• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we force parties to alternate colors?

Which party is most like the Red Communists?
 
No. Seems like kindve a silly infringement on free speech.

I'm not entirely sure how the OP means it but up until recently networks switched colors each Presidential election. The idea was one color might seem more attractive then the other and give one party an advantage. I think we've only identified Republicans as red, Democrats blue since the 2000 election.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.

Red and blue were assigned by the TV news media when reporting on Presidential elections using a map of the US. Initially the GOP was blue and the democrats were red.

IMHO, no. But I do think the runner up in Presidential elections needs to be the VP as was the case originally and allowed to have 2 or 3 cabinet picks. Under my proposal the VP may not run for POTUS until the President is out of office or in his second term. This country is way too polarized. We need to work together starting at the top.
 
How about just changing the imbeciles elected to public office every 4 years instead of colors. After being in office for longer than 4 years, the only color they see is the color of money.
 
I'm not entirely sure how the OP means it but up until recently networks switched colors each Presidential election. The idea was one color might seem more attractive then the other and give one party an advantage. I think we've only identified Republicans as red, Democrats blue since the 2000 election.

That's all true. Historically they switched frequently, although Democrats were more often identified as red and Republicans blue until 2000. Still, I don't think this is at all a good reason to federally mandate it.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.
"force"? whatchumean?
 
If we were going to do anything I think it should be only placing a candidates name on a government ballot without any party affiliation identified. Sadly I think voters would have a panic and would be lost as to who to vote for. They are just that ill informed.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.

They should use brown and green next time around. Then it will make a cool camouflage looking map of the United States.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.

It makes no difference, I can remember back when the Republicans had blue and the Democrats had red, now it is vice versa. Just let it remain so. Everyone is use to this color scheme.
 
If we were going to do anything I think it should be only placing a candidates name on a government ballot without any party affiliation identified. Sadly I think voters would have a panic and would be lost as to who to vote for. They are just that ill informed.

I would wager you are right.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.
Do they have any such permanent claim? Or could both start using a light shade of green tomorrow just for the hell of it.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.

....is this really what our politics has come down to? Who has what color? No wonder we're circling the drain.
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?



:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.

I do not see the added benefit of it. Republican are red states and democrats are blue. Everybody knows that, the colors themselves mean nothing.

Because what would be next? Change the animals every few elections so that Republicans can be the donkey from time to time and the democrats the elephant?

You change your party by changing the politics and the people you put up for election, not by changing colors IMHO.
 
Voluntarily would be fine. It's probably a slightly better system although I don't think it's in the top 1000 causes of polarization in this country.
Just saying, for the record, I never said it was in the top 1000 causes.
Just that we do not need further polarization with such.


Mandating it and infringing on the 1st amendment is going way too far for something that is so ridiculously minor.
We have all kinds of fairness laws regarding election coverage. This would just be another. And it worked in the past. :shrug:





"force"? whatchumean?
Well it wouldn't be against the Parties.
But read the above reply.





It makes no difference,
Good, then you should not be opposed. :mrgreen:


Everyone is use to this color scheme.
Used to it? I don't think "Status quo" arguments fly.
And obviously someone is ok with it returning to it being alternated.





Do they have any such permanent claim? Or could both start using a light shade of green tomorrow just for the hell of it.
It was revealed in the thread that it is not the Parties using the colors but the media.





....is this really what our politics has come down to? Who has what color? No wonder we're circling the drain.
Well we have to start somewhere to lessen our polarization.
It seems as though this would be a step in the right direction. :shrug:



I do not see the added benefit of it. Republican are red states and democrats are blue. Everybody knows that, the colors themselves mean nothing.

Because what would be next? Change the animals every few elections so that Republicans can be the donkey from time to time and the democrats the elephant?

You change your party by changing the politics and the people you put up for election, not by changing colors IMHO.
I see you didn't thoroughly read the thread.
It wasn't the parties doing it but the media.


