- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16,693
- Reaction score
- 5,632
- Location
- There's my hat.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Which party is most like the Red Communists?
No. Seems like kindve a silly infringement on free speech.
No major party in the USA is anything like the Red Communists.
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.
The U.S. Communist Party could not by any stretch of imagination be called a major party.
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.
"force"? whatchumean?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just saying, for the record, I never said it was in the top 1000 causes.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.
We have all kinds of fairness laws regarding election coverage. This would just be another. And it worked in the past. :shrug:Mandating it and infringing on the 1st amendment is going way too far for something that is so ridiculously minor.
Well it wouldn't be against the Parties."force"? whatchumean?
Good, then you should not be opposed. :mrgreen:It makes no difference,
Used to it? I don't think "Status quo" arguments fly.Everyone is use to this color scheme.
It was revealed in the thread that it is not the Parties using the colors but the media.Do they have any such permanent claim? Or could both start using a light shade of green tomorrow just for the hell of it.
Well we have to start somewhere to lessen our polarization.....is this really what our politics has come down to? Who has what color? No wonder we're circling the drain.
I see you didn't thoroughly read the thread.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.
Hasn't always been that way.Republican are red states and democrats are blue.
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:
"Have" should have been "had". And I used the plural of Law loosely, an enforceable rule = law.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:
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:
Green is an ideology. That ideology can still be represented by a different color.
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.