[quote][IMG]https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:f6cd221a643b4440b1737cd0afaab1f9/800.jpeg[/IMG]
Two months after he jumped into the presidential race as a political unknown, independent candidate Evan McMullin is surging in Utah polls and drawing large crowds of Republican-leaning voters fed up with Donald Trump's crudeness and antics. The Republican stronghold of Utah is suddenly a toss-up state amid widespread rejection of Trump, with polls showing McMullin closing in on the Republican nominee and Democrat Hillary Clinton. It means that Utah may do what seemed unthinkable: Elect a non-Republican presidential candidate for the first time since 1964.
...
McMullin said a vote for him will not only help him win Utah — it will kick-start a compassionate conservative movement that will change the political discussion around the country. He says that movement will be open to people of all races and religions.
"No matter what happens on Nov. 8, if we can send a strong message from Utah and the broader Mountain West, it will change the discussion in Washington and across this country," he said. "The nation is watching what we do here."
He told the crowd that Trump is unlikely to win because of the billionaire's deep flaws, antics and myriad missteps throughout the campaign.
McMullin drew loud applause when he said, "A real conservative, when they see somebody else being attacked for their religion or because of their race, a real conservative will stand up and protect other people."
Some supporters said they were drawn to McMullin because they couldn't stomach voting for Trump or Clinton.
"It was my ticket out of the circus," said Leslie Reinhold about her support for McMullin.
Cecil and Tiffany Sullivan, teachers from a Salt Lake City suburb of Murray, came with their infant son holding a sign, "#Evan Help Us." It was the couple's fourth McMullin rally they've attended since they decided he would be their choice.
"We were kind of despairing about what we were going to do with our vote and then Evan came in," said Tiffany Sullivan.
Added Cecil Sullivan: "We like his polices better than anybody else; that he's for foreign trade, for ethnic diversity."
[/quote]
[URL="https://www.apnews.com/203a03d0067d440f8bb8969914c604bf"]Associated Press News article[/URL].
And the fracturing of the Republicans begins!
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
Wait, that's a cutout? :v:
Damn...
too bad its pretty much same as the old one. conservative ideals of cutting regulation, taxes and appeasement to evangelicals are precicely why we are in the situation we are in. they let corporations greatly expand their rights while also letting them get away with swindling the public of workers rights, job security and taxes. also if they want to start a new conservative movement devoid of the social conservatism that has dragged the party through the mud they must do more than just lip service to that cause, they have to be comitted to social progressavism and when any new conservative movement will be staffed by the old guard of the old movement i just dont see such a pivot happening
If you take the racism, xenophobia, sexism, and other bigotries out of their party as it sounds like he desires, what do you have left?
Pro-corporation lobbying?
[editline]a[/editline]
basically what sableye said
Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243854]Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.[/QUOTE]
that's the weakest kind of conservatism
"our ancestors were right because they just are"
I would personally call it humility. They have created a pretty good place for us to live relative to most of humanity both past and present. I appreciate that, personally.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243857]I would personally call it humility. They have created a pretty good place for us to live relative to most of humanity both past and present. I appreciate that, personally.[/QUOTE]
that still isn't an argument for the validity of such "accumulated knowledge"
[QUOTE=bitches;51243861]that still isn't an argument for the validity of such "accumulated knowledge"[/QUOTE]
How do you think we got to our current state? Out of luck? Or perhaps the people who became before us weren't as stupid as you think?
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51243862]They'll call it neoconservatism with no regard for existing definitions just to confuse debates like they did with libertarianism.[/QUOTE]
Call it neoneoconservatism. I heard the more 'neo's added, the scarier it becomes.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243865]How do you think we got to our current state? Out of luck? Or perhaps the people who became before us weren't as stupid as you think?[/QUOTE]
we got here because each generation strove to learn and improve upon existing knowledge and social ideas with the insight of history
that's the opposite of what you seem to be advocating: that we should not try applying new ideas because all of the old ones are fine as-is
[QUOTE=bitches;51243870]we got here because each generation strove to learn and improve upon existing knowledge and social ideas with the insight of history
that's the opposite of what you seem to be advocating: that we should not try applying new ideas because all of the old ones are fine as-is[/QUOTE]
Almost no conservative suggests that we don't build on old ideas and change them somewhat. Just that we remain cautious. You know, it sounds like we agree, but I place higher value to the past than you do. And that's okay.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243876]Almost no conservative suggests that we don't build on old ideas and change them somewhat. Just that we remain cautious. You know, it sounds like we agree, but I place higher value to the past than you do. And that's okay.[/QUOTE]
do you have some examples of things you consider the new voting generation to be "trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals"?
I hope this guy wins Utah. Just so that Trump is 6 electoral votes further away from the White House.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51243915]I hope this guy wins Utah. Just so that Trump is 6 electoral votes further away from the White House.[/QUOTE]
the real hilarity would be him splitting the republican vote [I]just right[/i] enough to get Hillary the electoral votes instead, despite her views representing a minority of the state's
i'd much rather the US use a vote where you rank candidates from best to least so we can break away from this two-party system that fucked up both parties this election, but in the meantime i'm happy to see it fuck trump up just a bit more
[QUOTE=bitches;51243927]
i'd much rather the US use a vote where you rank candidates from best to least so we can break away from this two-party system that fucked up both parties this election[/QUOTE]
That won't break the two party system though. As long as the system relies on there being one winner and the runner up loses just as bad the bottom, the two party system will be inevitable.
[QUOTE=Tinter;51244082]That won't break the two party system though. As long as the system relies on there being one winner and the runner up loses just as bad the bottom, the two party system will be inevitable.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree. I don't remember the official name this voting method goes by, but it sounds simple and effective to me:
Candidates A and B are both "conservative". B is an independent candidate. Candidate C is "progressive".
Candidates A and B both hold 29 and 31% of the national or electoral vote. Candidate C's views are the least popular in the country with only 40%, but C wins the election anyway.
If we were to rank our preferences instead,
29% of the country votes: A, B, C
31% of the country votes: B, A, C
40% of the country votes: C, A or B, A or B
Candidate A has the least votes, and is removed from the election. However, unlike our current voting system, those who voted for A do not have their opinions discarded. Instead, the vote is recalculated as if the least-popular candidate was not a part of the race.
With A out of the picture, re-using the ranked votes:
60% of the country votes: B, C
40% of the country votes: C, B
Candidate B wins because their views were more popular than C.
The thing stopping the US from having successful third parties is how third parties split votes, ensuring that the least popular candidate wins. This is why voting third-party is seen as wasting a vote.
I believe it's called the Alternative Vote and it is a better system than First Past The Post, which is a winner-takes-all type system. I don't have any good sources to support my argument, although this video explaining it also says that it doesn't stop the trend towards two major parties.
[video=youtube;3Y3jE3B8HsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/video]
The reason, or one of them at least, is that it relies on parties being eliminated, the ones with the least votes. The smaller parties get eliminated, their votes split up and the bigger parties will also see a share of those votes, which means it ends up being a battle between the two major parties. This means the two most popular parties will likely be eliminated last. Even in your theoretical scenario, it was down between the two major parties. Although it did mean the popular party ended up winning due to no spoiler effect.
All the smaller parties that lose, do not gain anything, even the second biggest party gains nothing. Only the winner elects their candidate as president.
As the video mentions the advantage is no spoiler effect and people will agree more with the result.
But for these reasons, the alternative vote does not get rid of the two party system.
[QUOTE=bitches;51243856]that's the weakest kind of conservatism
"our ancestors were right because they just are"[/QUOTE]
he didn't say that though did he
"our ancestors just are" is what you mean
[QUOTE=Tinter;51244236]I believe it's called the Alternative Vote and it is a better system than First Past The Post, which is a winner-takes-all type system. I don't have any good sources to support my argument, although this video explaining it also says that it doesn't stop the trend towards two major parties.
[video=youtube;3Y3jE3B8HsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/video]
The reason, or one of them at least, is that it relies on parties being eliminated, the ones with the least votes. The smaller parties get eliminated, their votes split up and the bigger parties will also see a share of those votes, which means it ends up being a battle between the two major parties. This means the two most popular parties will likely be eliminated last. Even in your theoretical scenario, it was down between the two major parties. Although it did mean the popular party ended up winning due to no spoiler effect.
All the smaller parties that lose, do not gain anything, even the second biggest party gains nothing. Only the winner elects their candidate as president.
As the video mentions the advantage is no spoiler effect and people will agree more with the result.
But for these reasons, the alternative vote does not get rid of the two party system.[/QUOTE]
Actually, in my example the independent candidate wins, though only because I wrote it so.
However, the most [I]popular[/I] party winning isn't a bad thing. That's just democracy.
Take this US election for a great example; Bernie Sanders was neck to neck with Hillary in the popular vote (discounting party-chosen superdelegates).
When a previously unknown public figure like Sanders can take half the Democratic party in under a year, and McMullin can similarly win over a state, I don't think we need to worry about the official Democratic and Republican parties winning simply due to complacency in an Alternative Vote.
[QUOTE=bitches;51244270]Actually, in my example the independent candidate wins, though only because I wrote it so.
However, the most [I]popular[/I] party winning isn't a bad thing. That's just democracy.
Take this US election for a great example; Bernie Sanders was neck to neck with Hillary in the popular vote (discounting party-chosen superdelegates).
When a previously unknown public figure like Sanders can take half the Democratic party in under a year, and McMullin can similarly win over a state, I don't think we need to worry about the official Democratic and Republican parties winning simply due to complacency in an Alternative Vote.[/QUOTE]
If you don't think the most popular party winning is bad, then I don't see why you were arguing against the current system in the first place.
[QUOTE=Tinter;51244288]If you don't think the most popular party winning is bad, then I don't see why you were arguing against the current system in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Way to just ignore the rest of my post.
The popular candidate winning means that the candidates with the greatest public agreement takes the political seat. That's what our current system does [I]not[/I] do in the event of a popular third party/candidate.
We agreed on that, and you raised a concern that the official Democratic/Republican parties would always be the most popular, and so I pointed out from this election how that is not the case.
And now you're nitpicking on the wording, why?
The system you propose does do away with the spoiler effect, but it still ends up with a similar problem where only the biggest party is represented.
You say that the most popular party winning isn't bad. However, it still leads a massive part of the population unrepresented. In your example, 40% of the voting block has no representation whatsoever, and a further 29% are only partially represented. That's not even remotely fair.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243876]Almost no conservative suggests that we don't build on old ideas and change them somewhat. Just that we remain cautious. You know, it sounds like we agree, but I place higher value to the past than you do. And that's okay.[/QUOTE]what specific old ideas and systems do you want to build upon and change? the 80s, the 60s, the 1880s, the 1760s? what era of the past because the past is a big place, with times that look nothing like it's relative past or future. as you said, we are here because of past people building on the foundations of others, just like the civil rights movement was built upon hundreds of years of past suffering and then working through a collective to change what people wanted to conserve. same for the suffragettes, they wanted to change something that was the norm for 100s of years, same for the LGBT community who wanted to change something that was the norm for 100s of years. same for the social democratic policies of FDR who went up against the norms of the day when unions & the unemployed said maybe they shouldn't be left to suffer during times of depression just because they have no job, and he listened even though that was against the accumulative norms of past business practice.
to say 'I place higher value to the past than you do' is like saying 'I place higher value to reality than you do', it doesn't mean anything, it's a descriptor of historic states of being but loses it's definition when specifics and context is brought in. what's the era you want to respect? if you're going to make your political philosophy about preservation & the past you need to know what you want to preserve and what you want to change. you say 'discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge' but to conserve you must also discard the decades or hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge that has led to 'progressives' to the point where they are. political activism, political change does not come out of nowhere, like the systems we are in it's built by individuals and collectives working specifically for their own goals & aims.
as for 'trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals' what does that mean? who's trashing what? what utopian ideals? seriously, which political powers are currently or in the future going to 'trash our institutions'? are capitalists trashing our institutions by creating the socio-economic reality of people who work yet are in poverty? are socialists trashing our institutions by radically longing for change to institutions that have served many well, except for the people that it hasn't? are silicon valley libertarians trashing our institutions workers in their 'gig economy' so they can skirt past the institution of regulations? you need to have something to say after your initial point of 'take heed in the past for it's how we got here' because once you take heed then what? you use the past to inform what you change, but if it's not broke don't fix it? what if it is broke? what if something is working because it's broke for certain groups of people and relies upon people not wanting or not being in the position to fix it?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243854]Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because post war Britain was a conservative masterpiece.
[QUOTE=bitches;51244317]Way to just ignore the rest of my post.
The popular candidate winning means that the candidates with the greatest public agreement takes the political seat. That's what our current system does [I]not[/I] do in the event of a popular third party/candidate.
We agreed on that, and you raised a concern that the official Democratic/Republican parties would always be the most popular, and so I pointed out from this election how that is not the case.
And now you're nitpicking on the wording, why?[/QUOTE]
I was not ignoring your post or nitpicking the wording, not even sure how you even come to that conclusion, I was asking how you thought the new system would change anything. I realize now you probably meant that Bernie Sanders would've had a fairer chance of winning.
While it might change which parties are suddenly the most popular, this would be a short lived change coming from the big shakeup the introduction of the new system would introduce. This would be nice depending on who you ask, but in the end the system still trends towards a two-party system and there will be a lack of representation.
Also please do no start being hostile just because I don't give a thorough answer. I was confused and wasn't trying to ignore your post or nitpick anything.
[QUOTE=elowin;51244372]The system you propose does do away with the spoiler effect, but it still ends up with a similar problem where only the biggest party is represented.
You say that the most popular party winning isn't bad. However, it still leads a massive part of the population unrepresented. In your example, 40% of the voting block has no representation whatsoever, and a further 29% are only partially represented. That's not even remotely fair.[/QUOTE]
How exactly do you solve this problem? Say 60% of the US population wanted to allow gay marriage and 40% didn't; you can't please both sides as what they want are mutually exclusive.
Besides, removing the spoiler effect would be a big step forward; just look at this current election, without the spoiler the US wouldn't be stuck with two poor choices most Americans don't want.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243876]Almost no conservative suggests that we don't build on old ideas and change them somewhat. Just that we remain cautious. You know, it sounds like we agree, but I place higher value to the past than you do. And that's okay.[/QUOTE]
I think this is specious reasoning that accomplishes nothing at best and promotes willful ignorance at worst. If you prefer to preserve an institution the way it is, it shouldn't be simply out of caution or fear of what consequences new ideas might bring. It should be because you have analyzed, evaluated and have gained understanding of it, and through those three steps come to the conclusion that it's objectively preferable to whatever alternative is being proposed. I see no logical reason to place an inherently higher value on the past as a whole out of principle alone and just leave it at that.
[editline].[/editline]
Assuming the institutions and values of the past are inherently superior because they are built on the combined wisdom of previous generations is fallacious IMO since you're assuming the moral superiority of those generations. The opposite is equally true as well. Values and institutions, new or old, should, in my opinion, be evaluated for their worth.
Tradition for the sake of tradition isn't an argument and it's never stood up on it's own two feet. It's a fallacy.
Tradition has a purpose and a place but I certainly think an overemphasis on it can be misguiding.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51244577]It's just as bad as change for the sake of change.[/QUOTE]
Sure, things for the sake of themselves aren't really worth a damn, wasn't going to argue it any other way
[QUOTE=elowin;51244372]The system you propose does do away with the spoiler effect, but it still ends up with a similar problem where only the biggest party is represented.
You say that the most popular party winning isn't bad. However, it still leads a massive part of the population unrepresented. In your example, 40% of the voting block has no representation whatsoever, and a further 29% are only partially represented. That's not even remotely fair.[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, the President doesn't hold all the power. In a country as big as the US, different regions bring different ideas to the House and Senate. It's entirely fair.
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tinter;51244435]I was not ignoring your post or nitpicking the wording, not even sure how you even come to that conclusion, I was asking how you thought the new system would change anything. I realize now you probably meant that Bernie Sanders would've had a fairer chance of winning.
While it might change which parties are suddenly the most popular, this would be a short lived change coming from the big shakeup the introduction of the new system would introduce. This would be nice depending on who you ask, but in the end the system still trends towards a two-party system and there will be a lack of representation.
Also please do no start being hostile just because I don't give a thorough answer. I was confused and wasn't trying to ignore your post or nitpick anything.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I'm just saying that this election demonstrates that while the classical two parties hold a lot of influence, they clearly do not dictate the will of the American people. I think that doing away with spoiler effects would embolden these alternative parties and those who like their ideas enough to break up the two party system.
I don't believe for a moment that in such a country we wouldn't have several parties beyond Democrat and Republican in Congress.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.