They're all the same—the Great Compromise

Megan Lewis45 said:The truth is, voters couldn't care less about all these endless referendums, elections, signature drives—whatever you want to call this "democracy" that feels anything but democratic. In Venice, we dealt with five or six of these nonsense cycles in just six months. Once the media starts coming at you with constant threats and intimidation, staying home isn't just an option—it’s the only logical response.

I don't know about that, Braco. If the fact that they’re stripping away the last bit of open space available for the city to actually grow doesn't give you enough motivation to show up at the polls—regardless of how much the media spins it—then I honestly don't know what else there is to say.

rowdyranger44 said:I don't know about that, Braco. If the fact that they’re stripping away the last bit of open space available for the city to actually grow doesn't give you enough motivation to show up at the polls—regardless of how much the media spins it—then I honestly don't know what else there is to say.

Look, the golf thing isn't even the real issue here. If the people in Venice actually gave a damn about their own city—if they acted like a real community—they would’ve shown up for a referendum. They would’ve hit the polls and voted differently. But they didn't. And honestly? That says everything you need to know about most Americans.
The real issue? It’s all just political inconsistency. This whole idea that one party stands against the other on ideology, the economy, or social issues—it’s a joke. Total mess.
So when both halves finally decide to get their act together—where does that leave the membership? Where do the voters even stand? Stumbled onto this on a forum earlier:

Listen up, all you Republican Party members: since Dubravka Šuica went ahead and signed that Magna Carta—basically spitting right in the face of Article 7 of the Republican Party Bylaws—she’s committed a massive breach of duty under Article 45. It's a joke. As local committee members, you’ve got a job to do: demand an ethics committee hearing to strip her of her position and maybe kick her out for good. If you just sit there and do nothing? Then you’re just as guilty as she is. Period.

The Republican Party Bylaws explicitly forbid this kind of cooperation. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party doesn't have any rules about who they can play nice with—they'll shake hands with anyone. Honestly, I’d love to hear what the actual GOP cardholders think about all this.

Look, I’m not a member of the Republican Party, but I don't need to pay dues to see that the Republican Party Bylaws don't explicitly mention the kind of lockout you're talking about. I've looked through them, and it just isn't there. 😕

Regarding how they interact with other parties and organizations

Article 7.

(1) The Republican Party cooperates with like-minded political parties both domestically and abroad.
(2) Based on a decision by the National Committee, the Republican Party may join international associations of allied parties if it helps achieve its platform goals.

edit: Just wanted to toss in Article 45 as well.

Serious violations of membership obligations

Article 45.

A serious violation of membership obligations is defined as any action that causes, or could reasonably be expected to cause, significant damage to the party's reputation or interests. This includes actions that substantially violate the Republican Party Bylaws, run contrary to the Republican Party Platform, act against the core principles and structure of the Republican Party, or represent a flagrant breach of the Republican Party's code of ethics.

Thanks for the quick Google search—I wasn't really feeling up to digging through articles myself 🙂
So, you’re actually claiming the Democratic Party is a "sister party" to the Republican Party? On what grounds? And don't give me that "they act the same" crap—I mean in terms of actual ideology, economic policy, or social stances.
Since they aren't even remotely similar by definition, this tight little coalition they've got going is a total slap in the face to the party's reputation—it's pure hypocrisy—and a massive violation of Article 7 of the Republican Party Bylaws.

Daniel Palmer22 said:Well, it actually happened—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have formed a coalition in Venice. Sure, you see weird alliances like this in some tiny rural towns, but this is the first time we've seen it happen in a major city.
The Summer Olympics are kicking off, and the political "actors" finally dropped the act. United by a single (and already paid-for) interest—turning the Manhattan skyline into a sea of vacation rentals under Aaron Frenkel’s management—and with plenty of backing from Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, they hammered out a deal last night. As of this morning, the coalition is official: Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, and the Labor Party. This unnatural freak show managed to elect a City Council president, which clears the way to start discussions on the Pebble Beach development project—basically removing the final hurdle standing in front of the bulldozers.
During the campaign, the Republicans were screaming that "a vote for Labor is a vote for the Democrats," scaring people with posters of communist zombies, but it turns out a vote for the GOP is also a vote for the Democrats. And vice versa. All those campaign slogans, promises, and the supposed opposition to the Liberal mayor just vanished into a black hole the second the phones started ringing and the envelopes full of cash arrived.
Political ideology clearly doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. Real debate and actual conflict of opinion just get buried under a mountain of cash. It's all just "everyone gets a piece of the pie."

So, a question for the Republicans, the Democrats, and their fanboys: how does it feel to watch your leaders embrace "brotherhood and unity" with the very people they claim to hate?

Honestly, this was bound to happen eventually. All the drama surrounding it is pretty much irrelevant since we're just talking about local politics and a single decision. They basically saved taxpayers a ton of money by avoiding a do-over election, and besides, it just proves that political parties have their own dedicated voter bases—bases that aren't necessarily going to revolt against a coalition if the timing is right and the project is important enough.

Daniel Palmer22 said:Thanks for the quick Google search—I wasn't really feeling up to digging through articles myself 🙂
So, you’re actually claiming the Democratic Party is a "sister party" to the Republican Party? On what grounds? And don't give me that "they act the same" crap—I mean in terms of actual ideology, economic policy, or social stances.
Since they aren't even remotely similar by definition, this tight little coalition they've got going is a total slap in the face to the party's reputation—it's pure hypocrisy—and a massive violation of Article 7 of the Republican Party Bylaws.

What I'm trying to get at is that nowhere in the Republican Party Bylaws is there an explicit ban on forming coalitions with anyone else. Before making such heavy accusations, one really ought to check the actual bylaws themselves instead of relying on whatever random snippets turn up in an internet search.

I also want to point out that if we take a little look at the Republican Party's history of building coalitions, we can see they have teamed up with all sorts of groups, even at the highest levels of government. Given that track record, this local-level deal with the Democratic Party is practically nothing special.

And that's about it.

The most important point I want to make is that while Dubravka Šuica is indeed damaging the Republican Party's image, we really need to find a much stronger reason to justify removing her or reigning in her ambitions than the one currently being presented.

That particular argument definitely won't fly.

They’d be more than happy to play nice at the congressional level, too, if some powerhouse third party ever actually showed up to threaten their grip on power.

coppermarlin13 said:What I'm trying to get at is that nowhere in the Republican Party Bylaws is there an explicit ban on forming coalitions with anyone else. Before making such heavy accusations, one really ought to check the actual bylaws themselves instead of relying on whatever random snippets turn up in an internet search.

I also want to point out that if we take a little look at the Republican Party's history of building coalitions, we can see they have teamed up with all sorts of groups, even at the highest levels of government. Given that track record, this local-level deal with the Democratic Party is practically nothing special.

And that's about it.

The most important point I want to make is that while Dubravka Šuica is indeed damaging the Republican Party's image, we really need to find a much stronger reason to justify removing her or reigning in her ambitions than the one currently being presented.

That particular argument definitely won't fly.

So what, did a sudden warm current in the Gulf Stream pull them all together?

nimbleharbor10 said:

James Lee77 As I have stated before, there is an undeniable reality to the situation that many refuse to acknowledge. It isn’t merely about a difference of opinion; it is about the fundamental facts of how these institutions function. One cannot simply ignore the structural flaws inherent in our current system and expect a different outcome. We see it playing out in every major decision made by the City Council, where the influence of special interests often outweighs the actual needs of the public. It is a pattern that repeats itself, regardless of which party holds the majority, yet people continue to act surprised when the results align perfectly with the established status quo. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the very mechanics of power that govern us.
And besides, we really ought to take the front page into account as well. The New York Times On the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the vote didn't pass, if only because I wanted to see exactly how they would have maneuvered around it. I have zero doubt they would have found a way to bypass it entirely.

When people start dragging both the Mount Rainier golf course controversy and the European Union debate into the same conversation, it’s worth pointing out a glaring logical contradiction in how these rules are being applied. If we were strictly following the regulations governing an EU referendum, that golf course on Mount Rainier wouldn't even be on the table. Conversely, if we were playing by the rules established for the Mount Rainier referendum, the EU issue wouldn't be part of the equation. This reveals a blatant institutional manipulation of the referendum process itself; there is a clear attempt to weaponize media pressure to steer the public toward whatever outcome the elites have already decided is most desirable.

You’re right that the rules were essentially rigged to serve the interests of the politicians, but at the end of the day, the reality remains: the voters didn't really step up to the plate. Instead of actually showing up and speaking their minds, they mostly just went along with the status quo or settled for doing nothing at all.

We ought to have a "No Way" party on the ballot—one that guarantees its members won't even show up to Congress, let alone cast a vote for anything. For those who feel the urge to cast a protest vote instead of just doodling Donald Duck on their ballot, they should vote for "No Way." By doing so, they effectively snatch a vote away from the rest of the field, ensuring the remaining parties are left fighting over a smaller majority of valid votes.

Got any actual, concrete proposals?

Pavičić said quite a lot in his column that someone shared here earlier.
Between those Republican Party plants, the Braco types, the debates over marriage equality and IVF, and all the Oliver Stone and Slavoj Žižek nonsense fed to the masses, they are all just serving the true masters of our sovereignty—the very sovereignty we fought so hard to secure, thinking we were finally masters of our own destiny. We’re a proud nation of just a few million souls in a world where massive superpowers increasingly act like nothing matters at all.

Regarding the referendum and the low turnout.

I find the argument that citizens truly spoke their minds during the referendum to be fundamentally flawed. While I am certainly frustrated with the people who stayed home—because I believe this issue carries far more weight than your typical local municipal squabble—one has to consider the legal requirements for referendum participation. If we applied those same strict rules consistently, almost no local election in Venice would even be valid, not to mention the previous referendum on joining the European Union that someone already brought up.
A huge portion of the population simply doesn't care what happens; they have their money, their small businesses, their vacation rentals, and frankly, they couldn't care less. Many people are technically registered in the DU, but in reality, they are living in the big city or out on a boat somewhere; they have the legal right to vote because they are on the rolls, but they lack any actual physical opportunity to show up.
And let's not forget the propaganda that insisted none of this mattered, promising that it would create millions of jobs and make everyone's life better.
As for the topic of the referendum itself and the federally mandated rules for state-sanctioned votes, someone else has already touched on that, and there's really no point in beating a dead horse.

