(02-13-2017, 09:41 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: So, we can exert social pressure on people to vote the way the party apparatus wants, but that's not corruption?

Excluding people who join a party because they think it's fashionable, the assumption is people agree with their party's platform, which is why they joined in the first place. Does that mean they must vote their party all the time? No, everyone should retain the right to decide who gets their vote. But it's silly to act like it's an outrage for parties to expect their members to be in broad agreement.

I know you aren't denouncing broad agreement, I'm well aware of that, but that's where the implication lies: the right of parties to expect things from their members.

(02-13-2017, 09:41 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I don't understand. I'm being called anti-democratic, yet I'm the one arguing that we DON'T vote stack through our party system. The defenders of this whole situation are hiding behind the fact that they can freely associate — yet "freely associate" means making backroom deals that effect the entire region. That's decidedly, undemocratic.

Political parties, almost by definition, involve backroom deals and endorsements. That's not anti-democratic, that's just the nature of having a party system. This particular endorsement swap, ahead of time, was definitely inappropriate. But that doesn't make the practice of endorsements and party-line voting anti-democratic. That is just the nature of the beast.

I get the impression that you're expecting parties to act more like think tanks: associations of like minded people, maybe even some who disagree, who propose certain policy positions, but don't necessarily act to bring them upon. Again, I know that's simplifying your position, but yet again, that's how it comes across. In the end, if you have parties, they are going to behave like parties. You can't fault them for behaving like what they are.