Republican are red states and democrats are blue.
Hasn't always been that way.
Repubs were blue and Dems were red.
Then the colors were alternated, with the media finally settling on the opposite color scheme.
There is no reason why it couldn't go back, or at least alternate as was done before.

The fact that you are ok with it as it is, is an indicator to me that it should go back to alternating. :mrgreen:
 
We have all kinds of fairness laws regarding election coverage. This would just be another. And it worked in the past. :shrug:
I'm not aware of any fairness laws regarding election coverage. Please elaborate.
 
We have all kinds of fairness laws regarding election coverage. This would just be another. And it worked in the past. :shrug:
I'm not aware of any fairness laws regarding election coverage. Please elaborate.
"Have" should have been "had". And I used the plural of Law loosely, an enforceable rule = law.

Law

Equal-time rule.
Which of course should not be confused with the Fairness Doctrine.
Which were also rules to supposedly (cough) make things more fair.

Equal-time rule


[...]

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it. The equal-time rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates. It should not be confused with the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which dealt with presenting balanced points of view on matters of public importance.

There are four exceptions to the equal-time rule. If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered "news events," and as a result, are not subject to the rule. Consequently, these debates may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates. Talk shows and other regular news programming from syndicators, such as Entertainment Tonight, are also declared exempt from the rule by the FCC on a case-by-case basis. [1]

This rule originated in §18 of the Radio Act of 1927; it was later superseded by the Communications Act of 1934. A related provision, in §315(b), requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser".

Equal-time rule | Wikipedia

Has it succumbed to the same fate of the Fairness Doctrine?
I didn't see at the Cornell link that § 315 had been repealed.

Or is that something that you don't consider to be a fairness law?


Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me the Equal Time Rule even if it no longer exists is an attempt at fairness.


Even the networks realized such and attempted to avoid favoritism.

It further claims that from 1976 to 2004, the broadcast networks, in an attempt to avoid favoritism in color-coding, standardized on the convention of alternating every four years between blue and red the color used for the incumbent party.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]

Red states and blue states | Wikipedia
 
Just saying, for the record, I never said it was in the top 1000 causes.
Just that we do not need further polarization with such.


We have all kinds of fairness laws regarding election coverage. This would just be another. And it worked in the past. :shrug:





Well it wouldn't be against the Parties.
But read the above reply.





Good, then you should not be opposed. :mrgreen:



Used to it? I don't think "Status quo" arguments fly.
And obviously someone is ok with it returning to it being alternated.





It was revealed in the thread that it is not the Parties using the colors but the media.





Well we have to start somewhere to lessen our polarization.
It seems as though this would be a step in the right direction. :shrug:



I see you didn't thoroughly read the thread.
It wasn't the parties doing it but the media.


Hasn't always been that way.
Repubs were blue and Dems were red.
Then the colors were alternated, with the media finally settling on the opposite color scheme.
There is no reason why it couldn't go back, or at least alternate as was done before.

The fact that you are ok with it as it is, is an indicator to me that it should go back to alternating. :mrgreen:

I really do not care if it is changed or not, but I am use to the states voting for republican presidential candidates being referred to as Red States and those voting for the Democratic presidential candidate being referred to as blue states. I suppose another phrase can be generated to refer to those reliable states as something else than red or blue. Donkey or Elephant states perhaps, maybe just liberal and conservative. But changing colors constantly would sure throw off the everyday use of political jargon we use today.
 
Green is an ideology. That ideology can still be represented by a different color.

That will get confusing as hell!
 
I do not see the added benefit of it. Republican are red states and democrats are blue. Everybody knows that, the colors themselves mean nothing.

Because what would be next? Change the animals every few elections so that Republicans can be the donkey from time to time and the democrats the elephant?

You change your party by changing the politics and the people you put up for election, not by changing colors IMHO.

Republicans being red while Democrats blue is only a recent development.

Originally, the networks switched the colors each presidential election. The idea was one color might be seen as more attractive than the other and give that party an unfair advantage in coverage. The networks probably should go back to switching colors but I don't think they're even slightly concerned with the appearance of bias anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom