Big Tent --> Smaller Platform?

[skids]

Just looking for opinions here... is part of the problem that political parties face due to bloated platforms?

Is it neccessary for platforms to tackle miniscule issues?

What's wrong with just skipping some things in a platform that might prove divisive? Why not let politicians individually determine their stance on the details? (Many diverge from their party's platform in some areas as it is.)

With all the single-issue voters gumming up the works, wouldn't a simpler, easier to understand, platform help a party pitch a big tent?

On the other side, how small is too small? What are the bare minimums that need to be covered?

[applegrove]

1. People want to know what they are getting. Even if you lie to them

apparently, if they feel they know what they are getting then they will vote.

You can have a big tent platform if you stick to basic principles.

Liberals are for 'good information' & applying the newest ideas to solve the problems of the populace. That means if there is a new way to run an economy (like say be no tolerant of inflation like all Western nations have been for 15 years) then you keep that. Stem cell - look into it. Birth control/abortion - get that simple & reversable operation for the boys going "big time". Good information implies that you will not fool your followers into believing you are there for them like the Republicans do - and then put laws through that help only the elites.

See how many issue a simple idea like "good information" covers. That is in fact the Liberal way and has been for 500 years.

[ernstbass]

2. We need to convey a clear concise message to the public

I don't think the size of our platform matters because the general public isn't going to delve into politics that much. We don't do a very good job of staying on message and I think that's our priority.