News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Jimmy Snyder]

its not that simple. in the last election to have voted for nader, you had to have wanted him badly enough to accept bush. voting is not just about expressing yourself, it is also about helping choose a good leader for the country, and prevent a bad one. in that case a vote for nader was far worse than thrown away, it was a vote for bush.

Don't you stand for anything enough to vote for it? No wonder negative campaigns abound. Turbo says "The US has to get beyond a 2-party system". That being the case, what does turbo have to do?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

From a strictly logical point of view, that's correct, but reality is more nuanced. Since there will never be a candidate who will agree with me on every single issue, there will necessarily be compromise with every vote I cast. I'm not going to let excellent be the enemy of good.

So between Nader and Obama, which is excellent and which is good?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

its not that simple. in the last election to have voted for nader, you had to have wanted him badly enough to accept bush. voting is not just about expressing yourself, it is also about helping choose a good leader for the country, and prevent a bad one. in that case a vote for nader was far worse than thrown away, it was a vote for bush.

The point of voting is to express your opinion and excersize your ability to make change. People have given that up to play someone elses game. They hold the power because people have been convinced that they have to vote the way they want you to, the way that continues to support the two party system. There will never be a third party candidate with even a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected if everyone keeps looking at it as a thrown away vote.

 

[Art]

If you want to do away with a 2 party system you start at the bottom not the top.

Elect independents for local office then congressional seats etc.. Eventually if and when you break the voting bloc of the main parties then you can elect an independent president.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you want to do away with a 2 party system you start at the bottom not the top.

Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.

 

[Art]

Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.

Reminds me of the Enid Blyton character, Noddy, who wanted to build the roof of his house before the walls in case it rained

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up. Nader on the other hand seems to be running without party affiliation this time 'round. That's top down. Neither approach satisfies turbo. Your suggestion that we start with independents seems unusual to me, perhaps that's outside in. I doubt though that pronouncements on how it must be done are really what's wanted. When successful parties come into existence, we can look at how they did it. The Republican party ran a Presidential candidate two years after its first meeting, and won the Presidency (Lincoln) four years after that. The Whig party ran a successful candidate (Harrison) seven years after it was formed.

 

[Art]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.

 

[Art]

Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.

And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.

How about it turbo, will you vote for independents for congers?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.

 

[BobG]

I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up.

Not only should a party build from the bottom up, but they should have a controlled growth. For several years, the Libertarian Party engaged in an undisciplined 'body count' approach. Anyone could be a Libertarian candidate as long as they ran for an office that didn't already have a Libertarian candidate running. They tended to attract a lot of flakes who's only qualification was having a lot of time on their hands.

The important thing was having a lot of candidates running for office gave the appearance of a vigorous party. They needed to do a little screening, which is hard to do with a small staff and a lot of candidates.

Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to building a party's reputation.

A Libertarian candidate (John Hospers) won his party's only electoral vote for President only a year after formation of the Libertarian Party, but was eclipsed by the Reform Party just 20 years later (Hospers VP candidate, Theodora Nathan, is still the only female to earn an electoral vote).

I have no explanation for the collapse of the Reform Party other than Pat Buchanon is a really, really horrible candidate. Come to think of it, the worst problems of the Republican Party came after Pat Buchanon left the Reform Party and rejoined the Republican Party.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not only should a party build from the bottom up.

Why should a party build from the bottom up?

 

[Art]

Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.

Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this

The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies.[

I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution

 

[BobG]

Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution

Or at least remove party designations from ballots. Restricting membership in a political party would be unconstitutional, but there's no more right to putting party designation on a ballot than there is to putting your income on a ballot.

Voters wouldn't have to know any more about their candidates than they do now, but at least the completely uninformed votes would be spread out more randomly.

 

[turbo]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

This two-party system is ridiculous - it poses a false dichotomy that appeals mostly to the uninformed. As an independent, I vote for the candidates that I prefer, regardless of party affiliation. This election cycle, the false dichotomy is going to hurt some Republicans because many people just want to get the Bush-Cheney years behind us, and they blame the party for a lot of the trouble. That's too bad, because there are some decent Republican candidates that may get booted just because their districts are fed up with the administration.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

In a parliamentary form, how do local politicians fare when the populace is fed up with the PM?

 

[mheslep]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions. ...

How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?

 

[turbo]

How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?

Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.

 

[mheslep]

Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.

I was curious as whether you had considered the pros and cons of your proposal.

 

[quadraphonics]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

That would have more to do with a proportional representation form of election than with parliamentarism as such, no? I.e., it's the winner-take-all form of our elections that reinforces the two-party system, not the relationship between the executive and legislature (which is what distinguishes a parliamentary republic from a presidential republic). Proportional representation tends to coincide with parliamentarism in Continential Europe, but there are plenty of parliamentary republics with winner-take-all elections, and they tend to produce distributions of partisan power that are similar to the United States.

For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law" .

 

[turbo]

That would have more to do with a proportional representation form of election than with parliamentarism as such, no? I.e., it's the winner-take-all form of our elections that reinforces the two-party system, not the relationship between the executive and legislature (which is what distinguishes a parliamentary republic from a presidential republic). Proportional representation tends to coincide with parliamentarism in Continential Europe, but there are plenty of parliamentary republics with winner-take-all elections, and they tend to produce distributions of partisan power that are similar to the United States.

For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law" .

It could be arranged that way. I would prefer to see a large number of parties, in which our candidates for representative, etc would contend in a general election, with the the two candidates with the most votes would have a run-off for a final selection to represent their district. When the elected officials convene they would have to form alliances with the officials of other parties and elect a prime minister. There could still be a bicameral legislative body, but the dilution of party power would mean that no one party could cram legislation down the throats of the others. I dislike the winner-take-all system. In the Republican Party this year, it mooted the campaigns of some candidates who might have emerged as quite superior to McCain, and given us a better choice in the general election.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But how are you going to get the kind of change you want if you vote for Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from winning, or vice versa?

 

[turbo]

But how are you going to get the kind of change you want if you vote for Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from winning, or vice versa?

There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.

 

[quadraphonics]

My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. This removes much of the incentive that the winner-take-all system provides for voters to cast in their lot with a big party (i.e., "don't throw your vote away."). It's also the kind of thing that's relatively straightforward to pitch and implement on the local level.

I don't think there's any need to mess with the executive structure of the overall republic in favor of parliamentarism, or at least any time soon. It could be that adjustments to the relationship between the executive and legislature are appropriate for a polity with less power concentrated in two parties, but we're a long way from that point, and in the meantime it's winner-take-all voting that is the main sustainer of the two-party system.

 

[Gokul43201]

My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates.

I like that!

 

[Poop-Loops]

Good idea, but people are too stupid to accept it. They won't understand how it works, get frustrated, and just not vote or probably never even become used because of that very reason.

 

[turbo]

What's hard to understand? Give a list of candidates, and have people pick from favorite to least favorite. If they want to cast a vote for only one candidate, so be it.

 

[Art]

What's hard to understand? Give a list of candidates, and have people pick from favorite to least favorite. If they want to cast a vote for only one candidate, so be it.

We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.