posted
He’s just someone who finds it ironic when someone complains about the level and tone of political discourse and in the process calls someone stupid while ignoring his substantive posts, then tries to pretend he didn’t actually do it, and finally tries to pass it off as a joke.
posted
"True. It's also one of the downsides of the current two party system. One side often shuts out any ideas from the other side as being wrong, and only listens to their own party."
This may happen sometimes, but over the long term, the loyal opposition serves as a powerful check on the majority party. If the minority critique is valid, it will cost the majority votes unless it responds somehow to neutralize the critique. In this manner, politics is kept more toward the center than the extremes over the long run. If every politician in one party refused to listen to the critiques of the opposition, eventually the string of bad decisions (since everyone makes mistakes) would catch up with the party, and the majority would become the minority. Many recent legislative battles have been decided by moderates who either went against party leadership or forced the leadership to moderate its proposals, precisely because they were afraid of what the opposition would say in November.
"In a multi-party system, there aren't simply two sides to choose from. There might be three, or four, or six, or more - which isn't so much "who's right" but a way of seeing things from more than simply two angles."
True, but two points apply: First, many issues have only one dimension--everyone has fairly discrete position which can be defined as either more 'left' or more 'right' than whatever point is under consideration; in these situations, there's no need for more than two parties. Second, even if complex multidimensional issues are the overriding concern of the electorate, how do you decide who makes the decisions with respect to situation D if parties A, B, and C equally split the vote? Any solution will not work for every situation (including the two-party system; it merely has the advantage of having worked for over 200 years).
"I think Slash's point is that people tend to jump to the defense of their party without thinking, and attack the other with just as little thought."
Some people may tend to. This doesn't mean that everyone who attacks or defends a partisan action is doing so. I tend to agree that we shouldn't blindly follow anything, including the proposition that all partisans must be blindly following their party in all matters.
"Right now, the symptoms seem bad. Bad to the point of "how much time do I got, doc?""
What's that ES quote about Christians predicting the end of the world for millenia, and yet it keeps not ending? Seriously, while I see some negative trends, I also see many positive trends, and am reluctant to give up hope just yet. In all of the rancorous disputes throughout American political history, it's only come to widespread bloodshed once. Every other time we've managed to muddle through somehow (certainly not with my preferred solution in many cases, but it could be a hell of a lot worse).
"I've toyed around with the idea of making networks provide free airtime for all candidates to run campaign ads, which would reduce the need for money (which, really, seems to be the root of a lot of problems... more on that in a bit). Doing away with the electoral college and going for a straight popular vote, possibly. Even more, expanding Congress a bit to actually give some semblance of representation in our government (a senator representing on average over two million people seems a bit much - and in New Jersey, representing over 4 million people is downright ridiculous... even our Congressmen each represent over 600,000 people each)."
Interesting ideas, which we could discuss further elsewhere, if you'd like. I'll just note that none of those suggestions seem to change the underlying two-party dynamic, though they would certainly have other changes, significant and not.
"Money rules at the moment, and special interest groups."
I've heard that said widely, but have difficulty separating the hyperbole from the facts. Certainly money is a factor in politics, but so are many other things. How much of a factor it is, whether or not it's a serious problem, and what should be done about it if it is are questions that are far more complicated than saying 'it's all about money,' though. Also, what makes an interest group 'special,' and why is there a presumed dichotomy between 'good' interests and 'bad' interests, and how can we tell the difference?
"The constituency takes a backseat - certainly when the senators and congressmen go away for most of the year to DC and lose touch with the millions they are "representing"."
To the best of my knowledge, to the degree that this happens seriously, the representative tends to get knocked off or mend his ways. Gerrymandering, as mentioned above, may be the most significant barrier to this happening, but even the safest seat in the general can be subject to a primary challenge. In general, I suspect that voters get the quality of representation they deserve.
"Nor do the people really get to decide who comes out of a primary - unless they've registered with a party."
Which everyone is perfectly free to do. If you're part of a large organized interest which isn't currently affiliated with either major party, try joining one party en mass and putting up candidates in the primaries. That's essentially what happens over time anyway. The problem with complaining that 'independents' aren't represented by the two parties is that independents have only their independence in common--if significant numbers of them actually united behind a common cause, they would have far more impact (and, in the process, become partisan).
"When the party speaks, and pays, the candidates are beholden to them. If a candidate loses a primary, he likely can't run on a third party ticket because he doesn't have the financial machine of his party."
Except that usually incumbant candidates can easily win primaries without support of party leadership--and party leadership usually doesn't try to openly interfere in the primaries anyway, for fear of a nasty backlash.
"Dangerous proposition, when you take slavery, women's rights and whatnot into account."
Point taken. But in this case, I don't think it's that the Founders articulated noble ideals that they weren't ready to live up to; rather, it's that it's actually impossible to run a democratic government without some sort of organizing mechanism provided by parties (or the equivilent).
"Yeah, people jump parties. Why? Better deals. Did they fundamentally change their core beliefs? No."
But that's precisely the point I'm trying to get at. Parties serve as umbrella coalitions for various interests. Interests use parties to try to get their goals accomplished. For instance, some fiscal conservatives and social conservatives agree on practically nothing except that if they elect Republicans they'll get better outcomes on thier preferred policies than if they elect Democrats (who tend to favor socially liberal and fiscally liberal policies). Interests, and politicians, only affiliate with parties so long as it serves their interest--the opposite of the 'blind loyalty' decried in this conversation. It's in the parties' self-interest to try to attract as many interests as possible; hence, the system is responsive to most significant interests.
""Hey, um, was it supposed to blow up like that? I mean, I saw a huge gaping hole the side on the launch pad, but I figured you knew what you were doing. Should I have said something?""
But I, as a layman, still have no idea WHY it blew up, so my suggestions about to do next won't help much. The analogy I offered is certainly imperfect; let me try again. Saying things like "the two-party system is an abomination, and we should do away with parties" strikes me as wrongheaded in two ways. First, it's based on information that simply doesn't work in the real world--parties (or the equivilent) are inevitable in all forms of democratic government. It's like walking into a mathematics class and saying 'the reason your problems are so complex is because you're using 3.14159... for pi. Everything would be much more elegant if you'd just use 3.' Everyone who knows anything about math just stares in amazement while mentally vowing to never cross a bridge you help design. Second, it's seemingly based on a lack of contextual knowledge. Even if there's a valid argument to be made (such as that PR is better than FPTP), if the person trying to make it sounds clueless as to the context of the debate in question, he won't gain any credibility. It's like a newbie popping and saying 'I'm offended that OSC plagarized the Book of Mormon in his Homecoming books.' Even if the person's offense is grounded in fact at all, he still comes off as annoying because most people here already are quite familiar with the issue, and resent the newcomer's inability to phrase his argument in terms that will be understood by everyone else as being new and relevent. If you want to take part in a conversation, you need to understand the issues in question, or at least understand the borders of your ignorance.
"The problem is, government isn't only for those who study american politics. Government is also for the guy who flips burgers at Micky D's and the woman who sits at home and listens to sound bytes. So, when one of those people sticks their head up and says "hey, what's going on here, this doesn't seem right" it's not exactly polite to laugh and say "she doesn't even know what's going on, she's obviously wrong about there being a problem.""
And this brings us back the above allusion to the ongoing decay in our country's educational system, which is probably the one area that has me the most worried. Not that I have any idea how to fix it without a major change in the cultural values of most Americans. If we can't educate citizens on how the government works and why, we shouldn't be surprised if they end up running it into the ground.
"When you use party lines to define what you believe politically, you are turning off your brain."
Possibly, though there are places where the opportunity cost of doing additional research is greater than the cost of trusting a reliable source of information. But blind faith in any source of knowledge is problematic, just as refusing to place reasoned faith in any source of knowledge is problematic.
"Your assertion that only political experts should partake in debate is insulting and elitist."
If I had made such an assertion, then it might be considered elitist. What I actually said was that I get annoyed if someone who doesn't exhibit any knowledge thinks he has all the answers. Expertise is not necessary to take part in discussion; basic competance is. It's not even the ignorance that annoys me, but the unwillingness to open one's mind and learn about the subject. Which, ironically, bears some resemblance to what the discussion has come around to.
"So, while I may not think a person is stupid, if they are blindly loyal to a political party, then they are acting stupidly in my opinion."
Yet this isn't what you started out saying. You said that ALL people who discuss politics are blindly loyal to a political party, and therefore stupid. If you had said that it seemed to you that SOME people were behaving in this manner, I likely would have agreed (and seen no need to get involved in this discussion in the first place).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Expertise is not necessary to take part in discussion; basic competance is.
