Hawaii One Party State

Dog the Bounty Hunter should run. Unless je’s in jail again or something.
 
Lead said:
It depends on the scenario which is why I said when a party becomes overwhelmingly dominant in the state. You could argue the same is true for a normal primary. I do agree it still remains somewhat of a con but not an absolute one.
Click to expand...
But a normal primary puts a candidate at the head of the party for that position, establishing the party's nominee. I don't get why we would undermine that mandate and weaken the parties for the aesthetic or entertainment value of a general election. That seems like a very autistic millennial sort of thing to do.
 
Fawlty said:
But a normal primary puts a candidate at the head of the party for that position, establishing the party's nominee. I don't get why we would undermine that mandate and weaken the parties for the aesthetic or entertainment value of a general election. That seems like a very autistic millennial sort of thing to do.
Click to expand...

Okay, keep in mind you started with that's not very democratic to that's not respecting political institutions. We can go on.

Aesthetic and entertainment value? Shouldn't a general election try to feature the two most popular candidates? Why have a party represented in the general if they don't carry a significant amount of support to be there? Like we said, in some of these areas, the primary becomes the general election. Lots of people don't even pay attention to a primary race. Also, keep in mind I stated twice this is for a scenario where on party has become irrelevant and wouldn't be the rule but the exception for some states. I don't see the value in doing it at a national level with as the parties seems to do a decent job gaining support back and forth.

I do agree it weakens the overall purpose of a party but in cases where you become a virtually a one party state, the party system already has been weakened and to a degree pointless.
 
58miles said:
Apparently white grievance politics doesn't work so well in a state that is overwhelmingly minority:(
Click to expand...
Dems promise change on the islands, yet nothing changes. Not our fault their vote is their own to do what they please. But HI isn’t thriving like the 48 are
 
GOP needs to up their gerrymandering game.
 
Lead said:
Shouldn't a general election try to feature the two most popular candidates?
Click to expand...

Sounds good. Same as it sounds good that a party should find one candidate to back.

In HI you can vote in any party's primary. But you can't vote in more than one. Everyone still has a chance to have their say at the ballot box, regardless of what the blowout numbers would have you believe.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Sounds good. Same as it sounds good that a party should find one candidate to back.

In HI you can vote in any party's primary. But you can't vote in more than one. Everyone still has a chance to have their say at the ballot box, regardless of what the blowout numbers would have you believe.
Click to expand...

I'd have to look closer at their set up and probably turnout in the primary vs general but it could possibly be fine the way it is. I just am more familiar with California and think they've made a logical change. Hawaii might be a different instance that I shouldn't just throw in the same category off the bat.
 
Lead said:
I'd have to look closer at their set up and probably turnout in the primary vs general but it could possibly be fine the way it is. I just am more familiar with California and think they've made a logical change. Hawaii might be a different instance that I shouldn't just throw in the same category off the bat.
Click to expand...

No clue how Cali does it, but I vote in every primary and general. Anyone here can do it if they choose. Until other parties become a factor you just vote the Democratic primary portion and ignore the other races. Then in the general I either go with the flow or cast some protest votes.
 
DIDM said:
Dems promise change on the islands, yet nothing changes. Not our fault their vote is their own to do what they please. But HI isn’t thriving like the 48 are
Click to expand...
Well lets just see how US News ranks hawaii...
hmmm
#1 in access to healthcare
#1 in Employment
#4 in Economic opportunity
#10 in economic equality
#16 in Public safety
#27 in Infrastructure
# 29 in Education

Im thinking that Hawaii is doing alright. Especially for a state with no real industry, horrible transportation logistics and communications, and next to no real method of self sustainment. It's certainly beating the shit out of the other states in a lot of ways. Having lived there for a number of years, the US news rankings pretty much hit on what i already knew. Hawaiians enjoy better healthcare (thanks Dems), Better employment opportunities (thanks Dems) and better wages (thanks Dems), These things generally aid in keeping crime down without authoritarian measures.
 