The second argument is that people voted for the parties that stated their position on Srđ, and that was their intention.

When people cast a ballot for a specific party, they aren't just voting for or against Srđ; they are also implicitly voting for or against marriage equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and various other ideologically charged issues like "these guys stole" versus "those guys didn't." They are voting for their own interests—voting for the politician whose seat they want to protect, or for the development of Srđ even if it's done poorly, or perhaps for their daughter's career advancement. It is undeniably true that there were people who voted for the Democratic Party while simultaneously opposing the apartments on Srđ, or maybe they voted for the Republican Party because they see them as a shield against communist remnants, yet they still oppose the golf course.

They are all cut from the same cloth.

That is the real question, isn't it? It's a question about the fundamental purpose of this entire political system, this method of conducting elections, and what could possibly serve as a coherent alternative to what we currently endure.
What is the point of voting against a loathed Republican Party or a Democratic Party, only to watch them eventually form a coalition at the behest of some big boss like Frankel? Will the betrayed voter actually choose a new option next time when genuine ideological and value-based polarization occurs?
Even though this is a local matter, arguably less burdened by heavy ideology, shouldn't the practical garbage in the gutter be more important than the ideological filth? Honestly, it's hard for me to wrap my head around how a die-hard Republican soldier, who sees communists lurking in every corner, feels when his own party members form a coalition with the very communists he despises.
An average Democratic voter, however, seems a bit less ideologically rigid, so it probably doesn't hit them as hard. They are essentially an ideological blank slate, an EU bureaucrat type, much like Zoran Milanović.
Ultimately, it's all quite pathetic. The core issue is how we can organize any meaningful alternative to the system we have now, and that isn't just a question for Venice or America, but a much broader one.
We all know the current situation is an absolute cesspool.

I honestly don't get why everyone's acting so shocked by this move...
what else were you people actually expecting?

Like the old saying goes, money talks and nothing else matters.
They're both just different sides of the same coin, running on the same tired ideologies—it's all just a massive cash grab at the end of the day.

Democratic Party City Committee Meets
San Francisco Coalition Crumbles!

According to unofficial reports from The New York Times, the newly elected San Francisco Democratic Party Committee met tonight to decide exactly how the social democrats will exit the ruling Great Compromise.

Word on the street is that almost everyone at the City Council meeting supported the move to shift the Democratic Party into the local opposition, with only two members standing against it.

As a result, the City Council has reportedly issued a mandate: any Democratic Party members who secured seats on the Boards of Directors or Executive Boards of municipal companies and institutions through the Great Compromise are required to resign immediately.

It looks like the decision is pretty much set in stone, even though the new president, Mladen Gojun, suggested that the entire city organization would have a say in the final call.

Just to recap, the initial decision to join the Great Compromise was also pushed through by a majority vote at the City Council level, which sparked massive internal fighting and ultimately led to the former leader of the San Francisco organization, Olga Muratti, leaving the party altogether.

A. H./ Republican Party
Photo: Getty Images

They’ve done permanent damage to the City, and this tactical retreat isn't going to fool anyone. It'll take them a decade to rebuild their support among left-leaning voters. They only have 200 members in the City—that tells you everything you need to know about their base. The Republican Party can do whatever they want; they won't drop below twenty percent because they have their loyalists.

Patrick Taylor9 said:They’ve done permanent damage to the City, and this tactical retreat isn't going to fool anyone. It'll take them a decade to rebuild their support among left-leaning voters. They only have 200 members in the City—that tells you everything you need to know about their base. The Republican Party can do whatever they want; they won't drop below twenty percent because they have their loyalists.

Oh, give me a break, what are we even talking about here?
As if the City isn't just going to hit a massive jackpot and start thriving the second the Republican Party loses their grip on power.

This is nothing more than a calculated maneuver rather than any kind of actual principle. They’ve realized they’re looking pretty bad right now, so they’re trying to grab some headlines in the hopes that it might somehow trigger a positive reaction ahead of the next election cycle.

When I actually sit down and give it some serious thought—man, you’re totally right.
The devil really does run the show, and he isn't letting go without a fight.

rowdyranger44 said:Precisely. We have no grounds for outrage here. The people of Venice had two distinct opportunities within a single month to demonstrate exactly how much this project matters to them. Both times, through their decision to show up or stay home, they made it clear that the project is moving forward—and that is the entire crux of the matter. Time will tell who was actually right about all this.

I honestly don't get how you guys can say that with a straight face, knowing damn well that if we used that same logic, even the referendum to join the European Union wouldn't have passed.

And don't even get me started on the media circus and how politicians are basically forcing this down our throats under the guise of "it's mandatory."