Sanders: Two-party system holds back competition

[pinebox]

This should ruffle some feathers.
Once again, Bernie keeping it real!

Sanders: Two-party system holds back competition
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/269967-sanders-two-party-system-holds-back-competition

Self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders on Thursday called it "wrong" that America's two-party system shuts out other parties from elections.

"I chose to run proudly in the Democratic primary and caucus and look forward to winning that process. But clearly, as a nation, I think we flourish when there are different ideas out there," Sanders said during MSNBC's Democratic presidential candidate forum in Nevada on Thursday.

"Sometimes the two-party system makes it very, very difficult to get on the ballot if you are a third party, and I think that's wrong. I think we should welcome competition."

Sanders is the longest-serving Independent in Congress, though he has caucused with the Democrats throughout his time in Congress. He decided to run for president in the Democratic contest. His lack of history as a Democrat has prompted criticism from his rivals for not embracing the party sooner.

The candidates spoke separately at the forum two days before the caucuses in Nevada, where polls show Sanders is essentially tied with Clinton after she had held a large lead throughout most of the race.

[MohRokTah]

1. Whining about our political system is the sign of a losing campaign. eom

[Hoyt]

2. And exploring a run as an Independent.

[MohRokTah]

5. It's too late to run as an Independent now.

He has his name on too many "sore loser" state primary ballots.

[Hoyt]

22. He'd be running in the General Election. I'm not sure it's too late for that crash and burn attempt.

[MohRokTah]

30. It is.

There are multiple states with sore loser laws that kick in the moment the paperwork is filed, and Sanders already filed the paperwork. Ohio is one of the biggest.

[Hoyt]

32. So he can't get on the ballot in November, or as a write-in? I'm just asking, I don't really know.

[MohRokTah]

35. Write-in campaigns never affect the outcome.

Fathers mount write-in campaigns so their children can feel like they are part of the process.

Mounting a write-in campaign for president wold make Sanders the political laughingstock of the nation.

[Hoyt]

41. One or two percent, could well affect campaign.

[TTUBatfan2008]

12. I doubt it

I don't think the DNC would allow him to participate in the primary if he didn't agree to step aside in the general election.

[Hoyt]

29. What agreement would hold him to that? Not trying to argue. I'd feel much better if you are right.

[TTUBatfan2008]

54. There was a bunch of commotion

In the Republican primary about whether Trump would run third party or sign an oath of loyalty. He ended up signing it. I think the Democrats have similar agreements in place, but no media controversy because none of the candidates threatened to run 3rd Party like Trump did 4-5 months ago.

[Hoyt]

59. I don't really think it would be binding. A loyalty oath is about as good as a marriage oath or

oath of office. But, I suppose it might be some deterrent, but not absolute.

[JI7]

45. he has no interest in running as an independent nationally

[Hoyt]

50. Yeah, he said so months ago. This is now. Trump has said he has no intent either, do you believe

him?

[JI7]

51. sanders isn't trump. SAnders is not going to run as indie nationally

[Gregorian]

4. You're makng it very difficult for us to vote for Hillary, should she win.

[MohRokTah]

6. Baloney. eom

[Gregorian]

11. Who's whining now? wah wah.

You guys are insufferable. I just lost it this morning because of your irritating post. I will not put anyone on ignore, but you are trying me.

[MohRokTah]

15. Not whining at all.

Anything I say or do has absolutely nothing to do with the decision you will make in November.

That's all on you.

Trying to blow BS to the contrary is only more whining.

[ebayfool]

62. Jury results:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a fellow DUer "insufferable" is rude, hurtful, and over-the-top. Let's keep DU civil.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:39 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hideable. If an HC supporter can call DUers, specifically SBS supporters, psychos this morning and not get a hide...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, FFS... yet another 3 minutes of time wasted seeing how, if others are irritated by the alerter's posts and deem them "insufferable", this somehow rises to the level of a fucking hide. Get real, please and move on with your Sunday papers.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Insufferable? Hardly a blimp in the landscape. That's probably one of the more civil comments in GD! Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Borderline, but the "you guys" just about keeps it from becoming a personal attack on one individual.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hardly over the top, this post can stay, IMHO.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A post full of insults and taunts. Insufferable? We all are right now. Let it go, don't taunt someone then alert when they finally react.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. Results of your Jury...

