I hereby propose a Bill Before Congress OR an Executive Order OR a Judicial Injunction which will remove and outlaw the inclusion of any reference to political parties on the voting ballot.
The party system has no Constitutional basis and was specifically warned against by Washington. They are privately owned and operated corporations, unaccountable to even their own members, as demonstrated by the DNC's conspiracy of sabotage against Bernie Sanders, and the complete absence of meaningful consequences for it.
Those who cannot or will not show the agency to know the fucking names of the people they want to vote for should not be missed. It's not even like you have to memorize the names, just write them down beforehand or even look them up on your phone while in the booth. But, as demonstrated by studies on the removal of straight-ticket voting (which requires you to check each position's candidate individually rather than checking a single D or R at the top, requiring literally thirty seconds longer) low agency voters (read: niggers) are extremely easily discouraged.
Tax payer dollars being spent on the ink to print those Ds and Rs grants an unearned illusion of legitimacy to these divisive tools of the kikes. There is no reason why finding out a person's feelings about abortion should automatically tell me their feelings on gun control, their stance on environmentalism reveal their stance on immigration, their position on weed legalisation predict their position on corporate tax rates. And yet, for 90% of voters, knowing just one of those reveals ALL the others. This in spite of the fact that the stances they "choose" run from ideologically inconsistent to plainly contradictory.
To end the party system would be a major win in the war to set free the NPCs, and this is the first step.
"Freeing" the NPCs is, of course, fundamentally impossible. If you were watching that meme start you'll remember it initially had nothing to do with liberals or SJWs. It was only when the BuzzFeed tier "journalists" who lurk here started putting out triggered articles about dehumanization that it took that context.
Really it's a neurological state, and no Psy op will change that. But if you ask what purpose this serves, I say that the NPCs are serving as useful idiots (as they always will for somebody.) But the two party system is an extremely simple program for them to run. More complex programs will lead to higher rates of malfunction, turning useful idiots into useless idiots.
For all the liberalist brainlets who might think (or disingenuously claim) that I’m trying to call in the feds to ban the parties:
Since the parties (or, more accurately, the uniParty plus assorted meme parties) are private corporations, it is impossible to ban them without undue curtailment of freedom of association and other essential liberties. But this plan harms none of these. It simply regulates public property: the ballot.
This tiny, eminently legal change involves no expansion of federal power. In fact, it reduces it. The presence of those Ds and Rs stands as the federal government running advertisements for private corporations IN THE FUCKING VOTING BOOTH. Any right thinking American should consider this a sacrilege.
That said, this is no mere token gesture. The end result of such a small change would be a crippling blow to the grip of the uniParty. In the absence of plain direction on how to remain loyal to D or R, the NPCs of both simply choose not to vote, for fear of choosing wrong. This is a proven fact of the psychology of gambling: Most people hate losing more than they love winning.
We can already see this play out in judicial and other non(explicitly)partisan positions. They receive a fraction of the amount of total votes received by the big ticket positions, despite being on the very same ballot.
The NPCs, both D and R, will voluntarily remove themselves from the electoral gene pool. They'll still show up to vote for the virtue signalling points, but they'll restrict themselves to the big ticket items they get blasted with advertisements for and told how to think about.
It is in the down ballot that this plan will truly bear fruit. With severely lowered voter "turnout" (again, despite being on the very same piece of paper as the high "turnout" positions) the lower positions will be far more susceptible to the will of numerically and financially inferior, but informationally and energetically superior 3rd parties. As demonstrated by the Tea Party strategy of the Koch Brothers; pound-for-pound, dollar-for-dollar; you get the most bang for your buck national-influence-wise by going hard on the down ballot. I have no love for the Tea Party, let alone the Koch's, but this is a strategy we can learn from.
Levi Ward
That won't destroy political parties, but make the parties invisible. As such it will only benefit the party in power. Any attempt to organize against the dominant group will be labeled as partisan and de-legitimized.
