[Flipside]

It's because in a country the size of the US, you need money to be seen, and industries will only fund party members that will tow their particular party line. It's that little problem with the system that needs fixing, and, last I heard, something that Obama is planning to fix.

[Blue Lion]

Some polls show him losing the Primary and about 200k Republicans switched to Democrat in PA.

The writing is on the wall "We don't want you"

Why should he stay? Why would you stay and lose a primary for a party that increasingly doesn't match up to your ideals?

[karajorma]

His concern was about being able to win the GOP primary, not a general election.  He's got the support of most of his constituents for re-election, even if he doesn't have the support of most of his Republican constituents.

In which case Liberator's little rant gives that argument credibility.

It's one thing for a politician to swap sides because he wants to be on the winning side and from what I originally read that was the picture I had of this. But after what Liberator said it seems that what actually happened is that this guy has stayed constant in his beliefs while the party has shifted to the right beneath him to the point where he now has more in common with the democrats.

When Liberator stated that they were already calling him names even before he decided to switch it made it clear why he feels in such danger for the GOP Primary. Can't say I blame him one iota for deciding to switch parties.

[Rick James]

Also, some questions about parliamentary governments (since I don't live under one and only have a fuzzy idea of how they work). Don't the many diverse parties usually end up grouping into two opposing coalitions? And don't you sometimes end up with situations where some small party ends up being disproportionally important because they are the "tiebreaker" that everyone is trying to woo? Or am I totally misunderstanding how things work?

Canada has only had two government coalitions in its past: the first was The Great Coalition which lasted from 1864 until 1867, before Canada was Canada. After Confederation this coalition ceased to exist.

Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I (from 1917 to 1920). This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.

On the whole the supposition that small parties are the "tiebreaker" is debatable because federal legislation votes in Canada fall under different categories: "free" votes and votes where Members of Parliament are expected to tow the party line. A free vote is a vote wherein the Speaker of the House declares that the vote in question is a matter of conscience, or else is too important for party ideologies to get in the way. Votes where MPs are expected to tow the party line are, of course, usually dictated by the party's ideology if not by the leader of that party. It is not uncommon to attempt soliciting votes from another party, but this tends to happen only when there is a bizarre imbalance between the seats held by the ruling party, the opposition party, and all other parties--i.e. the gap between seats held by the governing party and opposition parties is smaller than anticipated.

As of Canada's latest election, the Conservative Party was able to snag 143 of 308 seats in the House of Commons, therefore making it a "minority government": a government which has achieved a majority vote without having more than half the seats. However, it is rather large minority, so we've not seen our government become truly impotent yet.

(Just rather dictatorial.)

[StarSlayer]

Actually in my opinion a nice solution to corporate/special interest donations is that they go into a election pool and are then divided evenly between all candidates.  Campaign contributions more then anything else seem to be what make politicians beholden to special interests.  If you removed their ability to directly bribe candidates it might help quite a bit.  Another benefit would be evening the playing field for different candidates other then Republican/Democrat.  If you left only personal contributions open to going to a specific candidate then it might also make the candidates more dependent on their constituents.

[Blue Lion]

The corporations just send money to action groups and such.

[Sushi]

If you left only personal contributions open to going to a specific candidate then it might also make the candidates more dependent on their constituents.

So how do you distinguish between a corporate contribution by Apple and a personal contribution by Steve Jobs? Or are we going to say that once you get to a certain level of wealth, you aren't allowed to contribute? I don't think there is any way to get rid of "special interest" donations without also getting rid of personal donations.

And even if you decide that's a good and legally feasible idea, what about the whole deal where you can simply evade contribution caps by creating independent groups for the sole purpose of campaigning? If I can't donate to Ron McBama directly, and I have enough money, I can simply buy advertisement time on TV and run my own ads about how awesome he is. Is there any way to prevent that without some serious first amendment infringement?

I don't think that there is any legal and constitutional way (or that there should be) to prevent people or organizations from spending gobs of money on their preferred candidate.

[Blue Lion]

There is donation limit
1300 or 2600 dollars, I forget which.

[karajorma]

Not to mention how would you stop some of this pot going to small parties that no one wants to support? Such as the KKK's political wing.

[Blue Lion]

"Blue Lion for ruler of the world party"

[StarSlayer]

Not to mention how would you stop some of this pot going to small parties that no one wants to support? Such as the KKK's political wing.

Amok Battle Royale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

[Scotty]

 

Oh, but for the days of yore (maybe not that far), when Republicans weren't as big of flaming idiots as they are now.  I still identify myself as republican, but not the GOP type of Republican (which I will now denote with a captial letter).  In reality, it has more to do with not agreeing with the Democrats, and then not to the point of idiocy (they have some good ideas), than agreeing with the flaming stupidity coming from Republicans.

[Knight Templar]

This. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

wru reagan

[Turambar]

If republicans can get out of trying to run everyone's life and go back to being fiscally conservative, then they'll go back to being respectable.

[SpardaSon21]

As a Libertarian-minded Republican, I am of the opinion that the problem the Republican party has is that they are offering a larger government.  Both they and the Dems want to increase the size of the government.  The Dems want the Nanny State, and the GOP wants the Daddy State, and the voters go for the more appealing form of big government.  If the GOP would get its sh*t together and focus on limited government and individual liberty and responsibility, they wouldn't be quite so close to imploding.

[Knight Templar]

As a Libertarian-minded Republican, I am of the opinion that the problem the Republican party has is that they are offering a larger government.  Both they and the Dems want to increase the size of the government.  The Dems want the Nanny State, and the GOP wants the Daddy State, and the voters go for the more appealing form of big government.  If the GOP would get its sh*t together and focus on limited government and individual liberty and responsibility, they wouldn't be quite so close to imploding.

qft

[Kosh]

He has been quoted in several places from his announcement that the reason for the swtich is that he refuses to let his political future be determined by the voters of the state of Pennsylvania.

That's not entirely correct.  He refuses to let his political future be determined by the Republicans of the state of Pennsylvania.  His concern was about being able to win the GOP primary, not a general election.  He's got the support of most of his constituents for re-election, even if he doesn't have the support of most of his Republican constituents.

Well the problem for him was that even though most people generally support him, the radicalization of the republican party makes it hard to get past the primary, especially since it is increasingly being controlled by mastadons.

[iamzack]

[MP-Ryan]

The author of said cartoon completely fails to understand what libertarianism is.  In fact, those house pets are parodying a particular brand of middle-class conservativism.

[Solatar]

It appears to me that the democratic party is moving ever so slightly to the center (in order to gain more numbers). Thus the right wing people are either joining the Democrats (at least in voting) or moving to the far right.

If I'm not mistaken the Brits did this in the 90's with Blair's New Labour? The Conservative party went further and further right, with Labour embracing more centrist ideas.

It's time for a major party change in the US.