Roaming East said:
Well lets just see how US News ranks hawaii...
hmmm
#1 in access to healthcare
#1 in Employment
#4 in Economic opportunity
#10 in economic equality
#16 in Public safety
#27 in Infrastructure
# 29 in Education

Im thinking that Hawaii is doing alright. Especially for a state with no real industry, horrible transportation logistics and communications, and next to no real method of self sustainment. It's certainly beating the shit out of the other states in a lot of ways. Having lived there for a number of years, the US news rankings pretty much hit on what i already knew. Hawaiians enjoy better healthcare (thanks Dems), Better employment opportunities (thanks Dems) and better wages (thanks Dems), These things generally aid in keeping crime down without authoritarian measures.
Click to expand...
The Hawaii I remember you had to leave your car doors unlocked othwise risk a junkie smashing the windows for the loose change
 
Lead said:
Okay, keep in mind you started with that's not very democratic to that's not respecting political institutions. We can go on.

Aesthetic and entertainment value? Shouldn't a general election try to feature the two most popular candidates? Why have a party represented in the general if they don't carry a significant amount of support to be there? Like we said, in some of these areas, the primary becomes the general election. Lots of people don't even pay attention to a primary race. Also, keep in mind I stated twice this is for a scenario where on party has become irrelevant and wouldn't be the rule but the exception for some states. I don't see the value in doing it at a national level with as the parties seems to do a decent job gaining support back and forth.

I do agree it weakens the overall purpose of a party but in cases where you become a virtually a one party state, the party system already has been weakened and to a degree pointless.
Click to expand...
A no-party state is a one-party state. Political parties are what modern democracies have, and taking away their rights is what is anti-democratic. The parties are getting the shit kicked out them in favor of the basest populist rhetoric that manifests itself in bad ideas (and a lot of really twisted people like Trump/Bernie bros are actually cheering that on).

The people have it backward, for the most part (there are some legit campaign finance concerns), thinking that the way for people to have more say is to restrict the rights of political organization. All that actually accomplishes is the radicalization of our lawmakers. As we, who have eyes, can plainly see, every day, all the time. The results are apparent. Do we really want to keep going down that road? Are we fucking retarded?

I guess I just have to refer back to my comment about the primary election being the time when the political party puts forward their leading candidate. It's decided, that's the person for that party. Maybe the party chooses to do a runoff of some kind, cool. The party can do that.

The fix for that stuff is not to restrict political freedom, but to expand it. The obvious, but difficult solution there is more and proportionate representation, which is the only way third parties can really break through. This can only be accomplished by making very big changes.
 
Fawlty said:
A no-party state is a one-party state.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this more if it isn't just the following for what you mean by this. I'm not saying they can't necessarily claim a party. Just that all parties would share a joint primary. I'm not aware if this is a thing but possibly if the party wanted to, they could only allow on candidate to show up that they endorse. That seems like it would get more complicated though.

Fawlty said:
Political parties are what modern democracies have, and taking away their rights is what is anti-democratic. The parties are getting the shit kicked out them in favor of the basest populist rhetoric that manifests itself in bad ideas (and a lot of really twisted people like Trump/Bernie bros are actually cheering that on).
Click to expand...

I share a similar concern about this and that's why I wouldn't apply the model across the board as what we should go with. I think at a more local level, it possibly works fine however. Let me ask you, do you think California's system has been good or bad with the joint primary? I've heard some decent arguments that California suffers from trying to be too democratic with things like joint primary, referendums, etc and they suffer at times as a result.

Fawlty said:
A no-party state is a one-party state.
Click to expand...
The people have it backward, for the most part (there are some legit campaign finance concerns), thinking that the way for people to have more say is to restrict the rights of political organization. All that actually accomplishes is the radicalization of our lawmakers. As we, who have eyes, can plainly see, every day, all the time. The results are apparent. Do we really want to keep going down that road? Are we fucking retarded?

I guess I just have to refer back to my comment about the primary election being the time when the political party puts forward their leading candidate. It's decided, that's the person for that party. Maybe the party chooses to do a runoff of some kind, cool. The party can do that.

The fix for that stuff is not to restrict political freedom, but to expand it. The obvious, but difficult solution there is more and proportionate representation, which is the only way third parties can really break through. This can only be accomplished by making very big changes.[/QUOTE]

That's kinda why I was attacking the normal system in this case though. Two parties get default spots on that general ballot when one has absolutely failed to gather any support from the people in that state. I would be just as open to an easier path for a third party candidate making the ballot (keeping it a 2 candidate ballot which would push out the GOP one in this case) but I don't think that would really gain traction because party identity goes above the state level.
 
How do Checks And Balances work in a state where one part rules?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HOLA
Elections Vivek Ramaswamy: Republican party is "party of losers."
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
4K
jefferz
jefferz

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,998
Messages
55,460,218
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top