>But humans will never get along in a multicultural society.
Don't I fucking know it. A side benifit to this: the escalation and acceleration of Identity Politics. Pic fucking related, the spic is the incumbent, the gook some /our lunatic/ who has never even been a judge.
In the absence of Ds and Rs telling you how to vote (as in this judicial election) people just vote for whichever name sounds most like their in group. Except liberal Whites, like those in Seattle. With no Whites in this contest, the (((establishment))) is worried all the other gooks in Seattle, plus however many White's decide Asians are more benign towards their interests than beaners, will be enough to get the insane dude who has raised $0 for his campaign in over the spic who has raised hundreds of thousands.
Another case is a California Senate candidate, Kevin de Leon. His father's a chink, his mother a squatemalan. He actually changed his name to de Leon to be more appealing to Cali beaners on sight of name alone.
This proposal will ensure minority majority areas, and cucked whites' areas will henceforth elect only the most unWhite sounding names. No more cucked-but-competent whites in charge. Let the lunatics run the asylum, accellerate their collapse, as uncucked white's reel back in horror and circle the wagons around the parts of this country that can still be salvaged.
>But the Jews will still own every politician or atleast the important ones
Very true. At first.
One of their main instruments of control is domination of down ballot positions, since most voters pick by Ds and Rs. Aspiring politicians start there, and they know they have no chance on their own merit, so they join one of the plantations. Then come the compromises.
The realistic ability to run for town dog catcher as an unaffilliated will give us a whole farm league of up and coming 3rd partyists. We have to start there
(((Judicial))): A lawsuit against FEC for putting ADVERTISEMENTS for PRIVATE CORPORATIONS on PUBLIC PROPERTY. As many recent (((cases))) have shown, if a judge finds a suits political aims sympathetic, he can issue a Nationwide Injunction. These apparrently can overrule laws passed by Congress as well as decisions made by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF on issues directly related to National Security, or even who he lets into his own fucking house.
Till now, only the left has used this weapon. And, indeed, conservative judges, by their very nature, are disinclined to exercise such obvious overreach. But this could be the case where one decides to hit back. As the left does, we would have to carefully examine which district to file the suit in to maximize our chances of drawing a sympathetic judge, and file multiple suits till we get /our guy/. One of those crazy Texas Libertarian types.
If we can get an injunction, it goes to the Supreme Court, where I (a complete nonlawyer) think we'd have a chance. At the very least it would put nationwide attention on the issue, and get thoughtless people thinking.
(((Legislative))): Rewriting the proposal so as to be most appealing to the particular sensibilities of the best established and least persona non grata of the 3rd parties.
Playing up the aforementioned separation of public and private entities could work with Libertarians. The DNC fucking Bernie and the impending Pelosi Speakership can be used on Socialists who increasingly want to splinter, but puss out at the fear of spoiling ala Jill Stein, down ballot positions are less high stakes. Trumpists (closest to NatSoc we've got) are the least motivated since their seeming hijacking of Team R, but the sabotage of Trump's agenda for the 2 years they held all 3 branches, and the impending 2 years of gridlock might give them the kick needed.
For all 3 the appeal of breaking uniParty stranglehold of downballot positions will be enticing.
I have no illusions this will pass through Congress, but if we could get a single Rep or Senator to propose the bill, and God willing get an across the aisle cosponsor, it could give the issue the attention needed for the third option.
?(((?Executive?)))?: A previous user suggested starting a petition at change.org, and while that certainly couldn't hurt, I don't think that site has ever achieved anything and I don't think Trump has ever even heard of it, let alone hold himself to the Obama rule of paying lip service to any petition that got X signatures.
But with even the illusion of getting shit theough Congress now dead, I suspect Trump will soon be going ham with Executive Orders. And /our boy/ is much easier and effectively reached; through /our guy/ Tucker Carlson.
This seems like the kind of thing he'd go for, and only he among all MSM talking heads. He really likes running pieces on the meta of politics while all the others discuss the minutiae of daily "bombshells." The rest are just cheerleaders for the uniParty. But if his attention can be gotten (through a lawsuit, through a bill before Congress, through direct emails to him) and he runs a story on it, Trump will see it, and I believe he's pissed enough at the GOP right now to throw a fucking grenade into the whole Party system via an Executive Order.
This will obviously be challenged, and from there it goes to the Supreme Court, where I truly believe it can win, especially with our increasingly Originalist majority.
pretty appealing. I suggest judicial because the process forces a response by default. any response is untenable and can be challenged. actually I prefer judicial and maybe a sponsored bill, or a bill after case close.
Blake Phillips
I'm not trying to ban political parties. That would be illegal and impossible. This proposal solely effects the ballot. I'm just trying to deprive low-information, low-agency, low-energy voters of any means of identifying a candidate as Team D or Team R. I suspect that will primarily help Team R, which I hold is the better team, as dumbass boomers are more likely to show the initiative to get their shit together enough to write down the list of candidates they want than the Team D dumbasses, minorities.
But that's incidental. My main goal is to increase the ability of third parties and unaffiliateds to get down ballot positions. And hopefully NPCs of both sides, when they are forced to type into google: "I am a member of Team X, tell me exactly how to vote" will have a horrifying moment of clarity.
yes, by demographics this incidentally favors republicans for a time i.e. low info voter flips a coin, but not really.
Gabriel Sullivan
Take a look at the "Voter turnout" in elections for positions without specific Ds and Rs. Much lower than "turnout" for the big name positions people hear on tv, despite the same number of people "turning out," it's on the same piece of paper. This in spite of Rs and Ds already printing and mailing voter guides to their masses. The low information, low agency voters don't "flip a coin," they self-exclude. Casinos do a lot of research on getting non-degenerate gamblers gambling, and it's an uphill battle because most people hate losing more than they love winning.
John Clark
"Disproportionately harms PoC voter turnout" is unironically the grounds on which (((they))) challenged the removal of straight ticket voting (mentioned in OP) which requires you to check each position's candidate individually rather than checking a single D or R at the top, requiring literally thirty seconds longer.
The sad part is it's true. Nogs will register to vote, get their state ID, drive to polling place, wait in line, go into the booth, see they have to check each box instead of just one, and say fug it and go home, and won't come back next time. This has been demonstrably proven with statistics and shit. The challenge still failed though.
put another way, the population of voters is largely (d). it trends this way in the future, actively, if i anticipate your reply. "pick up" favors (r). an argument can be made somewhere.
I'm not interested in that. I'm curious as to whether you have the general premise for a lawsuit in hand?
Leo Green
Honorable gentlemen There is lively debate being held here I propose the views all being offered forth by various groups in the parliament thread to ensure we have quorum
Ryan Kelly
This is how you join the parliament to move your motions
How to Participate:
>Choose a party, create your own, or stand as an Independent >Choose a name, tag your party, and create a secure tripcode: Jow Forums.org/faq#sectrip >Your name field should look something like: Name [Party Tag] ##passwordofyourchoosing >Congratulations! You're ready to go!
Jonathan Gray
Nope. I just thought up the idea and I've been periodically shilling it for the past week or so. In the first thread all I had was the OP. All the others have been slowly accumulating to address arguments and criticisms from Anons, which have helped me make a stronger case. This board isn't completely useless, yet. Hopefully some lawfags see this and give their say.
It's a good idea. so a few things to figure out. is there precedent? political clout? who actually writes, distributes ballots etc? what is the relationship between federal voting guidelines and state agencies that develop voting plans.
we have positions we can take. i.e. the company that prints the paper ballots must exclude party affiliation vs the federal legislation must prohibit language validating party affiliation. things like this.
arguments you've made have merit. I disregard executive orders entirely. they can be repealed when the next one is in very easily.
