ForumGarden

Buddy Roemer: GOP Pres. Candidate Who Backs Occupy, Campaign Finance Reform, Excluded from Debates

Interesting clip from Democracy Now with bigger implications.

This guy is a professional politician who can't get in the debate. He needs half a million dollars to satisfy their latest request. That's how twisted the political systems are. Now think about how many good people are out there in the world that would make a better president or prime minister who we never hear about. They can't even get a full page ad.

I think it's time to encourage everyone to only vote for independent candidates.

I think it's time to encourage everyone to only vote for independent candidates.


By sheer coincidence, I was just thinking about this. Although it is theoretically desireable, I don't think it's actually practical. Though my views on this are very speculative and I've certainly not thought it through in detail.

All MPs elected to parliament waaaay back when, were independents there solely to represent their area's interests. Parties happened when groups of people with broadly similar viewpoints found they could achieve things much better if they compromised some of their views in order to co-operate. That's a very simplified description - perhaps too much so - but it does illustrate my point that political parties are an inevitable consequence of putting politicians together, and the most effective way that has been found to date to achieve anything in politics. The consequence is that even if our politicians were not allowed to form parties they would in practice, because they would naturally form a group with people of broadly like mind, which IS, effectively, a political party.

The only way it would be possible is if the politicians were kept completely isolated from eachother. Difficult at a time when here we are yakking across the Atlantic in real time without a second thought... Putting all politicians in solitary confinement for the duration of their term might be entertaining (and the tv reality show created from the surveillance footage might be a hit!), but also probably a breach of human rights and the only people who might do it are not the sort of people you want - more of the same only worse.

I don't claim the current system is great; just that all the practical alternatives I know of are worse.

There is a coalition of Independent candidates party for our local Council Councilors.

Many local campaigners get drawn into Politics as a solution to the problem.

Their strength is the passion for the job in hand and the fact they are not answerable to the Party line from above, but can still use their block vote to counteract 'Party line' politics played out in the Council.

koan;1380658 wrote: Buddy Roemer: GOP Pres. Candidate Who Backs Occupy, Campaign Finance Reform, Excluded from Debates

Interesting clip from Democracy Now with bigger implications.

This guy is a professional politician who can't get in the debate. He needs half a million dollars to satisfy their latest request. That's how twisted the political systems are. Now think about how many good people are out there in the world that would make a better president or prime minister who we never hear about. They can't even get a full page ad.

I think it's time to encourage everyone to only vote for independent candidates.
We have a public TV network. They should provide a national platform for these candidates. Say, the 2nd Five or so.

The Party has to set some sort of entry requirements. Sure the spin now is the money, but really, what does he bring to the table?

His following is pretty small.

And he is a bit of a flake.

I think I would rather have seen Roemer in there than Bachman, though.

I have family in Louisiana. They are not really impressed with Buddy.

But then he was a candle in the dark when he beat out Eddy for the governor job.

More entertainment than anything else.

My uncle says Buddy is a nice enough guy, but he is hardly someone that should be sitting in the Oval Office.

koan;1380658 wrote: ...

I think it's time to encourage everyone to only vote for independent candidates.


There are a lot of lunatic fringe out there in the indie market.

While the Party system has its faults, they at least vette the candidates to weed out most of the whackos.

Notice I specified "most"

Clodhopper;1380674 wrote: By sheer coincidence, I was just thinking about this. Although it is theoretically desireable, I don't think it's actually practical. Though my views on this are very speculative and I've certainly not thought it through in detail.

All MPs elected to parliament waaaay back when, were independents there solely to represent their area's interests. Parties happened when groups of people with broadly similar viewpoints found they could achieve things much better if they compromised some of their views in order to co-operate. That's a very simplified description - perhaps too much so - but it does illustrate my point that political parties are an inevitable consequence of putting politicians together, and the most effective way that has been found to date to achieve anything in politics. The consequence is that even if our politicians were not allowed to form parties they would in practice, because they would naturally form a group with people of broadly like mind, which IS, effectively, a political party.

The only way it would be possible is if the politicians were kept completely isolated from eachother. Difficult at a time when here we are yakking across the Atlantic in real time without a second thought... Putting all politicians in solitary confinement for the duration of their term might be entertaining (and the tv reality show created from the surveillance footage might be a hit!), but also probably a breach of human rights and the only people who might do it are not the sort of people you want - more of the same only worse.

I don't claim the current system is great; just that all the practical alternatives I know of are worse.
Them getting together to accomplish specific ideas is exactly what the purposed of having a vote on the issue is meant to allow. Of course some of them might find themselves of similar mindset and political beliefs and start to make deals "if you vote for my idea I'll vote for yours" to think that means they should create a party platform that disallows free thinking is not the logical conclusion. I believe announcing how each MP voted on each issue on a public website would help constituents keep track of whether or not the MPs are representing them fairly. I also thought about having a site with filters to prevent multiple replies that polls the public on issues and then the politicians would be forced to explain why their policies aren't reflecting that Will if it starts to vary too much.

Just an idea thus far.



Accountable;1380679 wrote: We have a public TV network. They should provide a national platform for these candidates. Say, the 2nd Five or so.
That's what I was thinking about trying. Putting an organization together that would ensure that all candidates get equal access to the media. I don't care how wacky some candidates are, I still believe they have rights. We have a local in Victoria who uses craigslist to rant and rave about why he wasn't elected. Apparently he's not a very nice man, but he should have been allowed the same media to promote. Break them up into groups and air them at different times, even separate the groups by the amount of support they've acquired so Elizabeth May isn't debating with Jesus Highagin. Eliminate all campaign tactics not available to all candidates.



LarsMac;1380681 wrote: I have family in Louisiana. They are not really impressed with Buddy.

But then he was a candle in the dark when he beat out Eddy for the governor job.

More entertainment than anything else.

My uncle says Buddy is a nice enough guy, but he is hardly someone that should be sitting in the Oval Office.
I'm not really impressed with any of the candidates. The idea of a president named Mitt seems a little strange. I just find it strange that someone with an actual career in politics wasn't even able to get in there. That means there are people better than him who don't even know where to start. People not trained in politics.

LarsMac;1380682 wrote: There are a lot of lunatic fringe out there in the indie market.

While the Party system has its faults, they at least vette the candidates to weed out most of the whackos.

Notice I specified "most"
Just think how much more entertaining the elections would be if we got to hear from the lunatic fringe as well.

Clodhopper;1380674 wrote: By sheer coincidence, I was just thinking about this. Although it is theoretically desireable, I don't think it's actually practical. Though my views on this are very speculative and I've certainly not thought it through in detail.

All MPs elected to parliament waaaay back when, were independents there solely to represent their area's interests. Parties happened when groups of people with broadly similar viewpoints found they could achieve things much better if they compromised some of their views in order to co-operate. That's a very simplified description - perhaps too much so - but it does illustrate my point that political parties are an inevitable consequence of putting politicians together, and the most effective way that has been found to date to achieve anything in politics. The consequence is that even if our politicians were not allowed to form parties they would in practice, because they would naturally form a group with people of broadly like mind, which IS, effectively, a political party.

The only way it would be possible is if the politicians were kept completely isolated from eachother. Difficult at a time when here we are yakking across the Atlantic in real time without a second thought... Putting all politicians in solitary confinement for the duration of their term might be entertaining (and the tv reality show created from the surveillance footage might be a hit!), but also probably a breach of human rights and the only people who might do it are not the sort of people you want - more of the same only worse.

I don't claim the current system is great; just that all the practical alternatives I know of are worse.


Surely, the moment at which the candidate the people elect ceases to represent those people in parliament is the moment that we cease to be a democracy.

When the party can dictate to the MoP how (s)he should vote then there is no representation of the people.

Surely, the moment at which the candidate the people elect ceases to represent those people in parliament is the moment that we cease to be a democracy.


Yes. But what is meant by representation? Is the MP there solely to act as a conduit for his constituents - just to reflect as accurately as possible his constituents' views? Or is an MP elected to use his or her judgement on behalf of those constituents? I would say that while bearing in mind the constituency viewpoint, an MP should also also use his or her judgement as to what is best both for both constituency and country. It's a balance.



When the party can dictate to the MoP how (s)he should vote then there is no representation of the people.


Again, yes but. I would rephrase is it to "When the party dictates...". The difference being that when the MP has a choice as to whether to follow the party line or not, that's one thing. When the MP is taken out and shot for failing to follow the party line, that's another thing altogether. Also, many constituents are Party supporters and dislike it when their their Labour MP votes Tory or vice versa. Though I think we're going to have some interesting moments with the proposed London/Birmingham fast rail link, which apparently goes through Conservative rural constuencies pretty much the whole way. Not likely to be popular.

Them getting together to accomplish specific ideas is exactly what the purposed of having a vote on the issue is meant to allow. Of course some of them might find themselves of similar mindset and political beliefs and start to make deals "if you vote for my idea I'll vote for yours" to think that means they should create a party platform that disallows free thinking is not the logical conclusion. I believe announcing how each MP voted on each issue on a public website would help constituents keep track of whether or not the MPs are representing them fairly. I also thought about having a site with filters to prevent multiple replies that polls the public on issues and then the politicians would be forced to explain why their policies aren't reflecting that Will if it starts to vary too much.

Just an idea thus far.




I elect my MPs to use their judgement on my behalf in Parliament. I do not elect them to reflect evey nuance of my views. The Liberal Democrats do not reflect my views with 100% accuracy, but they are the nearest of the parties to my views, so I vote for their candidate. One of the problems with Independents is, "Who is this guy?" Who has checked up on him/her? Who can vouch for this person I do not know personally?

I think I'm more in favour of reforming parties than abolishing them. I do think of Parliamentary Democracy as an evolving system, not a system set in stone.

Clodhopper;1380892 wrote: Yes. But what is meant by representation? Is the MP there solely to act as a conduit for his constituents - just to reflect as accurately as possible his constituents' views? Or is an MP elected to use his or her judgement on behalf of those constituents? I would say that while bearing in mind the constituency viewpoint, an MP should also also use his or her judgement as to what is best both for both constituency and country. It's a balance.




The problem is that, as things are at the moment, your MP is doing neither - he is following the party line and voting as directed by his Whip.



Clodhopper;1380892 wrote:

Again, yes but. I would rephrase is it to "When the party dictates...". The difference being that when the MP has a choice as to whether to follow the party line or not, that's one thing. When the MP is taken out and shot for failing to follow the party line, that's another thing altogether. Also, many constituents are Party supporters and dislike it when their their Labour MP votes Tory or vice versa. Though I think we're going to have some interesting moments with the proposed London/Birmingham fast rail link, which apparently goes through Conservative rural constuencies pretty much the whole way. Not likely to be popular.




He might not be taken out and shot by the MP who defies a Three Line Whip is an MP in his last term of office.

Clodhopper;1380892 wrote:

I elect my MPs to use their judgement on my behalf in Parliament. I do not elect them to reflect evey nuance of my views. The Liberal Democrats do not reflect my views with 100% accuracy, but they are the nearest of the parties to my views, so I vote for their candidate. One of the problems with Independents is, "Who is this guy?" Who has checked up on him/her? Who can vouch for this person I do not know personally?

I think I'm more in favour of reforming parties than abolishing them. I do think of Parliamentary Democracy as an evolving system, not a system set in stone.


Sadly, I think that Parliamentary Democracy is a devolving system and we are moving ever closer to a two party state in which the voter has ever less say.

The Whip is a term brought forth from the fact that members voting against their party used to be literally whipped. Now they are just forced to walk the plank to the other side. Yep. You're either with us or against us. Where's the common sense in that? The only way to get rid of that mentality is to elect independents. Perhaps if there were a majority independents and the "Prime Minister" had no actual power... we'd replace the need for a queen.

The problem is that, as things are at the moment, your MP is doing neither - he is following the party line and voting as directed by his Whip.




And the party line is the compromise between the party members. That's why the penalties for broaching it are so severe. (Koan...)

Now if the party line is just the view of a few in the party, then that, in my view, is a reason to reform the party. Not necessarily the system.

Sadly, I think that Parliamentary Democracy is a devolving system and we are moving ever closer to a two party state in which the voter has ever less say.


It is the great failure of the Liberal Democrats that we have not managed to convince the electorate otherwise. Trouble is, being a Lib Dem requires you to think rather than accept your parents' prejudices. And to accept that people are people, no matter where they are. It is faintly comforting that as many people as do, prefer the moderate compromisers rather than the class or race based view of the alternatives.

Perhaps if there were a majority independents and the "Prime Minister" had no actual power... we'd replace the need for a queen.


You could - as long as you make sure your prime minister has no political power. Which is just creating the same as we've spent several hundred years creating (and the "we" in that includes you).

Clodhopper;1381304 wrote: And the party line is the compromise between the party members. That's why the penalties for broaching it are so severe. (Koan...)

Now if the party line is just the view of a few in the party, then that, in my view, is a reason to reform the party. Not necessarily the system.



It is the great failure of the Liberal Democrats that we have not managed to convince the electorate otherwise. Trouble is, being a Lib Dem requires you to think rather than accept your parents' prejudices. And to accept that people are people, no matter where they are. It is faintly comforting that as many people as do, prefer the moderate compromisers rather than the class or race based view of the alternatives.



You could - as long as you make sure your prime minister has no political power. Which is just creating the same as we've spent several hundred years creating (and the "we" in that includes you).


No, the party line is decided by the Cabinet and dictated to the party members who have no say in the matter short of open revolt.

The party is a Leviathan. If you have an independent Leviathan of one person it's a stupid ass bloke standing there saying "rawr" and getting caught on camera with his pants down. If you have a party Leviathan it's a stupid ass bloke replaced quickly by another currently uncaught stupid ass bloke, all recruited for the basic purpose of making sure the party gets some votes. And getting votes relies, right now, on getting publicity... which is bought by corporate dollars. Mind you people will put up with a little pants down because we've all been brought up on soap operas and will accept an evil twin thesis as easily as a "yes, he died, but it was all just a dream".

No, the party line is decided by the Cabinet and dictated to the party members who have no say in the matter short of open revolt.


So what happens when a party is not in government? No cabinet, no party line?

No. If you join or support the Tories, you know roughly what you are getting. Ditto the other parties. Yes, the more influential members of the party can change the party line, and that's right - it's how policy changes. No the system isn't perfect and sometimes (usually?) the changes are a mixed blessing at best. But it is a system that works, which is no mean achievement given some of the personalities who want and get power.

I also think that people thinking and arguing about it in places like FG or the local party branch are an important part of the system. It is where the ideas for change come from.

Clodhopper;1381376 wrote: So what happens when a party is not in government? No cabinet, no party line?

No. If you join or support the Tories, you know roughly what you are getting. Ditto the other parties. Yes, the more influential members of the party can change the party line, and that's right - it's how policy changes. No the system isn't perfect and sometimes (usually?) the changes are a mixed blessing at best. But it is a system that works, which is no mean achievement given some of the personalities who want and get power.

I also think that people thinking and arguing about it in places like FG or the local party branch are an important part of the system. It is where the ideas for change come from.


When the party is not in government then it has a shadow cabinet, it still has a party line and that party line is still, ultimately, dictated by the wishes of its paymasters, not the wishes of its members.

Work out how much it costs to keep a party in existence and in a position to realistically compete in each national and local election (which it must do in order to remain a serious player in the game).

Then work out how much the membership can put up - each of the major parties is, of necessity, dependent on its "sponsors" who, as a result, have a large say in what the party line is.