US political types.

[Sean]

Answer a question for me. In Britain, each political party has to produce a manifesto, a list of things they'll say they'll do. It has legal ramifications.


Do US political parties have something similar? If not, how do you know what you're voting for?

 

[run_silent]

The parties have platforms but are not binding and usually ignored. What kind of legal ramifications does your system for broken promises?

 

[Sean]

The parties have platforms but are not binding and usually ignored. What kind of legal ramifications does your system for broken promises>

It's not so much broken promises, but the HoL can't veto a manifesto commitment.

So there isn't a Party manifesto? Your conventions are just rah, rah, rah and not arguments about policy?

 

[fgarvb1]

You need to understand this term.

http://dorrys.com/lying-like-a-dog/

 

[Liar]

I'm curious about the legal ramifications too. In most countries with parties, it's custom top release a "program" or "platform" or whatnot prior to major elections as a general guide for voters. But I've never heard of it being legally binding. Shit may come up to change shit, you know.

 

[Liar]

It's not so much broken promises, but the HoL can't veto a manifesto commitment.

So there isn't a Party manifesto? Your conventions are just rah, rah, rah and not arguments about policy?

They did that part too,, before the rah rah.

 

[Sean]

I'm curious about the legal ramifications too. In most countries with parties, it's custom top release a "program" or "platform" or whatnot prior to major elections. But i've never heard of it being legally binding.

In the UK parliament, the House of Lords can not strike down a government policy that is a manifesto commitment.

 

[Sean]

They did that part too,, before the rah rah.

But don't they have a unified policy?

 

[run_silent]

It's not so much broken promises, but the HoL can't veto a manifesto commitment.

So there isn't a Party manifesto? Your conventions are just rah, rah, rah and not arguments about policy?

What kind of commitments do they make and do they leave enough wiggle room to not really enforce them?

You are wrong about our conventions. They are not rah, rah. They are coronations. Carefully planned coronations.

 

[Sean]

What kind of commitments do they make and do they leave enough wiggle room to not really enforce them?

You are wrong about our conventions. They are not rah, rah. They are coronations. Carefully planned coronations.

So who makes policy?

 

[kbate]

So who makes policy?

The congress as directed by their lobbyist fundraisers.


Edit: That's not quite true. Policy is made by the heads of the various federal bureaucracies. Unless they overstep the bounds of the law empowering them, they are effective dictators within their milieus.

 

[Liar]

But don't they have a unified policy?

They established a party platform. But no, since it's just a non-binding statement of ambitions, they don't have a unified policy.

 

[Sean]

The congress as directed by their lobbiest fundraisers.

Is that it? Seriously? Your parties don't have a convention like we have a conference?

 

[run_silent]

So who makes policy?

I'll explain that later if you can give me an example of legal ramifications catching up with manifestos.

 

[Sean]

I'll explain that later if you can give me an example of legal ramifications catching up with manifestos.

There are umpteen uses of the Parliament Act. Google.

 

[Sean]

I'm trying to understand this, who sets party policy?

 

[Liar]

Is that it? Seriously? Your parties don't have a convention like we have a conference?

Yah, Seriously. They're not really parties the way we think of them. More like labels.

 

[Liar]

I'm trying to understand this, who sets party policy?

Zeitgeist.

I know.


Ok, the non-binding platform is set by a conference of sorts. Who is represented I don't know.

 

[Sean]

Yah, Seriously. They're not really parties the way we think of them. More like labels.

So who sets policy?

 

[kbate]

Is that it? Seriously? Your parties don't have a convention like we have a conference?

The conventions became huge parties when all states finally went over to holding primary elections for most races, freeing the candidates from any need to make coalitions or make deals within the party. Now they need only please enough local voters (for the house) or state voters (for the senate) or voters overall for the presidency. It lets the corporate and other special interests focus their money directly on the candidates who have a chance or need money.

At one time, the convention selected the candidate, meaning a presidential candidate had to gain support of his party, but no longer, he needs only have a major party name and the voters do the rest.

As for platforms, why would you publish? You might piss off a donor if you publish a manifesto.

 

[Peregrinator]

Take President Obama. He campaigned as a different kind of Democrat, one unleashed from the hoary controversies, stale ideas and bitter arguments of yesteryear. His central policy difference with rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards was that their health-care plans included an individual mandate and his didn’t. His great promise was that he would change Washington in ways the others couldn’t.

After becoming president, Obama governed from the center of his party, building an individual mandate into his health-care bill, backing cap-and-trade antipollution legislation developed by House Democrats, and supporting a slew of ideas that had been floating around Democratic Party circles for years — the Lilly Ledbetter Act on equal pay, new tobacco regulations, an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, green energy credits. If you had known only that a Democratic candidate had won the presidency in 2008 without knowing which candidate, you could’ve largely predicted the agenda just the same.

That’s neither criticism nor compliment; it’s simply the reality of our two-party political system, which doesn’t afford presidents or individual legislators much power to take action on their own. Consequently, the quadrennial party platform is a useful document, reflecting the compromises hammered out among relevant players: activists, interest groups and the presidential campaign. After spending weeks haggling over language, they emerge with a political vision that all can live — and perhaps even govern — with.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ou-should-read-the-republican-party-platform/

 

[blobfish]

The congress as directed by their lobbiest fundraisers.


Edit: That's not quite true. Policy is made by the heads of the various federal bureaucracies. Unless they overstep the bounds of the law empowering them, they are effective dictators within their milieus.

That makes no sense. If they have bounds, then they are not dictators.

 

[kbate]

So who sets policy?

The parties do not have policy or set policy, they have general 'themes' would be a good word, but nothing scripted that they must stand for or die. There is no policy at that level. The party only has sway as far as choosing the leaders of various committees, (not unimporant) and in using 'party discipline' in order to force weaker members who might need money or support in their next race to vote party line on some issues.

 

[kbate]

That makes no sense. If they have bounds, then they are not dictators.

Adults are talking, be quiet.

 

[Sean]

The conventions became huge parties when all states finally went over to holding primary elections for most races, freeing the candidates from any need to make coalitions or make deals within the party. Now they need only please enough local voters (for the house) or state voters (for the senate) or voters overall for the presidency. It lets the corporate and other special interests focus their money directly on the candidates who have a chance or need money.

At one time, the convention selected the candidate, meaning a presidential candidate had to gain support of his party, but no longer, he needs only have a major party name and the voters do the rest.

As for platforms, why would you publish? You might piss off a donor if you publish a manifesto.

Jesus.

So how do your political parties stand for anything? Is their no room for actual policy?