Politics as Unusual
19/6/12 06:00![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
I'm totally down with insurrection in the street. I've had a great time with that over the years. Insurrection in the voting booth is the other part of the equation. - Jello Biafra
Hi. It’s me. Your idealistic moderate Democrat who feels the government essentially works like it should. It may not be to your liking, but then, that’s democracy for you. Just when you think you’re getting everything your own way, everybody else in the country comes along and pisses on your parade.
I am hearing more and more that people don’t want to vote in elections because, either their favorite candidate was defeated in the primary or they feel the two separate and distinct parties are exactly the same. The evidence they cite for this is the practice of one president providing some continuity from the prior administration so that the country isn’t in a constant state of turmoil.
It is said that the states are the laboratories of democracy. If that’s the case, apparently California is the mad scientist. They are experimenting with non-partisan primaries in an attempt to relieve the partisan legislative gridlock in Washington. Instead of the parties having a runoff in the elections, the top 2 candidates by popular vote will face off in the election regardless of party affiliation.
According to Pew Research over the last 25 years, our divisions aren’t necessarily by party, but ideology. The primary point of disagreement is the role of government vs. social safety nets, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
I am hearing recurrently that a 3rd party can really shake things up in our political system. Well, there’s been encouraging news. Peter Ackerman is a venture capitalist that was pumping millions of dollars in a party called Americans Elect. The purpose of this party was to draft a presidential candidate, any candidate that could give Americans a true choice in the next election.
The problem is that they couldn't get a credible candidate to run for their party. They were hoping for a field of choices like Ron Paul, Chris Christie, Michael Bloomberg, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or even Hillary Clinton. Instead what they wound up with was a field that seemed a little less than presidential.
These include prospects like Kenneth Domagala, who wants to make Cuba the 51st state, and Dwight Smith, who has been running for president for the last 52 years. Americans Elect had already gotten their party on the ballot in 28 states. They felt they had the momentum to get on all 50. The only thing that seemed to be missing was a plausible candidate. This party claims to provide the solution that all of America seems to be screaming for as an alternative to politics as usual.
I am not surprised that peculiar people are coming out of the woodwork to run. If this community shows anything, it is that everyone is trying to shape politics in their own image; even to the detriment of everyone else. There is little, if any regard for the one-size-fits-all solutions that are inherent to a federal government structure. Even self-described centrists are straying from their regular temperament in the opinion pages of our news media.
The funding was there. The infrastructure seemed to be there. What was missing? You tell me.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 11:14 (UTC)http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2012/02/25/americans-elect-to-the-rescue/
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 15:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/12 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 11:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 11:52 (UTC)Clinton is part of a Democratic institution and never would have gone over
Clinton still has a somewhat cult following, much like Ron Paul. The difference is she just hasn’t been politically active promoting herself. She made a bigger splash in 2008 than Romney did.
Understand that this was an attempt by Americans Elect at a beginning, not an end in itself.
Honestly I think any third party is better served by putting it's millions of dollars to work in local elections to begin with and then putting it's hundreds of million to use in a presidential campaign after it has been established.
This is, by no means, the first attempt to establish an alternative party. Unfortunately, most prior attempts (Green Party, Socialist Party, Libertarian Party, Communist Party, etc.) have been single issue or had somewhat activist ideologies.
I think it's only a matter of time before any viable third party simply aligns itself with whatever the most prominent party is that shares the majority of it's ideologies.
That seemed to be the formula for Ron Paul after his Libertarian presidential attempt in 1988.
Now, with a proportional election system it would be different. That would make it much easier for third, forth, fifth parties, etc.
It could also serve to take away people’s options if one party dominates as the Democrats did in 2008. In some ways, it could hurt or diminish the 2 party options we have now.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 19:42 (UTC)As for a non-compromising party causing problems, stability is probably a big problem here, too. Think of it this way: do you think the debt ceiling debacle would've gone down the way it did if the Republicans in the House were subject to a no-confidence vote that would trigger a new election? I sincerely doubt it. But they knew they had two years to repair their image before the next election, so they let it happen.
I'm surprised you didn't mention that we have more responsive representatives to the individual concerns of their much smaller constituent base, as that's the major reason in favor of the FPTP system I've heard.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 12:41 (UTC)Credibility, mostly. It set so many arbitrary boundaries that it became worthless rather quickly, and their leading candidates were Ron Paul (who would have never jumped ship), Rocky Anderson (an out-of-touch far leftist), and Buddy Roemer, who couldn't even get enough support on his own to make the primary ballot on the GOP side.
The issue is not that people view the parties as exactly the same, but that the parties are doing a poor job representing people's true ideologies. The Republican revolts of the last 3 years or so have been a pushback against the leftward movement of the party. The Democrats are currently pushing back against the Dean-esque 50 state strategy that elected so many Blue Dogs, trying to move the Democrats further to the left. The center is along for the ride, but is generally better represented by the Republicans anyway given our ideological makeup. Thus, this idea that the moderates are underrepresented or not represented at all takes hold among those who don't fit into that paradigm.
The push for a third party alternative comes partially from ignorance (they're both the same! they're all run by rich out-of-touch elitists!) and partially from a misunderstanding about what they exist for. If there were a true, unequivocal need for a third party, it would arise. Instead, people are generally okay with the two party system and leaving those party distinctions to the political types while increasingly remaining independent themselves - that way, they can vote for who they want as opposed to being locked into a certain party.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 13:08 (UTC)Credibility, mostly. It set so many arbitrary boundaries that it became worthless rather quickly, and their leading candidates were Ron Paul (who would have never jumped ship), Rocky Anderson (an out-of-touch far leftist), and Buddy Roemer, who couldn't even get enough support on his own to make the primary ballot on the GOP side.
It would seem that things you are defining as arbitrary boundaries are necessary in order to target the presumptive national political climate. This would separate it from other alternative parties that have an activist agenda.
The issue is not that people view the parties as exactly the same, but that the parties are doing a poor job representing people's true ideologies.
That would probably be because each individual seems to have their own ideology and, as of late, has opposed anything that doesn’t fit their own personal agenda.
they're both the same! they're all run by rich out-of-touch elitists
What you would probably label as successful people
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 13:18 (UTC)To be more clear, then, what the AE group put in place for their nomination made them look unserious and hurt their ability to draft credible candidates.
What you would probably label as successful people
Yes.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 16:52 (UTC)To be more clear, then, what the AE group put in place for their nomination made them look unserious and hurt their ability to draft credible candidates.
No, that would less clear. Apparently, Americans Elect was looking for a good consensus candidate that America could stand behind as an alternative to the lesser of two evils candidates from the major parties. It looks like they were trying to avoid fringe candidates like Messrs. Domagala and Smith.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 16:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 18:46 (UTC)Isn't that a failing of Americans Elect if they lack the credibility to get non-fringe names?
I would say that it is more a failing of the concept of the third party. Like I have said in previous comments, this is not the first time a third party has been attempted. The difference here is that there didn’t seem to be a specific agenda that was being brought forward.
The candidates were sought. The platform was yet to be built. The prospects and the American people proclaimed with one voice. Meh!!!
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 18:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 13:29 (UTC)The thing to notice, though, is that despite winning almost one in five voters, Perot claimed exactly 0 electors. Here is where the impossibility of the national third party becomes clear. Winner-take-all districts means that until you have a statistical dead heat with a majority party, no one wants to vote for your for your guy, because he's obviously going to lose. And you'll never have a statistical dead heat because everyone is convinced he'll lose. Chicken and egg problem. Most people are OK with the "lesser of two evils" argument, because they'd rather win a small amount than lose entirely, and they see voting for a third-party guy as a vote "stolen" from the guy who they mostly agree with in the two main parties, since vote-splitting hurts his chances of getting 50%+1. And that's why we have relatively big-tent parties on both sides of the aisle. I mean, the Republicans run the gamut from Ron Paul to Olivia Snow. In any other country, there'd be a half-dozen parties wedged into the political spectrum between those two. The need to get 50%+1 has forced them all together, though.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 15:42 (UTC)I know you qualified this as "recent" and I don't know if 1968 is really out of the equation for modern presidential elections, but George Wallace got just a hair under what Perot won in votes, but won several southern states, and won a sizable block of electors: 46 electoral votes. In fact, had Wallace won a few more states (depending on how you do the math, it could have been as few as two: e.g. had Wallace won Texas (which went to Humphrey) ]and Florida (which went to Nixon) the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives. Which means Humphrey would have won in 1968.
/cool presidential election trivia story bro....
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 15:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 15:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 20:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 22:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/6/12 19:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/12 08:30 (UTC)