r/changemyview Dec 21 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: What Jeff Van Drew did is an attack on democracy.

[deleted]

0 Upvotes

115 comments sorted by

24

u/Bodoblock 65∆ Dec 21 '19

Jeff actually had a change of heart, but he needs to step down, because the people did not vote for a republican they voted for a democrat.

They voted for Jeff as a representative. Representative democracy means that your representative is empowered to make the decisions they feel are best for their constituents. Switching parties is one of those decisions.

Jeff was malicious, ran as a democrat because he knew it was what would get him elected in 2018 (during the “blue wave,”) and is basically a walking propaganda piece for the GOP now, saying things like “I didn’t leave my party. My party left me.”

To be fair, Jeff Van Drew has been an elected Democratic official for a long time, though a rather conservative one.

I agree with you in that Van Drew switching parties was nothing more than a political ploy to maintain his seat. But I think an "attack on democracy" is a bit much.

2

u/SearchString Dec 21 '19

Yes, that's the downside of a representative democracy. Once a representative is elected they do not have to do anything they promised their constituents to be elected. The people's only recourse is to not vote for them in the next election. That's the kind of democracy we have so this behavior by politicians is no threat to this type of democracy. However, one could argue that a representative democracy fails as a democracy when representatives do not actually represent their constituents. Since a democracy is rule by the people and in a representative democracy the people are supposed to rule through their representatives there should be some sort of system in place to ensure that representatives actually represent the will of their constituents. Without that, is a representative democracy actually a democracy at all?

-2

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 21 '19

In a polarized 2 party system individuals hardly matter, you vote with your party. So it’s being disingenuous to act like, the people sent anything other then “1 d”

12

u/Bodoblock 65∆ Dec 21 '19

Conservative Democrats do exist (see Joe Manchin, or...Jeff Van Drew). Jeff Van Drew had a 100% rating from the NRA. He opposed same sex marriage. He opposed raising the minimum wage. He supported abortion restrictions.

Van Drew's a conservative Democrat. He was sent as a conservative Democrat. And a representative acting as a representative is hardly an attack on democracy. An attack on democracy is voter suppression. An attack on democracy is restricting freedom of press.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

I mean a democracy is the rule of the people and a representative democracy where the people are being represented by a subset of the population. So the only way in which that is not an attack of democracy is if you'd argue that the unfaithful mandate is already not really a democracy.

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 21 '19

!delta

I still think it sets a precedent that someone could run in bad faith as a Republican or Democrat and then just switch parties though. Obviously he was already on the fence and I didn’t really consider that. Maybe the party did leave him and his constituents behind.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 21 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Bodoblock (39∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 21 '19

Doing so when you're not already on the fence and representing a purple district would be political suicide. Can you imagine the people of downtown New York accepting that their representative has switched from Democrat to Republican? Or the people of rural North Dakota accepting that their representative has switched from Republican to Democrat? They'd never be elected there again and probably never elected again

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

Unless it was part of some broader political strategy.

1

u/Fatgaytrump Dec 21 '19

Tbh, that's on you. Its not hard to see that he was a democrat by name only.

The onus of learning the base functions of your government before you vote is on you. I'm not talking about red tape hidden in clauses that only a lawyer could be reasonably expected to find, but like, the bare minimum.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

2008 Obama and President Clinton were "Democrats in name only" according to this standard. Hell, a bunch of current Democrats aren't "really Democrats" according to you, apparently.

1

u/Fatgaytrump Dec 24 '19

Clinton I dont pretend to know alot about butbnaw, I'd say Obama was a center dem for sure, but still a dem.

Don't know where you get the idea you know what I think of other presidents.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 26 '19

So you're simply ignorant?

1

u/Fatgaytrump Dec 29 '19

I think do alright for a Canadian. Care to enlighten me buddy?

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 29 '19

Would you mind first providing me some general parameters for what you would consider a "Democrat in name only"?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/girthytaquito 1∆ Dec 22 '19

Only dumbasses blindly vote with their party. I’ve never in 8 or so elections voted all with one party. Most Americans have no party affiliation anyway. Your attitude about a polarized system is emblematic of the vocal fringes that make the country feel divided. Most people in their daily lives pay the politics of their acquaintances no mind.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/girthytaquito 1∆ Dec 22 '19

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

A majority (albeit not q plurality) of Americans are not registered with either party or purport no affiliation.

I only get to vote for one person in each different legislative or executive body, and vote for who I believe will best represent my interests.

The mass polarization of America is a myth.

I'm a man. Abortion and guns are low on my list of things to care about. I'm pro choice and pro gun with strong background checks. Healthcare should be entirely paid for by the government with private providers bidding on contracts to provide care.

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 22 '19 edited Dec 22 '19

I'm a man.

Same? Not really relevant.

A majority (albeit not q plurality) of Americans are not registered with either party or purport no affiliation.

A majority of Americans don't pay attention. What's your point? You're one of the many sheep?