So, you know... it's okay to call insufferable posts whiney...

On Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Who's whining now? wah wah.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1298266

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a fellow DUer "insufferable" is rude, hurtful, and over-the-top. Let's keep DU civil.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 21, 2016, 11:39 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hideable. If an HC supporter can call DUers, specifically SBS supporters, psychos this morning and not get a hide...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, FFS... yet another 3 minutes of time wasted seeing how, if others are irritated by the alerter's posts and deem them "insufferable", this somehow rises to the level of a fucking hide. Get real, please and move on with your Sunday papers.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Insufferable? Hardly a blimp in the landscape. That's probably one of the more civil comments in GD! Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Borderline, but the "you guys" just about keeps it from becoming a personal attack on one individual.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hardly over the top, this post can stay, IMHO.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A post full of insults and taunts. Insufferable? We all are right now. Let it go, don't taunt someone then alert when they finally react.

[Gregorian]

71. Haha. It's gotten harder to step away from the keyboard lately.

With so much at stake, it gets weary to think of how much longer it may take. But really, there is little room for negativity, since eventually the truth shall prevail.

[JRLeft]

75. 2 stupid alerts

[stopbush]

8. What does it say about a person's integrity when they can be so easily

swayed to not vote for someone based on their reaction to anonymous posts made to an internet blog?

[CorkySt.Clair]

26. +1

Bernie's a bit of a whiner.

[vdogg]

48. Sounds like he's setting up for Ralph Nader 2.0

I mean hell, might as well just give Trump the election.

[californiabernin]

56. Do you think our current two party system is the best for America?

This isn't about the Saners or Clinton campaign. It's about American democracy.i would like to see more forward thinking discussions on this issue, and how best to begin addressing it. At its core it's about the vibrancy of our democracy and ideas to be heard and debated.

[stopbush]

3. Here's an idea Bernie: run as the Independent you are!

Your zealous followers have made it clear that their loyalty is to you, not the Democratic Party. So why compromise them and your hallowed principles by running as a filthy D, entering all of those corrupt primaries and dealing with the out-of-touch establishment?

I think we all know the answer to the above...interloper...D-when-convenient. Who needs you?

[amborin]

7. especially

when HIllary viciously stated he was not really a Democrat!

well, ok, then......

(i posted something along these lines yesterday)

[Gregorian]

9. You're perspective is so far off, you don't even see what's happened.

That the Democratic party has moved far away to the right from where its values lay. You are so wrong about the Bernie supporters, it would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.

[stopbush]

13. Thanks for proving my point. You're so blinded by Bernie fever

that you don't even see that your post confirms what I wrote.

[Gregorian]

25. Our support revolves around core Democratic principles.

I take this very seriously, and it has nothing to do with Bernie. If Hillary held the same principles, and Bernie weren't in the race, I would be voting for Hillary.

[stopbush]

39. As a Democrat, you should be supporting the party platform, which is based on Democratic principles

which are greater than any single candidate.

So, will you vote for Hillary when Bernie drops out? If it has nothing to do with Bernie there shouldn't be a problem, correct?

[Gregorian]

52. I think it's the Democratic prinicples part where the trouble lies.

Furthermore, I'll vote however I like. It has nothing to do with Hillary dropping out or not.

[TDale313]

42. Party is important, but not more important than policy and principles.

He didn't and won't run as an Independent because he wasn't going to pull a Nader. I'm glad he made that choice. But it's ridiculous to say the Democratic Party is above being questioned or doesn't have some serious issues/flaws. It's useful as long as it serves the needs of it's members. If it no longer does, then it needs to be fixed or those members will look elsewhere. It does not demand loyalty and respect in and of itself- it needs to earn those things.

[pinebox]

10. Uh you don't want that to happen

at all because if it does, Hillary is finished and it's technically against DU TOS to even suggest it, at least I believe it to be, correct me if I'm wrong.

Who needs Bernie? America does and do you know why?

We can start here.

[gyroscope]

16. Sanders is loyal to his constituents not to a corrupt party

maybe he should run as independent in GE.

The DNC have made it perfectly clear they would never allow him to win the nomination.
Whether by hook or crook Hillary will be their nominee.

[wildeyed]

27. The parties are not corrupt.

It is the system itself that is not functioning properly. That is a big difference.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He should not be forced to run as one. He should still be able to run for president without being a spoiler or an asterisk. I am completely on board there. In fact, I have been working for more than a decade to try to force the system to evolve to a place where third parties are better represented because I think that is best for our country.

But that does not mean the party is corrupt. I think you misunderstand the purpose and nature of political parties if you think that.

[JRLeft]

44. What?

The parties are more than corrupt.

[wildeyed]

69. The parties are what they are.

Unless they are taking money to nominate people are paying for votes, then they are not corrupt. The Democratic Party exists to elect DEMOCRATS. When they close ranks against a guy who is NOT a Democrat, this is not "corrupt". This is what political parties do. Think of them as unions or professional organizations. They exist to protect and promote their members. At the end of the day, Bernie Sanders is not a member of Team D. It is what it is.

What infuriates me is the two-party system itself. It is the two-party SYSTEM that is dysfunctional and antiquated. I can choose between at least 15 different varieties of peanut butter when I shop at my local grocery store, but when I vote for a politician, I get only TWO choices? And because of the gerrymandering and the oceans of dark money that flood they system, they are generally two bad choices.

Think about it. Right now, all you need is an R or D next to your name to win most districts. Why? Because they are so gerrymandered (and most people don't bother with primaries). Make it more competitive by drawing better boundaries, and suddenly candidates need to work for the votes. You can't just put a party hack up because it is "their turn" or someone the big money knows they can control because they can't win just based on their party affiliation anymore. They have to be good enough to convince a few people on the other side of the aisle to give them a chance.

Trying to force the parties to change when there is no extrinsic motivation (votes and power) for that is going to be a hard slog. The only way to do that is to actually join the party. And then you are the borg, you have been assimilated. But if you change the system so it rewards better candidates, then the parties will fall in line. And I listed a number of action items up thread (post #18) that will help do that.

[JRLeft]

70. Please taking corporate money is corruption at its worst.

Both parties are owned by the same interests. This is about maintaining the status quo or the same fucked up system.

[wildeyed]

74. That is the Supreme Court.

Nothing Dems can do about that. We have passed plenty of good campaign finance reform only to have it trash at the SC level. Ding dong, Scalia is dead, so maybe we can do better in the future....

I made a loooooong post a while ago explaining why Dems, even conservative Dems, always want campaign finance reform. It has to do with demographics and turnout. But Dems ALWAYS benefit from decreased corporate money, provided the rules are consistent for all the candidates. But if you limit yourself for moral reasons, then you also put yourself at a disadvantage and are less likely to win.

Here is the post if you are interested. You can skip the bit about John Lewis and oligarchs, which is not germane to this discussion. The rest explains my thinking and provides links.

But anyway, I do not believe that the Democratic Party give a shit about maintaining "status quo". They care about votes and power. They like anything that helps them maintain or increase that. So figure out how to pull that lever, and voila! You can make them change.

[JRLeft]

76. The democratic party was taking money before citizens united.

The Supreme Court just exacerbated the problem.

[wildeyed]

77. Were the Reps taking it too?

My point is that, all things being equal, Dems prefer to decrease corporate money and increase the pool of potential voters. And I LIVED that reality here in NC. We brought the voters and as a result, got really good laws passed, including some public financing laws, with a really conservative bunch of Dems running the show. Google Rev. Barber, Fusion Party and Moral Mondays if you are interested in how it worked for us here.

But when the courts and laws allow the money in, then Dems will take it to stay competitive.

Once they take the money, it is harder to walk it back, this is true. But I prefer to jump off that bridge when I get there.

[JRLeft]

78. Yes, I mentioned that in a couple postdays above. Both parties are beholden to the same interests.

Both parties place corporations above the people.

[wildeyed]

79. OK, then we are going in circles.

YES. Both parties are beholden. Because the RULES force them to be beholden to win. This is not corruption. The Democratic Party did not make these rules. They fought hard against them. But because of the make up of the Supreme Court, they have not been successful. So now they play by the rules as they were set.

