Try the political quiz

24 Replies

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

Why do you insist that it's so difficult to understand? It's literally in the name: ranked choice...you just rank your choices. It's not complicated at all.

And you understand why it swung Democrat, right? Because our currently flawed voting system is designed to maintain the Republican Party; without it, they wouldn't hold as significant of power as they do now. Without the electoral college, Republicans lose; without gerrymandering, Republicans lose; without single-vote plurality voting, Republicans lose; etc. The reason our current, terrible system is maintained the way…  Read more

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington disagreed…12mos12MO

State's Rights is not inherently opposed to Civil Rights -- in fact the very reverse is true. Yet another example of how you haven't the foggiest idea about our history. State's Rights was used as an argument AGAINST slavery and the fugitive slave act, which forced states to turn in runaways, and State's Rights was used to abolish slavery in the North. I have also studied the U.S. presidential elections immensely and I am absolutely certain your party switch theory is false.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

Correct, state's rights are not inherently opposed to Civil Rights; however, they were absolutely used that way during the southern strategy. Many southern states used the "state's rights" idea to defend the use of Jim Crow policies and segregation throughout the South during those times (similar to how it was used in the South's attempts to not have to give up slaves), just as the "state's rights" argument is also being used today to push against individual rights like abortion or gender-affirming procedures within many Republican states.

But yes, you…  Read more

 @VotingVisionaryConstitution from Pennsylvania agreed…12mos12MO

In the early 1900s, both the Republican and Democrat Parties were not that different from each other, and it was common for politicians to flip flop between the two, until after the Great Depression, when the southern Democrat's more Liberal president FDR passed the New Deal to help pull us out of our bad situation, which prompted the northern Republicans to take a more conservative approach to separate their ideologies. This escalated until the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, when Democrat president LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts. This caused the racial tensions within the Democratic…  Read more

One interesting example to support the evolution of the two major parties is the case of Strom Thurmond. He was a Democratic senator from South Carolina who was initially against civil rights and even ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election. However, after the Democratic Party embraced civil rights under LBJ, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964. This demonstrates how politicians and their beliefs shifted between parties during the 20th century, as the parties' ideologies changed in relation to civil rights and other issues.

Moreover, the New Deal Coalition,…  Read more

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

Unfortunately, our political system is designed in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to break the two-party duopoly we currently have, but I would love to at least see our two main parties broken up; perhaps the Democratic Party could break into a Liberal Party and a Progressive Party, whereas the Republican Party could maybe break into a Conservative Party and a MAGA Party, for example. Either way, breaking up the political duopoly and even instituting some form of proportional representation would be a significant improvement.

Although, I do still speculate that the current party divi…  Read more

 @GovernmentGazetteerConstitution from Florida agreed…12mos12MO

The Republicans came up with a strategy to draw in as many of the southern Dixiecrat voters as possible into the now-conservative Republican Party, by using their anti-Civil Rights policies and "state's rights" rhetoric, called the Southern Strategy, which ended up successfully absorbing the Dixiecrat Party into the Republican base (which is also why the KKK and white supremacist groups today overwhelmingly support and endorse the Republican Party). This was the fundamental "party switch" until it was finally cemented by the neoliberal conservative Reagan administration, which began the modern duopoly we have today.

One example that supports the Southern Strategy's impact on the party switch can be seen in the political career of Strom Thurmond. Thurmond, a former Dixiecrat who ran as a third party candidate in the 1948 presidential election, eventually joined the Republican Party in 1964. His switch was mainly attributed to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which was signed into law by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. Thurmond's shift from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party is a clear example of the realignment that took place during the Southern Strategy era.

Furtherm…  Read more

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

I agree. The "states' rights" argument, mostly surrounding the Civil Rights movement, was probably the most significant factor in the party switch; however, I believe the increased push of religious conservatism and "traditional family values" also played a significant role in the switch and separation of the two parties.

 @soap_soledadConstitution from Illinois agreed…12mos12MO

One specific example of state's rights being used to defend Jim Crow policies was the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The Supreme Court's decision in this case upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, which essentially allowed states to maintain racially segregated facilities as long as they provided equal access to services. This ruling provided legal justification for the continuation of segregation, with Southern states using the state's rights argument to maintain their discriminatory systems. It wasn't…  Read more

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

Absolutely.

The "states' rights" argument is easily more often used to oppose civil rights, since the argument relies on reactionary rhetoric against progressive movements discussed on a national level. Any time a progressive civil rights policy becomes a popular media talking point, the "state's rights" argument always follows, pushed by anti-civil rights advocates in an attempt to exempt themselves from progressive social and political change.

We even see this happening right now in regards to things like abortion and LGBT+ rights, where many anti-progressive sta…  Read more

@CaucusCalculatorDemocratfrom New York requested a reference…12mos12MO

Please provide a reference for:

Joe Biden, who was openly admiring of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard and a ferocious racist

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…12mos12MO

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/07/03/watch-joe-biden-call-kkk-member-and-democrat-robert-byrd-a-friend-and-mentor-n2571780 there's the reference. Check it out. There you go. Enjoy!

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

Last activeActivity532 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias80%Active inPartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown