Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

20
  • 57
    I'm not at all convinced that the premise continues to be true, even if it was for a number of years. Witness the large number of votes it took to elect a speaker and the many viable candidates for the GOP Presidential candidate.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 21:28
  • 11
    Just looking at Presidential elections hardly seems to be a good way to judge a party.
    – Barmar
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 21:36
  • 9
    @TedWrigley: IMHO the question deserves to be closed as opinion-based (and/or the "promote/discredit" custom reason), not as "go read Federalist #10." Close votes are means of enforcing site policy (and Federalist #10 is not a site policy). You shouldn't just cast them for whatever reason you feel like. That's what downvotes are for.
    – Kevin
    Commented May 31, 2023 at 6:22
  • 3
    I’m voting to close this question because it seems to be based on a flawed premise.
    – SQB
    Commented Jun 1, 2023 at 8:40
  • 3
    @SmartBulbInc RE: close votes you have to understand that we get rants disguised as questions, leading questions that make it clear that the OP is looking for a specific answer they already have in mind, or questions that presume a partisan viewpoint all the time. You may not have intended it, and indeed I disagree with the close voters, but it smells a little fishy the way you've written it.
    – Jared Smith
    Commented Jun 1, 2023 at 14:07