You have a football avatar so I will make an analogy. The NFL sets the rules of the game. Let's say the coaches and GM are the "party". They roster the team, "politicians", and then go out and play according to the rules that have been dictated to them. Let's say the NFL really wants a certain type of play that they think will generate more viewership and change rules accordingly to generate harder hits. Is it the coaches and/or players fault for going along with the changes? Is it the player's fault when someone gets hurt? Should they pull up and not hit as hard because some people think it is too violent and dangerous? Or should they play as hard as they can to win, within the rule set, and keep trying to win? Do you blame coaches and players for playing by the rules when the rules are bad or dysfunctional?

My main point, if you want to beat the corporate interests, killing the Democratic Party will not do it. That does not address the root of the problem. But there ARE many simple ways to tweak the system that WILL cut closer to the heart of the beast.

[mariawr]

28. I fully think he should run in the GE as an Indy

He would pull his crew and some pubbies as well who are sick of Trump

[stopbush]

49. As was pointed out above, he would not be able to get on the GE ballot as an independent

in many states like Ohio that have sore loser laws. If you decide to run as a D in the primary and lose you cannot get on the ballot as an Indie in the fall.

[HassleCat]

21. Be cautious about wishing for certain things. (eom)

[Kittycat]

65. Hillary should run as the Third Way candidate then, and not a Democrat.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Americans are waking up, growing up, and are finally ready to be weaned from the two party teat

keeping us in a dependent, infantile state.

[Fairgo]

17. Many voices of parliament

Two parties are easily bought. When parties form and fall as a reflection of public will, you get a much more organic forum for politics. When governance depends on coalition, the decisions, players, and agendas are all more transparent. The modern question is how best to set the people against the corporate beast. Much room for new models, but 2 party is a Punch and Judy show. The more voices the better!

[moondust]

80. "Two parties are easily bought."

There it is.

And two parties may be able to simply run smear campaigns against each other and never offer proposals or solutions to benefit The People.

And two parties may be able to scratch each other's backs as necessary to hold onto their jobs--The People be damned.

I'm sure stuff like gerrymandering, poll closings, and voter suppression are easier with only two main voting blocks.

Duopoly is too much like a football game with a lot of children joining the same team their parents belonged to without ever giving much critical thought to substance. And too easy to rig with money and dirty tricks.

[Fairgo]

81. Yep

That's why the sports metaphor is so troubling. It replaced values with team colors. It replaced platform with strategy. Debate became debacle, and the winning replaced democracy as the goal. Once cheapen, two party rule is as fixable as a boxing match. It's an easy step from corruption to theatre, where a debased politic is little more than WWF professional wrestling.

[wildeyed]

18. I agree with him 100%.

The two party system and non-partisan re-districting committees would are two basic issues that can be address locally and without huge fanfare. Laws that are proven to help weaken the two party system are as follows:

Same day voter registration
Longer early voting periods
Preferential voting, specifically instant runoff voting (prevents spoilers and empowers third parties)

My understanding is that non-partisan redistricting laws can be introduced via a ballot measure, which means citizens can make an end run around the parties completely. If I was planning to do this, I would get a coalition of dissident Dems, Libertarian, Green, good government c3s... I dunno, there are probably a bunch of groups who would support this, get the measure on the ballot and then mobilize the volunteers to start canvassing and calling.

These types of laws need to go bottom up. No way they happen top down. But if enough areas get them passed, and they work, then they can be pushed up the line.

Go forth and organize!

[Vinca]

19. I agree with him entirely on this.

The two-party system is like a long con set up between opposing groups with the same end game: $$$$$ for them.

[randome]

20. And yet he joins one of those two parties for the election? I don't get it.

"This system sucks and I'm joining it to show you that!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[whatchamacallit]

24. He didn't want to be a spoiler n/t

[TDale313]

53. You know why he made that choice, and most applauded it at the time.

He wasn't going to pull a Nader. That's a good thing. Now he's being attacked for that too.