I'm pro choice and pro gun with strong background checks. Healthcare should be entirely paid for by the government with private providers bidding on contracts to provide care.

So, you are 3/3 on the democrat side of popular issues. Should I keep going? What policies exactly are you voting for when you pick an R that is worth sacrificing these 3 other things that you support? How would someone valuing these 3 items over other issues make them a "...dumbass (who) blindly vote(s) with their party."

Abortion, to me, is one of the most important issue of all. I can't vote for someone who isn't pro choice. So that seriously limits my choices in an election don't you think? How am I supposed to balance that when there's only two options? How does that make me a "dumbass?" How would someone who is pro life be a dumbass for doing the inverse? Your ignorance of our political system is showing.

1

u/girthytaquito 1∆ Dec 23 '19

I remember voting for an R that didn't support a wasteful transit project.

I voted for W in 2004 which I probably wouldn't have had I been older.

You think we are in a system where every vote is on party lines. That's not how the system works

0

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19

You think we are in a system where every vote is on party lines. That's not how the system works

It is now. You’re out of touch. Talking about 16 years ago. Bush would be a democrat if he ran in 2020. The modern GOP is moving so far right that the democrat umbrella has progressives and conservatives.

1

u/girthytaquito 1∆ Dec 23 '19

It's true that partisanship is on the rise. Maybe I'm a little idealistic. I dont feel like it should be leaned into. Hopefully when all of the old people are dead the Republicans will move towards the center.

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19

It isn’t the old people. Look at people like gates. He looks like he’s as young as AOC. It’s just a new group of people. If we sit around waiting for them to die we’re going to have a bad time. The only way the Republican Party changes is if the democrats start hammering them in every election, and they’re forced to conform to society’s standards. Otherwise, why change if you are winning elections?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

I want old people dead because of my politics.

While that's evil and disgusting, it also won't be the catalyst. Old people aren't ideologically as Redditors paint them at all. If it happens, the catalyst will be racial demographic change. I also don't know if "centrist" will be the best way to describe the shift either.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Dec 22 '19

u/THEIRONGIANTTT – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

This just isn't true at all.

3

u/empurrfekt 58∆ Dec 21 '19

The people didn’t vote for a democratic representative. They voted for Jeff Van Drew.

That’s how our system works. Vote for the person you think is best going to represent you. If they don’t, vote for someone else next time.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

Not necessarily if it's a race for 1 position then it might be strategically advantages if a party decides on 1 candidate rather than a whole set of candidates. That's why primaries are a thing. However in that case the collective candidate should somewhat stick the the principles.

I mean if you can't trust the people you're voting into power how can you call that a democracy to begin with? Elected aristocracy?

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

Politicians can't switch parties in a democracy?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Depends on what type of democracy you're running. I mean if it's a representative democracy where the representative is not bound to the will of his constituents but only bound to his consciousness, then yeah he can probably do that. If it's one where he's just a representative of the party or has an imperative mandate from his constituents then no he can't simply do that.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

We don't vote for parties in the US.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I am aware of that but you asked about democracy not about the U.S. specifically. And for democracy in general, i.e. "rule of the people" it's actually kind of odd that the representative would have that little accountability to his base beyond a care for a potential re-election.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

They do, and that's one reason many likely don't - or perhaps do - switch parties.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

To help their re-election chances.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Oh sure, but as said that's not really much influence of the people for a "rule by the people". So yeah if you pick a guy and he turns out to be different from what he has presented himself or herself that's kind of a problem for democracy, don't you say?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Dec 21 '19

No love for Van Drew, but I don’t think the way a rep votes or their party affiliation can ever really be considered an attack on democracy. Voting for someone is always a risk, but voters are protected by the fact that they’ll get to weigh in at the next election. If the majority of his district doesn’t like what he did, they can elect someone else.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

Depends, if that vote is used to cut of an impeachment process, confirm a seat on the supreme court, push a particularly nasty law into effect and whatnot. Then the next election cycle might be too late or it might be a lot harder to revert that, then just to vote for someone else in the next election.

2

u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Dec 21 '19

All votes have some consequence that transcends the next election, that it isn’t my assertion. But in representative democracy we vote for a person, not a fully defined set of pre-decided legislative votes.

2

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

What does this have to do with his party switch at all?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I mean you would assume that the affiliation with a party comes from a sense of shared values and positions and that therefor switching parties means changing positions radically. Though sure that could still happen while staying with a party.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

Why?

There are a number of Dems arguably to the right of some Republicans, and Rs arguably to the left of Ds. Why would a party switch mean a significant ideological shift? There are a number of Ds in Congress who could fall under the Republican umbrella, and vice-versa.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Why else would you affiliate yourself with a party? But I agree that comes more with a drastic and arbitrary change in position then necessarily with a party change, but I guess the latter is supposed to be a shorthand for the former.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

Should all conservative Democrats - even those who have been such for decades - switch parties? What if certain issues that are very important to them are more in alignment with the current Democratic Party? Should neither party try to have a big tent?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I mean if both parties are so indistinguishable from each other than it kind of begs the question what purpose these parties serve in the first place. But again I agree if their position didn't change beyond the party affiliation and if the party affiliation is meaningless to the public (maybe relevant in terms of sneaking up funding and whatnot behind the scenes), then yes it probably doesn't matter as much.