Except expertise is not a prerequisite to vote, nor is competance. Or even the barest knowledge of the issues at hand. Or even the name of the candidate.
As long as you have a party, though, none of that matters. And, whether you like it or not, that's how a lot of people think. I work with people that, no matter what the other side puts up, they will faithfully vote their party. In fact, when I bring up a point they seem to agree with, then attribute it to a member of the other party, they quickly write it off as being wrong.
Which is much like my grandmother, who said she "didn't get involved with politics" yet voted for every democrat the party would run.
quote: First, many issues have only one dimension--everyone has fairly discrete position which can be defined as either more 'left' or more 'right' than whatever point is under consideration; in these situations, there's no need for more than two parties
Yes, but the difficulty comes in when someone is pro-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-environment. Where do they fall? They're independent, and have to vote the issues instead of the parties (as everyone should, imo)
So, for instance, I may vote for both republicans and democrats (and other) from election to election, but I wouldn't consider myself part of any of their parties. Similarly, I can always register democrat to vote in the dem primary, but then register republican the following year to vote in that primary, and back, and forth, and so on... which is playing the system like a fiddle.
All the republicans this year could decide to register democrat to flood the primary and get the most conservative dem on the ticket, too, or the most wacko leftist to ensure a Bush victory. It's still just playing the system.
quote: Some people may tend to. This doesn't mean that everyone who attacks or defends a partisan action is doing so.
No, but the loudest get heard. So you end up with a vocal minority that gets the most attention. Even if most republicans are reasoned human beings, the left will always point to the jokers like Pat Robertson. And react to those views with venom (same as the right reacts to the views of someone like Michael Moore)
The moderates often go with the flow, and don't jump in to conversations as often. Those with firmly held convictions dive in head first more often, and a great many times feel that any sign of weakness on any of the party issues makes the rest of the party's issues seem weak.
It's what comes with having an entity as the focus instead of individuals. The entity is then defended, insead of the individual, along with all the problems that entity may have.
quote: Seriously, while I see some negative trends, I also see many positive trends, and am reluctant to give up hope just yet.
I wonder if anyone in Rome was thinking that around 300 AD, or in Constantinople circa 1180, or possibly in London around 1770. There are many similar concerns that have cropped up in history time and again, and our empire's lasted a goodly time already.
quote: Also, what makes an interest group 'special,'
Point taken. Though I worry more about someone like Tyson chicken or Philip Morris leaning on a candidate than I do on, say, the teacher's union, or the ACLU. Unfortunately, those first couple sometimes swing a bigger axe.
quote: In general, I suspect that voters get the quality of representation they deserve.
Well, that's a pretty damning statement, now, isn't it.
quote: it's that it's actually impossible to run a democratic government without some sort of organizing mechanism provided by parties
Well, not so much. First, we don't have a democratic government in the true sense. We're far too big for that. We have a representative democracy, in which we elect people to represent us. So, the democracy really takes a backseat to those who can wrangle the representatives - who are as much in it for themselves as they are for the people.
quote: Interests, and politicians, only affiliate with parties so long as it serves their interest--the opposite of the 'blind loyalty' decried in this conversation.
This doesn't happen as often as one would hope. For example, the black caucus isn't likely to jump ship and back the Republicans no matter what the Dems do. Just as the Christian Coalition isn't going to jump to the Dems. Most interests have picked their horses, for good or ill, regardless of the moderating opinions of a given member of the opposition.
This is again not a good thing. An interest such as these is *only* effective in primaries. It's a foregone conclusion that they won't vote for the "other guy" in the general election, but they can darn well pick their guy. Because of this, the fodder that comes out of the primary is always tempered by these extremes within the party. (one of the reasons McCain got the boot)
A truly independent candidate, that voted his/her mind on each issue without hewing to the party, wouldn't make it out of the primary, though he/she may be able to win the general election. Which is damn annoying, actually.
A party isn't going to back someone in a lesser election (which doesn't have a primary) that doesn't support their ideals, either, leaving truly independent-minded candidates to fund their own campaigns. Which leaves us with the likes of Perot, who can actually fund his own, on many occasions.
Without the party's guidance and support through the lower steps of the political process, a candidate won't work his/her way through the system (unless there's some other popular draw - marriage to a successful politician or a successful film career come to mind).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, but the difficulty comes in when someone is pro-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-environment. Where do they fall? They're independent, and have to vote the issues instead of the parties (as everyone should, imo)"
But the fact that fewer people meet that profile means that the parties have less incentive to cater to people with that exact list of positions. In broad terms, because there are fewer libertarians and communitarians than modern conservatives and modern liberals, the two major parties stake out positions accordingly, and people caught between them have a harder choice to make at election time. If, however, more voters became libertarian, we would see one or both parties shift accordingly.
"So, the democracy really takes a backseat to those who can wrangle the representatives - who are as much in it for themselves as they are for the people."
You seem to be getting at two 'problems.' One is that politicians are self-interested. I'm not convinced that that is actually a problem. I think we would have far more to fear from a dedicated ideologue who ignores the people and retires after one term than from a self-interested politician who knows that he must keep pleasing the majority to stay in office. The other problem, the disconnect between the voter and the policymaking process, is inherent in any system. Even if we made all policy on the basis of internet initiatives, someone would have to write the initiatives and set the agenda, a process which Arrow assures us is open to manipulation under any system. And people would still look for informational cues from other sources (ie, 'parties') rather than making studying the issues a full-time job. My original statement stands--parties, or some similar mechanism, are inevitable in any system that attempts to measure majority will.
"For example, the black caucus isn't likely to jump ship and back the Republicans no matter what the Dems do."
Except that this tendency is arguably so much against their self-interest as to be mind-boggling. As it is now, Democratic officeholders have almost no incentive to work for 'black' issues, as blacks continue to vote Democratic regardless. Other groups have similar problems, but in most cases it's self-correcting--even if the other party doesn't make a credible play for the group's votes, they still might either give their votes to a spoiler candidate (such as Nader) or just stay home.
"Because of this, the fodder that comes out of the primary is always tempered by these extremes within the party."
Yet we had complaints in this same conversation that the parties are 'indistinguishable.' Something doesn't add up--if primaries move candidates away from the middle, there must be a genuine difference between the parties after all--and parties who consistently nominate less moderate candidates will start losing elections to moderates in the other party, so the system is again self-correcting.
"A truly independent candidate, that voted his/her mind on each issue without hewing to the party, wouldn't make it out of the primary, though he/she may be able to win the general election. Which is damn annoying, actually."
But we're back to the problem of just what this 'independent' stands for. If his positions are favored by a significant number of voters, why hasn't one or both of the parties taken this into account? And if they aren't, why should we elect him in the first place?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the fact that fewer people meet that profile means that the parties have less incentive to cater to people with that exact list of positions.
quote: even if the other party doesn't make a credible play for the group's votes, they still might either give their votes to a spoiler candidate (such as Nader) or just stay home.
These two things are key to me. I don't think fewer people meet that profile, first of all. I think there are plenty of people who don't agree with significant parts of the party line (pro-Iraq invasion, anti-NCLB, for instance... or pro-life, anti-Iraq invasion), so much so that they stay home.
If all the people who couldn't choose between the parties because neither represented them actually voted for one candidate, that person would win pretty handily. No federal election has had a turnout higher than 55% of those of voting age since 1968, and no non-presidential federal election year has topped 40% since 1970. link
The majority of people really don't care one way or the other. Could this be because neither side is offering anything worth voting for, coupled with the fact that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away" because of our two party system?
We discourage voting for anyone other than a democrat or republican, both through peer pressure and the way the system is designed. Even if you get a significant following (Green Party), many who would vote your way won't do so because they know that a third party candidate cannot win. So they vote Democrat instead, or Republican instead, so their vote "counts". Or they don't vote.
In all honesty, given the choice between spending the time and effort to go and vote for a "noncandidate" and sitting at home watching television, most people will choose the latter, I'd think. Why put out effort for something that will never have any foreseeable result?
I didn't vote in the 2000 election, primarily because I was abroad at the time. But I could have gone through the trouble of getting an absentee ballot, had I thought my vote mattered at all.
Turns out (surprise) that NJ sent its electoral votes to Gore. Which it would have done no matter who I voted for, as it has gone democrat in each election for the past five, I think.
quote:Something doesn't add up--if primaries move candidates away from the middle, there must be a genuine difference between the parties after all
Okay, what I said wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that extremist candidates were being selected - neither Bush nor Gore were that, certainly. However, those candidates who feel it important to have bipartisan support waste any such efforts in the primary. So, when a candidate says "liberal, liberal, liberal" in the primary to get elected, then "moderate, moderate, moderate" in the general election, it's almost a farse.
It's not so much that the two parties are indistinguishable in philosophy. The "indistinguishable" bit is more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter who is elected, since they all are answering to their handlers and their own interests instead of their constituency anyway. The voters only matter in the months leading up to the election, since their memories are so short that anything a candidate did or said previously is almost washed away.
Maybe instead of saying "two parties make you stupid", we should say "two parties exist because people are stupid". Churchill (again) said that "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Stands to reason if the people were smarter, the parties (and democracy) would work better. As it is, they are mainly different groups of cowboys trying to move a herd by yelling "Heeya" and "Git".
And any other cowboys that come in to help are run off the range. The two parties are two busy getting fat off their portion of the cattle to really want any others cutting into their herd.
quote: But we're back to the problem of just what this 'independent' stands for.
How about independent in thought. Open minded. Not subject to the "us v. them" problem so many party hacks fall into. Not answering every question about policy with "the other guy did this". Trying to come to a thoughtful conclusion rather than spouting a party line or sound byte.
You know. Independent. Not dependent. Not needing a political machine to make the decisions for you. Not reliant upon the party leadership to let you know who to vote for. Making your own decisions.
Unfortunately, many of these decisions come down to "okay, who's worse" or "I could vote for this third party candidate instead of the Democrat but that'll just help Republican win" (or vice versa). Independent voters vote at the mercy of the parties. They reject party, so therefore are bound by a system that rejects those who have no party.
Or, contrarily, they don't register and don't vote, preferring to abstain from the political infighting and backbiting between two parties focused as much on getting at each other as they are on getting a job done.
quote: Except that this tendency is arguably so much against their self-interest as to be mind-boggling
Exactly. It's totally counterintuitive. It's, dare I say it, stupid. It makes it so the party system breaks down - they don't have to cater to their base, because the base won't change sides. They can really do what they like, and remain confident that those districts controlled by their base of voters will always elect them. The democrats could actually run a donkey and New Jersey would elect it, for instance.
For these groups, the issues don't matter. The label does. They would no sooner vote against their party than jump off a bridge. They've stopped thinking. They are no longer independent thinkers, or voters. They are chained to the party and do what the party tells them.
So the choices as I see them are: a)Agree with and vote for the Republicans b)Agree with and vote for the Democrats c)Abstain from voting entirely d)Make decisions independent of parties and try to elect the best person for the job. e)Move to another country
Somehow, I'm leaning towards "d". But I'm in the minority, so my vote isn't supposed to count in a democracy, anyway.
Though I hear Switzerland makes good chocolate. And cheese. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash, Saying that Han was vehement was sort of uncalled for. He really wasn't, although I could see how you would read that into it. Oh, and Dagonee is like that most of the time, but he's a good prospect. Give him a little time to mellow.
Han, The big problem I have with what you are saying is that you're just repeating theory at me. I get it. I know the theoretical basis for the two party system. We're not talking theory here, we're talking reality.
For example, voter turnout is a big issue. Presidential elections are usually the ones with the highest voter turn out, and yet, President Bush won the election with, what was it, 18% of possible votes? If democracy is the rule of the majority, then our majority has spoken; they don't want any of it. There's a host of reasons for this, but there is one that has been a growing trend for some time. Potential voters (or actual ones, like me) feel as if there is no choice that they can make that will represent their interests. We've got a prisoner's dilemma the size of Kentucky over our heads and more and more people are choosing to opt out.
It's a mistake to think that the only downside to voting is the little bit of time that it takes one or maybe two days a year. For many people, it's a sort of mental disengagement from a painful part of existence that has betrayed them so many times. Voting represents, for some people, a vulnerable sort of hope that they don't think will ever be fulfilled. So, they don't not vote because they never cared. They don't vote because they did care and caring got them hurt.
That's why there's a drive for "outsider" candidates. People want to believe in someone, but politicians are about as well regarded as lawyers, which many of them also are. In some cases, California for example, it's better the devil you don't know, then the filthly pieces of slime that you do.
That's why I think that your (or rather the traditional) analysis of third parties is off. In the past, a third party was either a single issue party, a personality cult that lasted as long as their leader did, or, in very rare cases, emerging at a time when one of the traditional two parties was losing it's power. However, all these parties were attempting to get support from a pool of committed voters. Right now, there are nearly twice as many non-voters as voters in the American population. Harnessing a fourth of that potential would put a third party (or coalition of other parties) on par with the two big boys, and that's assuming that such a mass movement didn't suck support away from them.
Of course, for a third party to become powerful, it needs far less support. With the two main parties more or less equally balanced, a new party need only have a few wins to become the swing vote, making them potentially the most powerful force in our government. (Yes, I know that the two party theory assumes that the two main parties would then collude to deny the third party any power. Nonetheless...)
Though I doubt that this will happen any time soon, I'm hoping that it will. The world we live in is far too complex to be well served by the almost childishly simplistic two perspective method that we're currently locked in. Not only do issues have more than two side, there are far more axes to judge things on than liberal vs. conservative. Myself, I'm a big believer in the conservative (both political parties fall here) vs. progressive axis, but there are plenty of others that are presently ignored.
And let's talk about the people who do vote. There's tons of problems there too. Litmus test voters who pick one issue that they vote for make up a significant part of our electorate. Other voters feel a strong pull to vote for the guy who's going to win, or at least not vote for the guy who's going to lose, making the news' announcement of the election's front-runner a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And, it's remiss in any aspect of American life to neglect the immense distorting effect of money, which, I've noticed, is conspicuously absent in your posts. Other people have already complained that politicians eschew issues in favor of getting paid. I believe that the entire system of American elections have become much more about sucessful PR campaigns than about the issues. Many American voters vote for or against images. The people who does the best job of branding their candidate while demonizing their opponent is going to win.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, very interesting topic. Thanks for posting it, Slash. I'm usually lurking over in the Writing Workshops, hadn't wandered over here yet. FlyingCow pointed out to me, and I'm a big fan of discussing politics, so I thought I'd drop by. Good comments by lots of folks here.
An observation I thought I'd share is that it seems to me that many people who are arguing against the two-party system seem to have more fundamental concerns than the existence of the two parties per se.
Democracy is indeed the worst form of government... except for all the others. There are days I despise our democracy (or rather our Republic), but then again, I wouldn't really trade it in for anything else out there. Any system will have its own problems. That's the wonderful thing about life on Earth. Any system we trade for will have its own set of problem... and I guarantee you that if we fundamentally reform our own system, there will still be big glaring flaws. Getting rid of two parties will not a utopia make.
That being said, we can surely ponder how things could be different, and heck, maybe reforms could be made. It's worth the ol' college try.
Voters are funny critters. Yes, we are all sheep. If you prick me, do I not bleat? But is this a flaw inherent in a two-party system?
Let's just imagine we have a multi-party system. Three parties, four parties, five parties, twelve parties. Each party (if it is to be called a party or a faction) will surely have some sort of ideological base. Maybe the States now has the Green, the Moderate Liberals, the Fighting Middle of the Roaders, the Fiscal Republicans, the Social Republicans, the Libertarians, the Anarchists, and the I-Like-Jacko parties. Great. Each has a more limited and closely defined ideology. The people in the party agree, "Ok, if we're going to get anything accomplished, we need to work hardest to advance Cause A, Cause B, and Cause C. That's our platform, and we're sticking to it."
Fifty years down the road, in our Grand Utopian Republic, what are people going to most likely do? Well, said person in all likelihood will have grown up believing that the Fiscal Republic Roaders, the Fighting Middle of the Roaders, or maybe even the I-Like-Jackos are the party of choice. Sure they might listen to the other parties, but there will undoubtedly be some people who walk into the voting booth every year and pull the I-Like-Jacko lever.
Why?
Maybe because that person has truly analyzed every party out there and decided that I-Like-Jacko cares about the positions most dear and near to his or her heart. Maybe because his or her mom voted for I-Like-Jacko, so does brother, so does sister, and goll darn it, that's just the way this family works. And I'll guarantee you that there will be some people, that if you criticize the I-Like-Jacko party, you will get a vehement defense of the I-Like-Jacko scion and a scathing drumming-down of the leading Fighting of the Middle Roader.
That's just the way folks are. Look back through the centuries, and I'll guarantee you'll find people acting exactly that way pretty much no matter what epoch you peek into. I don't really think that's a flaw inherent to the Two-Party system, but if you beg to differ, I'd be glad to hear why.
Beyond that, would it really be a good thing if people could choose to be a member of the I-Like-Jacko party? Well, sure, they'd like being with the other Jacko-Likers and all. We could create a plethora of parties. The anti-abortion, no-gun control, robust foreign policy, fiscally responsible, pro-trade party. The anti-abortion, pro-gun control, robust foreign policy, fiscally irresponsible, sort-of-pro-trade with a few stipulations party. You could create ten parties, twenty parties, a hundred parties. Every person in the country could have a party that EXACTLY matched his or her preferences.
Would this be a good thing?
Well, if we're talking about Founders' intentions, maybe. The Founders intended for the government to accomplish pretty nothing. If everything is working correctly, with checks and balances and all, we should have very little change in how our governance works. The whys of this are probably a topic for another discussion, but if we did have a zillion parties, probably not very much would get done.
The only way that would actually work, of course, is if we scrapped our current constitution for the most part and slapped in a British-style Parliament. Their legislative model is far more conducive to a multi-party system. (Just for kicks and giggles, I dare you to go over there and ask Brits if they think this equates to Utopia, simply because they don't have two parties... ask them if the same stupid things don't happen there.)
Anyhow, point being, the reason the Founders didn't want government to accomplish much on a regular basis was because they only wanted significant change if a pretty significant majority of the country wanted that change. Wait! That's sort-of Democracy, isn't it? Yes indeed.
Anyhow, so if you have the Zillion Partied United States, then what you would assuredly see happen is that if parties wanted to get anything accomplished, the I-Like-Jackos would need to turn to somebody like the Fighting of the Middle of the Roaders and say, "Hey, if you pass a bill that says you like Jacko, I'll help you fight through the middle of the road." A deal is struck. Next election comes around and it turns out the majority of the Fighting of the Middle Roaders don't really like Jacko. So the alliance is broken and people who like Jacko are very, very sad. Alliances shift, compromises are made, and sometimes people get what they want and sometimes they don't.
If a bunch of parties agree on something, they get together and make it happen. If they have a majority, victory!
If a small group of people believes strongly in something, but they are not a majority, well they will probably be sad. They might conclude their votes are worthless. That's their decision, of course. The alternative is that they could find some other people to compromise with in order to advance their cause.
Well what if we just scrapped parties altogether? What if we just voted for people who seemed like smart leaders that thought about different issues and made sensible decisions?
That goes well and fine until said leader thinks about an issue and then decides "Hmm, well I know I said that I thought A, but I listened to this fellow and now I think B is the way to go."
"But I really care about A," you say. "That's why I voted for you!" Sure, you thought he was a good decent fellow, but A was what was really important to you. You also cared a lot about C. What if he chooses D instead? Now, E, Q, and Z... you just don't know what this guy will do next. Within a few months he's done F, M, and horror of all horrors, T.
Now maybe that's just an example of somebody being inconsistent. Surely that dude would get booted out of office next election by the people who cared a lot about A, C, E, Q, and Z, though he may pick up support from people who support B, D, F, M, and T: though they will likely not trust him to be consistent.
What I'm trying to say with the above examples is that, sure, you want to elect thoughtful leaders who be open to new ideas: but you also want people who are going to consistently support issues you care about most. And if you actually want to make sure something happens with those issues, well doll garn it, you better be willing to compromise with some other people in order to make that happen.
A party is one way to do that. Every person in the party may not be a carbon copy, but if the people in the party agree to support a certain set of issues, then people who want to see those issues get advanced can be reasonably sure that voting for people in that party will accomplish that. To have a better chance of being successful (especially in a system of majority rules), it's advantageous to compromise with a significant number of people so you can all advance a relatively coherent set of policies. Get enough people together and you win. You don't, and you won't.
Could you have a zillion parties? Sure. Could you have three? Yeah, but they better be pretty evenly divided... if the Dems split in half, their causes will get hosed by the Republicans (which is why I think Naderites' claim that "It's not our fault about Bush" is disingenuous at best). If a new party arises in the middle... well, it's a question of what they support. Do they have a coherent set of policies that everybody can rally around? Or are they just a party of "we don't like the other guys," which does not seem to be a very good ideology.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Maybe that clears some things up. Maybe it muddies the waters. Feel free to tear apart my logic if you like. I'm always up for a good discussion.
Cheers,
Bulldog Drummond "All bark and no bite."
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If all the people who couldn't choose between the parties because neither represented them actually voted for one candidate, that person would win pretty handily."
But that's the rub--all the people who don't agree with the current major stands of the parties don't disagree in the same ways--so no one has been able to find a set of issue positions they all will support.
"We discourage voting for anyone other than a democrat or republican, both through peer pressure and the way the system is designed."
And yet members of both parties have to worry both about motivating their bases and about preventing significant spoiler defections to a third party.
"The "indistinguishable" bit is more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter who is elected, since they all are answering to their handlers and their own interests instead of their constituency anyway."
Point one: even if this is true, surely the differing goals of the different 'handlers' will yield vastly different outcomes, making it a meaningful choice. Point two: if this is so obvious, why do voters keep returning these politicians to office instead of voting for someone more sincere?
"How about independent in thought. Open minded. Not subject to the "us v. them" problem so many party hacks fall into. Not answering every question about policy with "the other guy did this". Trying to come to a thoughtful conclusion rather than spouting a party line or sound byte. You know. Independent. Not dependent. Not needing a political machine to make the decisions for you. Not reliant upon the party leadership to let you know who to vote for. Making your own decisions."
Do you have any firm data on how many people fall into each category, or even how many national politicians?
"backbiting between two parties focused as much on getting at each other as they are on getting a job done"
Again, empirical support for this conclusion, or just cynical impression?
"For these groups, the issues don't matter. The label does. They would no sooner vote against their party than jump off a bridge. They've stopped thinking. They are no longer independent thinkers, or voters. They are chained to the party and do what the party tells them."
But I suspect the problem is far more with those voters than with the system. Democracy is the one system in which if the masses get exploited, it's really their own fault. And I am immediately suspicious of any scheme designed to save the masses from themselves whether they like it or not.
"yet, President Bush won the election with, what was it, 18% of possible votes?"
"our majority has spoken; they don't want any of it. There's a host of reasons for this, but there is one that has been a growing trend for some time. Potential voters (or actual ones, like me) feel as if there is no choice that they can make that will represent their interests."
That's one theory of low turnout, the voters are dissatisfied. The other theory (which seems more compelling in many ways) is that turnout is low because voters are satisfied. If there really was a large uniform bloc of dissatisfied voters, why has no one been able to mobilize them? The other evidence which leads me to believe that low turnout isn't much of a problem is studies which indicate that nonvoters would have voted about the same as the electorate did.
"world we live in is far too complex to be well served by the almost childishly simplistic two perspective method that we're currently locked in. Not only do issues have more than two side, there are far more axes to judge things on than liberal vs. conservative."
This may get at the root of the problem I have with this discussion. I have a feeling that many people view parties as a uniform mass of people who all think the same thing. THIS ISN'T THE CASE. Parties serve a valuable organizational function, aggregating people who tend to agree with each other more than with the other party(ies). However, they disagree with each other in significant ways too, and intraparty battles can be even more fervent than arguments with other parties. Parties serve to organize interests to win elections--every effective individual within the party is constantly wondering if his interests are being served, and if the party is in a position to win the next election. It's remarkable how pragmatic this can make you--if your position's too extreme, you moderate it to win more support. If your party isn't aggressively pursuing your interests, you flirt with another party to see if your options improve. And, of course, if the opposition goes against the will of the people too much, you point that out (and point to your own more moderate positions) in order to win the next election. The clash of ideas, all pursued by people seeking their own interests, tends to bring better public policy to the forefront than any other method except benign dictatorship (which, for obvious reasons, we reject). So ultimately, I feel that the critique that parties only provide two ways of looking at each issue is misguided--plenty of disagreement and debate exist on every salient issue within every party seriously committed to winning elections. Within the Republican Party (which I follow more closely), there have been recent significant contentious debates on immigration and federal spending, to name just two obvious examples.
"And, it's remiss in any aspect of American life to neglect the immense distorting effect of money, which, I've noticed, is conspicuously absent in your posts."
How so? Again, cynicism is cheap, easy, and accomplishes nothing. What specific complaints do you make, and how would you change the system to eliminate them? I'm not saying I don't think some aspects of campaign finance aren't being handled as well as they should be, but I suspect that nine out of ten people who blame money for political problems are just being intellectually lazy.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
