So been visiting Hungary, and here the conservative and successfull Fidesz party is slowly losing grounds to a new strategy by the socialists.

The old socialist party that ruled for decades were dismantled, the Legacy and funds of that party went to the MSZP


They have lost the last two elections very heavily mainly because younger voters are disenchanted with the old farts that run the party, to Counter this they created a new informal sister party the LMP


They stand for "Politics can be different" which I guess is adifferentiation of the Democrat Obama slogan "Change". They claim to be against the MSZP and attack them openly, though behind the scenes they are collaborating to ensure the same political agenda of socialism. While MSZP focuses on the old guard socialist and middle class older voters by being socially conservative with focus on job growth, increased spending the LMP is focusing on increased welfare and environmentalism to capture young voters. So far this has worked with polls showing Fidesz popularity have gone from above 60% to 38%, though this new 38% may not be true as the media in Hungary is communist controlled outlets.

But this got me thinking, many conservatives on the right and especially political pundits on Townhall are calling for European form of electoral system. When you vote for parties you have no controll over who is party representative as that is decided by the party Central Commission, so if there is an parliamentary election in one electorate the vote does not go to one candidate that then is chosen by the voters to be representative but the votes are collected nationally and the party then if get enough votes decides who get to be representative so there is no connection between voter and candidate, just party and voter.

For example in USA if Republican party get 40% of the votes, the Democrats get 25% and the Greens get 25% with 10% not voting in one electoral territory then the Republican win. In Parliamentary system the Greens and Democrats would win as their combined 50% would give them more representation than having winner takes all. So this system of divide and conquer Works well in Europe, and I'm already seeing it in my own country, I really hope conservatives in the US do not make the mistake of copying European system of multiparty system as it is only to the benefit of the socialists.

The issue lies with the open/closed primary system we currently have, where Independents have no voice in party selection, which is actually a good thing. However!!

The problem is Dims actually cross party lines to vote in (R) primaries as to influence and limit our choices. Eg. this cycle they'll support Bush to hurt a Cruz, so as to insure a Hitlery challenger be a weak rino, assuring we lose.
What we need is, a rule that holds you to a party per election cycle, in other words, if you register Dim, then you can't change to Pub till after the next full election cycle.
Vote Dim for POTUS? You're stuck till next POTUS cycle comes around.

I believe this might make people take their choices seriously when considering party, making Independent more attractive and loosening the grip of the two party system these scum have created.

Obama secured  a seat as an Illonois state senator (prior to being elected a US Senator from Illonois) with the help and endorsement of THE NEW PARTY.  In 2008 The American Communist Party (who for many years ran their own candidate, most notably; "GUS HALL) changed their name to CPUSA (Communist Party USA). They endorsed Obama!  It's interesting to see how many tentacles, from the Black Liberation Front and New Black Panthers, too name only a few,  are rooted both in corrupt Chicago Politics and affiliated with the CPUSA!

Interestingly, the COMINTERN disappearred after the break up of the (former) Soviet Union.  Actually, it just morphed into agencies within the United Nations and parties within it's member states!

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2015, 05:47:13 AM
The issue lies with the open/closed primary system we currently have, where Independents have no voice in party selection, which is actually a good thing. However!!

The problem is Dims actually cross party lines to vote in (R) primaries as to influence and limit our choices. Eg. this cycle they'll support Bush to hurt a Cruz, so as to insure a Hitlery challenger be a weak rino, assuring we lose.
What we need is, a rule that holds you to a party per election cycle, in other words, if you register Dim, then you can't change to Pub till after the next full election cycle.
Vote Dim for POTUS? You're stuck till next POTUS cycle comes around.

I believe this might make people take their choices seriously when considering party, making Independent more attractive and loosening the grip of the two party system these scum have created.

Yeah that is true, but the republican organization structure is not regulated by the electoral system is it?
If so then there is no need for major overhaul or some legislation to fix the problem in changing the system into close primary.
I.e I don't think the CPA have open primary to their party commission 

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2015, 05:47:13 AM
The issue lies with the open/closed primary system we currently have, where Independents have no voice in party selection, which is actually a good thing. However!!

The problem is Dims actually cross party lines to vote in (R) primaries as to influence and limit our choices. Eg. this cycle they'll support Bush to hurt a Cruz, so as to insure a Hitlery challenger be a weak rino, assuring we lose.
What we need is, a rule that holds you to a party per election cycle, in other words, if you register Dim, then you can't change to Pub till after the next full election cycle.
Vote Dim for POTUS? You're stuck till next POTUS cycle comes around.

I believe this might make people take their choices seriously when considering party, making Independent more attractive and loosening the grip of the two party system these scum have created.

Good Idea as this would cut down on games being played. We have an "unaffiliated" option in NC. I saw a lady that was unaffiliated try to vote in the GOP primary last fall and she was not allowed to. She pitched a fit. I figured she was a lib trying impact the GOP results.

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 09, 2015, 05:56:05 AM
Yeah that is true, but the republican organization structure is not regulated by the electoral system is it?
If so then there is no need for major overhaul or some legislation to fix the problem in changing the system into close primary.
I.e I don't think the CPA have open primary to their party commission 

Some primaries are closed, like here in Ca, but the problem with that is, if you aren't registered as a Pub, you have no say in who the party puts up for election, which is how they get away with forcing rino down our throats.

I don't get how the electors for the electoral college get picked and why some states split them and the rest go with a winner takes all policy. 

Quote from: Dori on January 09, 2015, 08:04:19 PM
I don't get how the electors for the electoral college get picked and why some states split them and the rest go with a winner takes all policy.

The individual electors are selected by the parties. They are usually party loyalists. How the electoral votes are distributed are decided by the individual states.

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 09, 2015, 04:55:55 AM
So been visiting Hungary, and here the conservative and successfull Fidesz party is slowly losing grounds to a new strategy by the socialists.

The old socialist party that ruled for decades were dismantled, the Legacy and funds of that party went to the MSZP


They have lost the last two elections very heavily mainly because younger voters are disenchanted with the old farts that run the party, to Counter this they created a new informal sister party the LMP


They stand for "Politics can be different" which I guess is adifferentiation of the Democrat Obama slogan "Change". They claim to be against the MSZP and attack them openly, though behind the scenes they are collaborating to ensure the same political agenda of socialism. While MSZP focuses on the old guard socialist and middle class older voters by being socially conservative with focus on job growth, increased spending the LMP is focusing on increased welfare and environmentalism to capture young voters. So far this has worked with polls showing Fidesz popularity have gone from above 60% to 38%, though this new 38% may not be true as the media in Hungary is communist controlled outlets.

But this got me thinking, many conservatives on the right and especially political pundits on Townhall are calling for European form of electoral system. When you vote for parties you have no controll over who is party representative as that is decided by the party Central Commission, so if there is an parliamentary election in one electorate the vote does not go to one candidate that then is chosen by the voters to be representative but the votes are collected nationally and the party then if get enough votes decides who get to be representative so there is no connection between voter and candidate, just party and voter.

For example in USA if Republican party get 40% of the votes, the Democrats get 25% and the Greens get 25% with 10% not voting in one electoral territory then the Republican win. In Parliamentary system the Greens and Democrats would win as their combined 50% would give them more representation than having winner takes all. So this system of divide and conquer Works well in Europe, and I'm already seeing it in my own country, I really hope conservatives in the US do not make the mistake of copying European system of multiparty system as it is only to the benefit of the socialists.

"The man who votes decides nothing. The man who counts the votes decides everything."

-Joseph Stalin

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2015, 05:47:13 AM
The issue lies with the open/closed primary system we currently have, where Independents have no voice in party selection, which is actually a good thing. However!!

The problem is Dims actually cross party lines to vote in (R) primaries as to influence and limit our choices. Eg. this cycle they'll support Bush to hurt a Cruz, so as to insure a Hitlery challenger be a weak rino, assuring we lose.
What we need is, a rule that holds you to a party per election cycle, in other words, if you register Dim, then you can't change to Pub till after the next full election cycle.
Vote Dim for POTUS? You're stuck till next POTUS cycle comes around.

I believe this might make people take their choices seriously when considering party, making Independent more attractive and loosening the grip of the two party system these scum have created.

I am assuming that what you meant was "Vote registered as a Dim."

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 10, 2015, 03:33:34 PM
I am assuming that what you meant was "Vote registered as a Dim."

Correct. I had to read it twice to catch it.

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2015, 05:47:13 AM
The issue lies with the open/closed primary system we currently have, where Independents have no voice in party selection, which is actually a good thing. However!!

The problem is Dims actually cross party lines to vote in (R) primaries as to influence and limit our choices. Eg. this cycle they'll support Bush to hurt a Cruz, so as to insure a Hitlery challenger be a weak rino, assuring we lose.
What we need is, a rule that holds you to a party per election cycle, in other words, if you register Dim, then you can't change to Pub till after the next full election cycle.
Vote Dim for POTUS? You're stuck till next POTUS cycle comes around.

I believe this might make people take their choices seriously when considering party, making Independent more attractive and loosening the grip of the two party system these scum have created.

And that is the main issue in the primary system. Two things need to be done. First, open primaries should be outlawed. If you're not a member of a political party, you should have nothing to do with picking that party's candidate. You Independents, make a choice and live with it. Second, no candidate should be allowed to run unopposed. Both parties must nominate and support a candidate for EVERY Congressional district. And Congressional election funds must be divided 435 ways!

Quote from: mdgiles on January 10, 2015, 05:28:57 PM
And that is the main issue in the primary system. Two things need to be done. First, open primaries should be outlawed. If you're not a member of a political party, you should have nothing to do with picking that party's candidate. You Independents, make a choice and live with it. Second, no candidate should be allowed to run unopposed. Both parties must nominate and support a candidate for EVERY Congressional district. And Congressional election funds must be divided 435 ways!

That's the only reason I'm still a registered Pub, so I can have a say who these bastards pick.