COMTE
Awesome Person 2011
SWASHBUCKLING HERO 2012
SLOG FAN
Capitol Hill, Seattle, WA, USA, Earth, Sol, Sagittarius Arm, Milky Way Galaxy
report this user

Bio

COMTE is the online handle of Christopher Comte, a native of the great State of… more »

COMTE is not putting up with any of your bullshit.
4:41 PM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
Sorry, @28 is obviously meant for @27...
4:40 PM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
@26:

Really? Name one, because I've never heard of any council member besides Sawant profess a particular affinity with Socialist Alternative (Sawant's party), the Freedom Socialist Party, or the Socialist Workers Party, nor have any others been formally endorsed by them. They may be far-Left Democrats, but, as you can tell from recent comment threads, those on the FAR far-Left wouldn't consider them "ideologically pure enough" to qualify for their exclusive club.

In fact, the only other local candidates any of those parties have formally endorsed recently (so far as I've been able to determine) was John Naubert who ran for a Seattle Port Commission seat last year under the SWP banner, Edwin Fruit (SWP) for Council District 6 in 2013, and Linda Averil, who ran as FSP for a City Council seat in 2012.
2:45 PM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
@20:

ONE successful alternative party candidate in a City that has a perception for being ultra-Liberal; not exactly indicative of a groundswell of support for third parties in general.

@21:

Far-Left OR far-Right, the same principals apply: you can't win elections without fielding candidates people actually want to vote for in large enough numbers to make some sort of appreciable difference in their communities, and those on the extremes seem adamantly opposed to moving closer to the middle in order to attract voters in large enough numbers to accomplish that. Thus, you get what you've got now: preservation of your Ideological Purity at the expense of any actual ability to govern.

As for something more along the lines of a true multi-party system, well that really only works when you have a governance structure in place that allows for some form of proportional voting; something our district-based winner-take-all (Single-Member District Plurality - SMDP) system admittedly doesn't accommodate very well. The flaw with our system is that a third party, even one with a considerable amount of voter representation, is going to be a perpetual also-ran unless they can somehow overtake one of the top-two parties, which is understandably difficult. So, historically, when such parties have existed they've ended up forming coalitions with one of the major parties that most closely aligned with their ideology and eventually become absorbed by them.

It's a "feature" of our structure of governance as delineated in our Constitution, predicated on the Framers' desire to create a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches different from the traditional parliamentary system where the majority in the legislative controls the executive, and with the judicial branch deliberately inoculated from the ravages of the electoral process, thus leaving the other two branches perpetually at-odds so that neither could amass too much power and therefore imbalance the entire system. When you have two entities designed to be in a state of tension with each other, it's a natural outcome of the system that two more-or-less oppositional forces will result.

In order to create an effective system of proportional representation in this country, we would have to engage in a wholesale scrapping of our current electoral system from top to bottom, eliminating the concept of SMDP altogether. And that would require re-writings of literally every municipal and county code, and 50 separate state constitutions, plus the federal, otherwise it's only going to impact the individual districts where it's adopted and nowhere else and thus have negligible effect.

So, maybe you-all should get started on that now and then get back to us in, oh, a century or so, and let's see how you've made out.
More...
12:11 PM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
@18:

And if wishes were horses, we'd all have ponies.

It's that WORK part that third parties don't seem much interested in doing; how else to account for the absolutely dismally small number of candidates they manage to field or supporters they attract? See, there's the rub: you WANT all those disaffected middle and lower-middle class Americans to come to your side, but what are you actually DOING to give them a reason to do so? You keep making the mistake of assuming they share your affinity for a far-Left ideology, when clearly that is not the case, and then scratch your head - or blame the "broken system" - when they don't flock to you in massive numbers. The simple fact is that most Americans are NOT as far to the Left as you want them to be - not by a long shot - and your efforts to drag them farther Left than they're comfortable with continue to fail. So, you're stuck in a quandary: you can't attract a sizable number of voters without simultaneously acceding to ideological compromises you are unwilling to make.
11:24 AM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
@12:

