Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[CWSooner]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "strong" vs "weak", but I think it has a lot more to do with how society is changing.

Our country is more educated and racially diverse than ever. Meanwhile, income inequality is the highest it has been in a long time. Of course that's (among other reasons) going to change the type of people who get elected.

Parties are weak at the state and local level when the party leaders have no ability to select the party's nominees.
Nearly all, maybe all, nominees are determined by primary elections.  But who determines who votes in those primaries?  Not the parties.  The state determines it.  Different states have different rules, which in itself doesn't bother me.  But some states have open primaries, where anyone can vote in any primary regardless of his/her party affiliation.  Some states allow people to change parties right up until a few weeks before the primary elections.
Under conditions like that, how can we hold the parties responsible for the people who have (D) or (R) after their names on the general-election ballot?
Parties are also weak at the national level when they can't determine their nominees, although the mechanics of why that is are different.
I laughed at the Democrats in 2016 because they were actually less "democratic" than the Republicans.  Had they been more democratic, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee.  But the Democrats got smart after the George McGovern debacle in 1972 and set up a system where there are a large number of super-delegates--selected by the party--at the nominating convention.
So now I think that the Democrats do it better than the Republicans.  If the Republicans had had more super-delegates, maybe Trump wouldn't have gotten the nomination.  But the Republicans are more democratic in their selection process, and so Trump was able to successfully hijack the party.
I think both parties, in their own interest, should go one better than the Democrats and make at least half of the delegates to the nominating conventions be super-delegates, chosen by party leaders at local, state, and national level.
I don't think racial diversity and income disparity have much to do with it at all.  The "weaker," more democratic party, the GOP, nominated a lifelong-Democrat populist rabble-rouser who did not share the party's positions on many issues.
The Atlantic had a great opinion piece a couple of months ago: "Too Much Democracy is Bad for Democracy."

[rolltidefan]

Have you ever voted for an Auburn fan?

You joke but I’ll likely have the chance soon. I have no real idea of his politics but tubberville is on the ticket in bama for us senate. Him being au coach has little if any bearing on my thoughts as his political career might go. 

[bayareabadger]

The electoral college always struck me as a silly institution. It basically redistributes the power of those who can't or don't vote to those who do with a bit of a thumb on the scale of states on the extreme end of being small.

The argument against is, "if it were close, people would suspect malfeasance," but in truth, it only requires a few occasions of malfeasance in certain places to swing tides. It was suggested that California or Illinois might have sketchiness going one way, but if you have that in a few different states, you could swing a few elections over the years.

Anyway, I get that it's not changeable because many folks don't see much to gain in an equality of votes on this front. Such is life.

[bayareabadger]

I laughed at the Democrats in 2016 because they were actually less "democratic" than the Republicans.  Had they been more democratic, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee.  But the Democrats got smart after the George McGovern debacle in 1972 and set up a system where there are a large number of super-delegates--selected by the party--at the nominating convention.

A nit to pick, this isn't correct.

Clinton crushed Sanders in terms of votes. She had him by more than 8.8 percent in regular delegates.

People spent a ton of time talking about it, but she did in fact win without them in rather strong fashion.

[CWSooner]

A nit to pick, this isn't correct.

Clinton crushed Sanders in terms of votes. She had him by more than 8.8 percent in regular delegates.

People spent a ton of time talking about it, but she did in fact win without them in rather strong fashion.

Thanks for the correction.  She was not trailing without the super-delegates.
But I'm not sure your correction is quite right either.
Clinton came into the convention leading Sanders 2205 (54.4%) to 1846.  That would not have been a majority of the 4763 total delegates.  So without the 712 super-delegates (which broke 668.5 to 43.5 for her) she would not have won.

[847badgerfan]

Establishment? 

Code for "super" delegates?

Lots and lots of fundamentally wrong things right now.

[CWSooner]

Establishment?

Code for "super" delegates?

Lots and lots of fundamentally wrong things right now.

The super-delegates were chosen by the party at, as I understand it, local, state, and national level.  The party establishment.

[bayareabadger]

Thanks for the correction.  She was not trailing without the super-delegates.
But I'm not sure your correction is quite right either.
Clinton came into the convention leading Sanders 2205 (54.4%) to 1846.  That would not have been a majority of the 4763 total delegates.  So without the 712 super-delegates (which broke 668.5 to 43.5 for her) she would not have won.

Fair enough. She only won the democratic field, but would've only had a plurality in a field diluted by the anti-democratic dilution. (Democratic in the non-party sense)

[Cincydawg]

Our original government only allowed for one Federal office directly elected by popular vote (the House), and voters were all white property owners.

Our Founders were scared of "democracy" almost as much as they were monarchy.  They wanted a very limited government installed mainly by the Powers that Be (sort of the Deep State of 1783 in effect).  Electors were meant to vote for who they thought was the best candidate.  Voters voted for electors to make their own decision when it was time to vote.  Electors were not supposed to be "political" (ha).

The country was not designed to be anything like a democracy because it was designed largely by wealthy highly educated white men who wanted to keep power to wealthy educated white men.

[847badgerfan]

I've been reading a lot about school being out, and the need for school districts to provide meals to kids. I've been aware that Chicago has been doing this for a long time. What I've found through this is how widespread the practice has become.

My kids didn't get fed in school. I know for sure I didn't, because I still remember my Speed Racer lunch box.

When did schools become free restaurants? Is this a thing all over the country?

[Cincydawg]

Yes, basically, the poorer families qualify for reduced price lunches nearly everywhere.

[847badgerfan]

There is no reduced around here. It's all free and the districts have set up drive through points for people to collect food.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Cincydawg]

I saw on the local news a lady declaring how great this was for her 5 kids.  She was wearing some rather nice clothing and drove off in a newish Honda minivan.

[GopherRock]

A nit to pick, this isn't correct.

Clinton crushed Sanders in terms of votes. She had him by more than 8.8 percent in regular delegates.

People spent a ton of time talking about it, but she did in fact win without them in rather strong fashion.

Those of us who have been watching national Democrats for a long time knew that as soon as Obama finished off Hillary in his 2008 insurrection campaign, she was going to be the nominee in 2016, and there wasn't a thing that us peons could do about it.