Political parties belong to whoever tries the hardest to run them.
Trees are only 2-4% efficient at converting solar energy. What if we discovered the secret of chlorophyll and we're to be able to make trees 10x more efficient.
Trees that trap co2 and heat and give us hydrocarbon rich oil, hydrogen, water and oxygen.
Suppose we could improve tree efficiency 20x, those trees would also grow fast. We'd be able to control the thickness so we get lumber ready trees for building. The trees would possibly be with dark and make some sort of flat canopy trapping sunlight efficiently.
I have hope that we'll discover this secrets and a future generation will invent something ground breaking
Okay then.
Dishonesty and deception? Again, lolwut. Parties are collections of people, they do not stand for specific ideas. Anyone that gets on the Republican membership list is, by definition, a Republican. Example A: Trump.
Signing up to a different party sounds exactly like what you're describing. Open the door to intellectual conversations with people from different social spheres, force confrontations between real person with real beliefs instead of strawmen.
> The Republicans shamelessly flaunt their positions and policies.
What is the point of this statement? Do you mean to say that Democrats don't do that? Or is it okay that they do, because you agree with them? In which case it's entirely hypocritical to say that, criticizing your opponents for doing exactly what you do, and a form of intellectual dishonesty.
> Dishonesty and deception? Again, lolwut. Parties are collections of people, they do not stand for specific ideas. Anyone that gets on the Republican membership list is, by definition, a Republican. Example A: Trump.
If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the parties?
If a government sends an operative to another nation, to secretly work for another nation's government, and influence them to lean toward the policies they prefer, is that "getting on the membership list" of that "collection of people"? Is it honestly participating in the diplomatic process? Or is it infiltration, a form of espionage?
If a corporation sends an employee to get a job at a competitor and send back copies of plans for the competitor's competing products, is that merely "getting on the membership list" of that "collection of people" at that company? Or is it industrial espionage?
> Signing up to a different party sounds exactly like what you're describing. Open the door to intellectual conversations with people from different social spheres, force confrontations between real person with real beliefs instead of strawmen.
Either you misunderstand the point and we are talking past each other, or you are the one tearing down strawmen.
Political parties do not exist in the governing structure of the U.S. As proof, I'll ask you to please go read the Constitution, then come back and point out the parts about political parties. No rush; I'll wait.
Back? Ok, so now hopefully you realize that in the U.S., we elect people, not parties. Partisan primaries, as elections funded by the government, should not even exist at all--they are a corruption of the system.
So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly. Political parties can't be corrupted. There is nothing pure to preserve.
You seem to be confused about the argument. It's not about what should be, it's about what is.
> So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly.
It's not silly, it's an observation about how the game of politics is changing with the change in the scale of our social interactions. It's so much easier to coordinate large groups of people to infiltrate and manipulate intra-party matters than it was a few decades ago.
That's exactly what the OP was advocating: not rational engagement with the members of a party, convincing them to adopt a better view, but pretending to be one of them so as to vote in their primaries, to deny them use of candidates which are most threatening to one's own political goals. It's like a Sybil attack on the political process.
Seriously? There were many registered Republicans who voted in their primaries and then ended up voting for Hillary over Trump. Were they being dishonest? Or did they just look at the two options given and make the choice that they feel best reflects their values?
The key point here is that the description has someone voting in party A's primaries for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. "As I intended to do from the beginning" is a key part of the description.
You however are describing I think people voting in the primaries to try and get the candidate they want to vote for into power. When that fails they take a different approach.
Isn't that the only reason to vote in a primary? The whole point of a primary election is to choose who becomes your party's official candidate on the ballot for the general election, and the only reason to do that is because it limits or alters the choice that voters get to make.
If John Doe is running, and I want him to win, and I only care about my choice, I'd skip the primary and vote for him in the general. If he doesn't make it onto the ballot, I could write him in. If I vote for John Doe in the primary, it's because I want to affect other voters.
I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying.
> am I participating honestly in the political process?
You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams [0].
Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result [1].
And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? It's as if politics wasn't made of two opposing opinions, but of hundreds. (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within)
Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it.
You're not thinking clearly. It is infiltration because the person in question is pretending to be a member of Party A while actually being a supporter of Party B. The person is intending to deny members of Party A the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice in the actual election, forcing them to nominate a candidate that is closer to Party B's platform.
The scientific "data" you're talking about is completely beside the point.
> It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying.
Again, you're not thinking clearly. Informing people entails honestly discussing your views with them, presenting them with evidence and attempting to rationally convince them of the superiority of your position. In the context of a party primary, that could entail picketing with signs, having a non-violent protest outside, handing out pamphlets to those entering, etc. But that is not what the OP advocated. The OP effectively advocated abandoning that approach and instead opting to deceptively manipulate the political process, undermining the ability of others to honestly participate in it.
You seem to be letting your presuppositions cloud your judgment. You seem to be convinced that those who disagree with you are simply "still very misinformed," and so you're justified to "inform" them by whatever means necessary. (Apologies if this is mischaracterizing your view; please correct me.)
> You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams.
You seem to be missing my point. The OP is advocating exactly fighting over discussing. He's saying that, since enough people can't be convinced of his opinion, that those who agree with him should infiltrate the opposition's parties and deny them the use of candidates that disagree with him on this issue by voting down those candidates before they have a chance to be nominated. That's underhanded and dishonest, even a tactic used in espionage.
> Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result.
This is true. So what?
> And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within.
There are two different ways to work "from within." See below.
> In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it?
No, it's not backwards, it's the historical reality. And, in fact, many people, including prominent blacks, consider the Democrats' policies to be against the black community's interests today. Of course, such people are derided as "Uncle Toms," rather than engaging seriously with their views.
> (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within)
Again, there are two ways to work from within. One is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, to join it, and then work to convince its members to advocate views closer to your own. Another way is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, join it, and then go to the opposing party's primaries, pretend to be one of them, and vote against candidates that are farthest from your own political views. This is the crux of the argument.
> Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it.
You seem to be missing the point. This thread is not about climate change. If you still think it is, that suggests that you're advocating an ends-justify-the-means approach, which is, again, the whole point: that one side is advocating participating dishonestly, because they think it's justified.
But we'll assume you're right and that such action is objectively dishonest. An ends-justify-the-means approach means there's good parts, bad parts and a price to pay. The price is eternal remorse for such action. Now let's see the good and bad parts:
Good:
- We get science and belief out of the political whims. Science is not a competition. Science exists to serve us all equally.
- People learn about the issues instead of believing baseless tweets.
Bad:
- We're making the candidate think they have chances to win presidency, displacing other candidates of the party... I guess? I can't really think of a negative side to this. Nobody's hurt in the process. We're not breaking any law. The party still has the same overall views.
And the price to pay is based on one's feeling, not on any real consequence or law. It's not ends-justify-the-means. It's just "wrong" because you feel like it is.
And everyday politics are already much more dishonest than this.
> You're missing the point too.
What I mean is, you're missing my point. Maybe I'm missing yours too, in which case we're talking past each other and should try to get on the same page.
> Your argument is that it's dishonest. Honesty is a moral concept, therefore subjective.
My argument is that the democratic process is built upon certain requirements of integrity or honesty. If these are undermined, the democratic process is undermined, and therefore the ability of the people to rule themselves is undermined.
My observation is that certain groups of people think that their undermining the democratic process is justified, because they think that their ends are worthy, and that their political opponents are unworthy of participating in the democratic process.
That, of course, is enormously arrogant, and dangerous to the long-term stability of the government. And by doing that, they endanger their own ability to participate in self-rule.
> An ends-justify-the-means approach means there's good parts, bad parts and a price to pay.
I think the "price to pay" includes "the bad parts." Of course, what belongs in which category is subjective.
> We get science and belief out of the political whims.
This is where I begin to not follow you. What do you mean? Everything we do is based on beliefs. Science is based on beliefs as well. Maybe by "beliefs" you mean "religion," in which case you should use that word.
> Science is not a competition.
Again, what do you mean by this? The scientific process is not a competition, but the practice of science in the world certainly involves competition at many levels.
> Science exists to serve us all equally.
Again, what do you mean by this? I think you are confounding ideals with reality. Science is essentially a method, a set of steps. It is up to the practitioner to apply it in a useful, ethical way.
> People learn about the issues instead of believing baseless tweets.
Again, not following you. By what means does this happen? This thread has been about (further) corrupting the political process by participating dishonestly. Are you saying that by doing that, people "learn about the issues instead of believing baseless tweets"?
> We're making the candidate think they have chances to win presidency, displacing other candidates of the party... I guess? I can't really think of a negative side to this. Nobody's hurt in the process. We're not breaking any law. The party still has the same overall views.
I'm rather floored by this. Do you actually not understand how corrupting the democratic process hurts everyone? You can't think of a negative side? There's not a law against it so it must be good? I feel like you're proving my observations correct...
> And the price to pay is based on one's feeling, not on any real consequence or law. It's not ends-justify-the-means. It's just "wrong" because you feel like it is.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, casually dismissing my arguments as "feelings," or if you really believe that. If the former, you're being quite rude; if the latter, then I wonder if it's even possible for us to communicate, because you must be either unable or unwilling to comprehend what I'm saying. Unfortunately, it does not seem uncommon for those on the political left to dismiss their opponents arguments so casually.
But if you are here for honest, rational discussion, then I look forward to your reply.
Assuming it's being undermined, I need an explanation of how.
> and that their political opponents are unworthy of participating in the democratic process
When was ever suggested the opponents are unworthy of participating? They will hear the fight for climate change and they can react appropriately. Either joining the cause or explaining why it shouldn't be joined. The kind of dialog the political system needs.
> Science is based on beliefs as well.
Last I checked, it was based on proofs and data.
Belief may be a catalyst to start the process and elaborate a hypothesis, but just that. If one gets stuck on belief, it's not science.
> Maybe by "beliefs" you mean "religion," in which case you should use that word.
I mean beliefs, like climate change being a hoax. That's not a conclusion of any study. That's a lie someone made up for political gain.
> The scientific process is not a competition,
That's what I mean. People don't decide what's the truth. Or at least they shouldn't, because the truth doesn't change when you change your beliefs.
There may be competitions against teams for a specific goal. But science is inherently non partisan, and the goal benefits us all.
> It is up to the practitioner to apply it in a useful, ethical way.
And what is unethical about preparing for a likely event that affects us all? What is ethical about preventing it?
> Again, not following you. By what means does this happen?
People believing Trump when he said climate change is a hoax.
> Do you actually not understand how corrupting the democratic process hurts everyone?
We have different meanings for "corruption". In my definition, it involves favoring a candidate for hidden interests. HIDDEN interests. Because the people wouldn't approve. Dishonesty. But if I go and tell everyone what I think about climate change, how is that dishonesty? How is that lying?
You see my point? Yes, I do agree honesty is important. But also subjective and I don't think this would be remotely dishonest.
And then you dare to talk about corruption, which caused this very issue we want to solve!
> casually dismissing my arguments as "feelings,"
Because it's a subjective interpretation. Dishonesty implies lying. And it would be a "lie" that offsets actual damaging lies wildly spreading around.
In any case, assuming it's unethical, we might be facing a dilemma, where we have to choose to deviate a train to kill one person (a very bad one and condemned to death, but a person after all), or not to touch the lever and kill 100 innocent people.
I think you're doing the latter by inaction, and condemning the former because it's unethical.
Vote is secret for a reason.
That means that to seriously get things done soon is going to require government action, and that means politics.
Regardless of whether you lean to the left or the right, register as a Republican and participate in the Republican primaries or caucuses for your local, state, and national offices supporting those Republicans who acknowledge that climate change is a series problem and that the government needs to play an active role in slowing, stopping, or reversing it.
I say register as a Republican, even if you would normally be something more to the left, because right now the Democrats are much more likely to nominate candidates that acknowledge climate change and the need for strong government action. The Republicans do have some people who believe that, but they currently rarely get nominated.
What we need to see is general elections where it is both the Democrat and the Republican that are on the right side of climate change so that no matter which party wins the election we get a government that will do something about the problem.
[1] Generally what most places will see is that bad things that already happen there will very slowly happen a little more often, and get a little more bad. But in many places there will also be good things that start happening a little more often and get a little bit better. It will take a generation or two before these changes have become big enough and frequent enough in most places that it will really be noticeable to the people there that yup, their climate has changed.