Jayden Howard
I'm a lowly wage slave with no actual legal knowledge, I just looked at my ballot and said excuse me what the fuck. But thus far none of the universally 140+IQ $200k salary members of this board who have been in any of my threads have been lawfags who could give specific answers. I'll keep bumping till one of the fuckers shows up.
You don't need legal knowledge. Legal knowledge is the offhand capacity to cite references. We need a means of collecting information and coherently establishing our terms. The legal knowledge existing is sufficient for us, lets say.
So, we want to remove party affiliation. what does your local law say about the voting process? what about the company that manages the voting? these arent rhetorical we are probably across the country and states being what they are, the court system being what it is, we need to start at the lowest possible level in the judiciary.
we are basically in an informal discovery phase.
Wyatt Edwards
Well the question is which place in the country is most likely to have judges favorable to our aims. And that can get pretty strange. I don't know if you're familiar with Patent Trolls, but they're worth googling. Their insane, inane claims to have invented literally every form of software and hardware are always filed in one specific district in Texas, because the byzantine labyrinth of local, state, and federal laws intersect most favorably there.
That does require specific legal knowledge. It's easy enough to find contact info for my own local elections commission, but the odds Seattle has exactly what we're looking for is needle in haystack.
Brody Hall
Jow Forums has pretty much stopped offering any meaningful arguments against this. So I think the next step is writing up clean N-word free version to start sending out to different venues. Inquisitive ones for lawyer's forums, commie ones for lefty forums, and such.
>injunctions on adverts Wouldn't the First kick in in some way? You might want to swing the other way and say its discriminatory since that seems to be able to sidestep the Constitutional guarantee.
>legislative You want to get as many disillusioned as possible anything to break them away from mainstream, Trump's insurgency kind of demonstrated the concept but was more a Manchurian candidate than a full blown schism to tear down the GOP. You'd need to stir up enough dissent on both sides to create a third force otherwise the surviving party will become the real UniParty.
Jason Kelly
Hmm. That's bad phrasing. I guess it's not illegal to advertise on public property. Ads on the sides of city busses or on NPR for instance.
But it is illegal to attempt to influence someones vote as they even approach the polling place. This is a gift left us by the Klan. I remember seeing a friend of mine with his union buddies as I was a block away from the poll. Went to talk to him and he was like "fuck off, if elections observers see me talkin to you before you vote we could be fucked"
It's a felony to influence voters outside the polls, but inside the voting booth they're running ads for private corporations they want you to vote for?
>In the absence of plain direction on how to remain loyal to D or R, the NPCs of both simply choose not to vote, for fear of choosing wrong. This is a proven fact of the psychology of gambling: Most people hate losing more than they love winning.
Good idea, and I hate to be that guy, but people will just go out and vote for random candidates because the MSM told them they have to vote. In fact, the MSM would probably just amp up their efforts 10,000 percent and "teach" viewers directly on who to vote for. We would also probably see every part of the swamp, Social Media, TeleCom companies, Hollywood movies, Google, Apple etc. mobilize 10,000 percent with the MSM to directly tell voters what to do, to win, following what you wrote.
By all means I think it's a great idea, but don't get your hopes up with the masses.
Then let them go home. If they can't spend an hour every couple of years reading about some candidates, making a few decisions, and then going to the poll, they don't deserve to vote. This is natural self-selection.
Ian Martin
In terms of who to vote for for President, Congress, Governor, Mayor- sure. But CNN is not going to be pushing every (D) State Assemblyman or city planning committee member, at least not effectively. Local media is far less willing to be blatantly partisan. The local papers can't afford to alienate large swaths of their readers. Without directly being told how to vote, most people don't vote. These positions are extremely vulnerable to high energy, low numbers movements.
Look at James Allsup winning a position in Washington State, despite being a LIDRULL NAZI