What possible benefit is there to your cause to vote for candidates who can never be elected? If it's political influence you're seeking, trotting out a noncompetitive candidate for president every four years isn't going to accomplish that no matter how much you may wish otherwise. The truth is you don't have 50,000,000 fellow travelers out their on the fringe Left to compete at the national level; you don't even have 5,000,000, and you never will, because most people tend to stick closer to the middle by nature. And until third parties get serious about running candidates - a LOT of candidates - for local and state races where you actually COULD have some influence, you're always going to be standing on the outside looking in, clinging to your sense of smug sanctimony to assuage your inability to actually effect the kind of change you seek.
11:02 AM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
@10:

If your goal is to influence the Democratic Party you're going to need to work within it if you want to apply pressure, as was evinced during this current primary. Voting for a third party candidate, regardless of the context, isn't going to push Democrats further to the Left, because there are never going to be enough of you to exert that amount of external pressure. 131,000,000 votes were cast in the 2008 presidential election, and about 125,000,000 in 2012; given current trends we can expect the total number of votes cast in November to likely exceed that of 2008. That means a third party candidate would need well over 6,500,000 of those votes to even qualify for federal matching funds, which is more than twice the total number of votes the Green Party received in 2000. Considering what's at stake, thinking that is going to happen in 2016 is simply unrealistic, and particularly given the rather dismal showing these groups have consistently shown over the years. Will they gain some voters? Entirely likely. But, not THAT many, and certainly not enough to have any serious impact from the outside.
More...
9:49 AM yesterday COMTE commented on The Morning News: Jeff Bezos Getting Even Richer, Hillary Making History, Sawant Alienating Local Dems.
It's not that Democrats can't be or aren't as patriotic as Republicans, it's just that, for decades the GOP has co-opted that particular quality of our collective national character and wielded it as an analog for strident, unquestioning nationalism, while using their simplistic "'Murka, Love It Or Leave It" ideology to paint Democrats as anti-patriotic. In this election cycle the GOP's somewhat reluctant embrace of a narcissistic, self-serving demagogue is providing the Democratic Party the opportunity to reclaim the notion of patriotism, true love of country, as a quality that binds us together, rather than separating us, the e plurubus, unum to which Clinton referred in her acceptance speech last night. And the moderate wing of the Republican Party simply has no idea what to make of seeing the symbols and motifs with which they've always defined themselves used against them.
9:12 AM yesterday COMTE commented on How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant.
@150:

Voting third party in down-ballot races CAN be effective; the fact that the Libertarians and Greens have actually had some very modest successes at that level is evidence that it is at least feasible. But, their biggest problem is their inability to field anything close to a full slate of candidates at any level. Imagine if Greens and Libs ran candidates for ALL Seattle City Council races, for example. That would help boost their name recognition, get their candidates out in front of the voting public, allow them to articulate their platforms, and begin to lay the groundwork for other candidates farther up the ticket. But that's not what they do. Instead, their approach seems very scattershot: a candidate here, a candidate there, spread over hundreds, if not thousands of contests, which makes it impossible for any more than a handful of them to gain traction. It's not just about having good ideas, it's about having enough people expressing those ideas to grab voters' attention; and to-date none of the third parties in this country seem to have made that a priority.
More...
9:00 AM yesterday COMTE commented on How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant.
@145:

Sanders will never become SML. Even if the Democrats take control of the Senate in November, Sanders will be returning with a big "I" next to his name, and there is simply no chance that the Dem Caucus will elect someone not from their own party to that position, particularly after going mano a mano with their preferred presidential candidate.
8:46 AM yesterday COMTE commented on How Many Republicans did Obama Turn Into Democrats Last Night?.
@10:

Most people in this country don't register for either party, but do self-identify with them. So, if anyone who's always voted GOP switches this year, that's good enough for me.