The Democratic Party is important, been a Dem all my life, but that does not put it above criticism or mean it doesn't need some serious reform. It is there to put forward policies and principles that will help the people who support it, not vice versa. And it does not deserve loyalty and respect for it's own sake, that must be continuously earned or voters will look elsewhere.

[wyldwolf]

23. go ahead. Advocate Bernie should run third party.

[whatchamacallit]

31. If he did your precious party would waste away n/t

[Hoyt]

33. It should be your "precious party" too.

[whatchamacallit]

37. It's been my party all my life

until it left me.

[wyldwolf]

34. If Pinebox advocates Bernie should run third party, that would make the Dem party waste away?

So, are YOU advocating Bernie run third party?

[whatchamacallit]

38. No, I'm enjoying watching him take candy from your mouth

[Hoyt]

40. Which one of the GOPers do you think will be our next Prez?

[whatchamacallit]

43. I firmly believe Hillary winning the nomination is what leads to a republican president

So you tell me.

[Hoyt]

47. If it does, it's because spiteful Sanders supporters let it happen. I firmly believe if Sanders got

the nomination, you'd get to experience this generation's McGovern, Mondale, Carter (2nd term), Dukakis. But, I'd be voting for and supporting Sanders anyway.

[whatchamacallit]

61. I'm sure that will be the party's default excuse

Dismiss her negatives and baggage, the turnout disparity between republicans and democrats, and the current American zeitgeist, and blame those damn dirty hippies. Anything to avoid examining the real reason for the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. Good luck in the future DNC.

[Kittycat]

63. Her positions and judgement on key issues that matter to me, make it hard to distinguish her from

the GOP.

[Hoyt]

64. Fine vote for a GOPer, then it will become clearer to you.

[Kittycat]

68. I don't need to. I'm voting for Bernie.

But hey, if you are for cluster bombs, warmongering, Kissinger-praising, corporate cash loving, say what you want to hear, but do what you want candidates like Hillary. Then she's your candidate. You're all set. Oh yes, and we can't forget about TPP, and her involvement in NAFTA, either.

[brooklynite]

36. Simple solution...start a new Party

THEN, get people to agree to join it.

[JonLeibowitz]

46. We have some damn good third parties. Ones which will field candidates for the general in all 50.

[brooklynite]

73. ...and will generate a marginal number of votes.

Perhaps because they continue to focus on the Presidential as the be all/end all, rather than build up a true grassroots movement and actual electoral wins at the State and Local level first.

[pinebox]

57. Why we have good third parties

the problem is YOU simply are unaware of them.

[brooklynite]

82. I'm fully aware of them...

...in fact, my College Thesis was on the influence of Third Parties on the American Political System.

I know about Third Parties which were successful and influential...and then there are the Third Parties of today.

[MisterP]

55. "Clinton: Two-party system holds back competition"

[cantbeserious]

58. This Citizen Agrees With Bernie Completely

eom

[speaktruthtopower]

60. He's got a good point..

it also makes the system easier for big money to control.

[joshcryer]

67. Approval voting fixes this fairly easy.

[NexisHexus]

72. making sure the bricks are in the road

Its good Bernie is running, I haven't heard current congress candidates endorse him or vice versa. Bernie really needs to help the people find the candidates that already support him ,make an event of handing them a contract to sign that they support his platform so people are definitely getting a legally binding commitment. Lets say that no congress candidates decide to back Sanders plan, it will take the very groups supporting him to post dependable representatives to be write ins in the general election. This type of hyping can't be last minute.

If he wants to make change, he has to be helping the framework take place. I dont see that so far. Then again , congress democrat candidates have to shoulder the weight if they actually do support him .Without a congress, the apathy will give the privilege back to image alone. and seriously.. even if Hillary is the first female POTUS, you already know here politics are sold out. No sane person would presume Sanders would repeal the ACA and then get to a new health plan. Nope . Make the single payer system and repeal the ACA in a clause. He should call her out on smear. It makes Democrats sound dumb to present the inefficient strategy that republicans would adore. They're good at it.

Now me personally, I'm running also. I support a single payer for a family of four but 3rd kid..onward is on private insurance till 18. I have a committed war against white trash/evangelical trash. . #BenchforUSprez45