'll even go further and say ranked choice voting should be in all 50 states. I think Maine does this for some races, no?

If you get enough seats in Congress that are not mainline D or R, it would force the aforementioned coalition building, not too dissimilar with our friends across the pond. Is this wishful thinking? Probably. Should we implement it? Absolutely!

This is wrong-headed on so many levels.  Our two parties already engage in plenty of coalition building and compromise--they just do it through the primary process rather than through post-election parliamentarian maneuvering.  Throwing your energies into third-party politics isn't prioritizing coalition building--it's the opposite!  It's choosing identity performance over pragmatics and progress.

The two major parties in this country have locked out the competition by creating voting systems that gravitate towards a two-party system. Until this system is ended by the installation of nationwide ranked-choice voting, the Democratic and Republican parties should be considered enemies of "small-d democracy."

No.  A functioning presidential system is almost by definition a two-party system.  That's the nature of winner-take-all competition.  It's not because Ds and Rs "locked out the competition"--it's because the men who drafted our Constitution created a chief executive chosen by popular vote (in practice, at least--let's just ignore the Electoral College for a moment).  In practice, all that third parties do is dilute the majority's will and undermine democratic accountability. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the presidential system is necessarily the best form of government that's out there.  But it is the system we have, and in all honesty it's performed pretty well relative to all its alternatives. Its dysfunctions are not a result of its two-party nature, but of the deeply antidemocratic rules surrounding Senate apportionment, partisan gerrymandering, and judicial appointments.  Ranked Choice Voting or whatever might be worth adopting, but it's not going to address those problems and it's not going to somehow magically undo the logic of two-party competition in a presidential system.

A functioning presidential system isn't inherently a two-party winner-take-all system. That's an inherent problem with First Past The Post. It is possible to have a single chief executive without a two-party system, we just need to tweak the way they're elected.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,337
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2021, 12:07:13 AM »

This will get 1% of the vote in the GE. I donít oppose third parties on principle but Iím merely being realistic.

It's not realistic to think it will be as high as 1% lol
Logged
IíM GONNA TOOOOOOOOM
TheTarHeelGent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,726
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2021, 12:42:16 AM »

This will get 1% of the vote in the GE. I donít oppose third parties on principle but Iím merely being realistic.

It's not realistic to think it will be as high as 1% lol

Youíre right, 0.3% is more like it.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,659
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2021, 10:31:44 AM »

If Yang is thinking nationally, he's dreaming.  If Yang is thinking about NY State, he's onto something.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_New_York

Quote
In order to maintain qualified status, political parties must field candidates for governor in each gubernatorial election who win at least 130,000 votes, or 2 percent of all votes cast for the office, whichever is greater. In the event that a party's candidate for governor fails to win the requisite votes, the party must re-qualify for recognition.

New York has a "Fusion" system of politics.  Candidates can be nominated by more than one party, but can only be nominated by a party not their own with the permission of the party leaders.  A 130,000 threshold vote for Governor is not high, and Yang, running for Governor, could likely meet that.  (Indeed, Yang could run some celebrity and get 130,000 votes for his party in 2022.)  As Yang would be the chairman of his party, he'd be the man to allow for a Wilson-Pekula waiver should some Democrat desire a cross-endorsement.  He would also have a ballot line with wish to either (A) sink Democrats he doesn't like or (B) run renegade Democrats in districts which are one-party and where voters, in voting for the Yang Party candidate, were well aware that they were voting for their favorite Democrat in the General Election in fact.

Doing this would make Yang a permanent power broker in Democratic Politics.  The Republicans have agreed to nominate registered Conservative Party members for offices which Republicans can win, as part of keeping the Republican-Conservative alliance solid.  I don't know that this is what Yang seeks to do.  But it's what he COULD do.
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 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.