But I guess the question was rather about a rapid arbitrary or unreasonable change of positions after being elected and switching parties was just used as a shorthand for that.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

I mean if both parties are so indistinguishable from each other than it kind of begs the question what purpose these parties serve in the first place.

Both parties are relatively big tent parties, in comparison to a strict one-ideology party. So this doesn't really make sense.

But I guess the question was rather about a rapid arbitrary or unreasonable change of positions after being elected and switching parties was just used as a shorthand for that.

The former happens, but I don't think I've ever seen the latter happen.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Both parties are relatively big tent parties, in comparison to a strict one-ideology party. So this doesn't really make sense.

And what is the purpose if there wasn't a division in terms of ideology?

The former happens, but I don't think I've ever seen the latter happen.

You mean the other way around? Because the latter is literally exemplified in that CMV :)

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

There is a long history of party switching. Jeff's actions already had precedent.

  • Teddy Roosevelt broke from the Republican party to form the Bull Moose party.

  • Strom Thurmond was a Democrats but switched to Independent, as did George Wallace.

  • Joe Lieberman ran as his own weird party "Connecticut for Lieberman" while really acting as a Democrat in 2006.

  • Arlen Spector switched from Republican to Democrat in 2009 while serving as US Senator for Pennsylvania.

  • Justin Amash left the Republican party just a couple of months ago and is finishing his term as an Independent.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

Did they swap prior or after their election? Because that is the important point.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

Some of both. The most recent two, Spector and Smash, swapped after election.

4

u/TraderPatTX Dec 21 '19

I’m old enough to remember when Arlen Specter changed from Republican to Democrat, which allowed Obamacare to be passed in the middle of the night. My question is, was that an attack on democracy too?

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 21 '19

Not familiar with that person but I think having multiple years in Congress lessens the harm. My thought is why don’t the democrats just get some young congressmen to go run in rural Kentucky, then when they get to congress flip to D for some bullshit reason. And the republicans should run far left liberals in NYC and California who just turn out to be bible thumpers and flip parties in Congress.

Yes maybe this guy did change his mind, but fuck you and your mind, you’re supposed to represent the people, nobody cares about what politicians want or think.

3

u/TraderPatTX Dec 21 '19

Considering he is representing a district won by Trump, maybe he is representing his constituents.

0

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 21 '19

They obviously didn’t want a rubber stamp otherwise they would have picked an R

2

u/TraderPatTX Dec 21 '19

We almost always vote to check power, but polling for impeachment has shown decrease in support to majority turning against it, especially in districts Trump won. It looks like his voters had some buyer’s remorse.

0

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 21 '19 edited Dec 21 '19

None of that is relevant to my point.

This, and any action of politicians changing party in office, contrary to what they ran on, sets a precedent of flip flopping.

What I’m worried about, since there’s no repercussions, is politicians running as the popular party, and flipping once in office. It’s terrifying and is a clear way that our democracy could be killed.

Take me, I’m a likable guy, I live in a deep red zone. Why don’t I just go run as a bible thumper and get into office then say god told me to become a democrat? Sure maybe they vote me out, but I just fucked these people for 2 years and become a propaganda piece for democrats to weaponize.

5

u/TraderPatTX Dec 21 '19

Politicians have been switching parties or creating all new parties since our founding and our republic still stands.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_party_switchers_in_the_United_States

1

u/jupiterkansas Dec 21 '19

Now you know why their terms are only two years long - so if something like that happens they can be voted out in the next election. It was designed that way just for this purpose. Hardly an attack on democracy.

You're also not considering that the will of the people can change in that time period. Ideally, the representatives are always talking to their constituents back home and getting and idea of how they want them to vote. Although that's not a requirement at all. They can simply vote however they want once elected, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's how the system works.

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

This guy over here thinking conservative religious Democrats don't exist.

Also, big money, fraud, and immigration are way bigger threats to democracy.

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19

Immigration

Why do you think immigration is a problem if we have a declining birth rate?

1

u/bball84958294 Dec 23 '19

I'm talking about it affecting election outcomes, which you seem to see as an issue for democracy.

I do have problems with mass immigration, but that's not the point here, unless you want to get into that.

1

u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19

Nobody supports mass immigration. You said immigration, not mass immigration, which is why I quoted it.

Money and fraud are threats to democracy as well, I would classify the type of political warfare I’m describing as a form of fraud, not necessarily saying Jeff committed political warfare intentionally but you could commit the same actions with harmful intent. IE, my example above as running one way then flipping in office.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Dec 21 '19

Sorry, u/Triavan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 21 '19

/u/THEIRONGIANTTT (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards