Interesting use of political parties

[Samus]

Here's an interesting piece from my hometown newspaper. I like reading what's going on in the big 'U' every now and then.

http://www.uticaod.com/archive/2003/05/29/news/7120.html

The Oneida County Board of Legislators voted Wednesday night to appoint Rome Mayor Joseph Griffo interim county executive.
---
Griffo will be sworn in June 16 to serve the remaining seven months of the term of Ralph J. Eannace Jr., who resigned early this month to become Utica City Court judge. The seat is up for election this fall.
---
The past four county executives -- Sherwood Boehlert, John Plumley, Raymond Meier and Eannace -- were first appointed by the board after other executives departed mid-term, and then won the office in the next election. All of those politicians were Republicans.
A couple of thoughts on this one:

1. Is it fair to appoint someone who will be running in the fall? It appears they've used this technique with a good degree of success in the past. Doing this gives Griffo the advantage of incumbency in the election.

2. If this county is predominately Republican, and the chances of electing a Democratic county executive are slim, is this really an issue?

3. If Democrats were in the majority, would they have pulled the same stunt? I would argue yes.

4. In general, political parties run on the survival of the fittest mentality. They have to aggresively get their people into positions of influence to continue to prosper. That said, if this was not a two-party system of government, would this type of "grooming your successor" still happen? If the county legislators were made up of 4-5 political parties instead of two, would some band together to get a particular interim candidate like this?

5. What are the long-term effects on the voters for actions like this? If the majority of people just vote the party line, does it really matter who the interim executive is? Do the majority of people just vote party line?

[shanek]

Originally posted by dwb
1. Is it fair to appoint someone who will be running in the fall? It appears they've used this technique with a good degree of success in the past. Doing this gives Griffo the advantage of incumbency in the election.

The advantage of incumbency comes from (or is at least greatly exacerbated by) the so-called "campaign finance reforms" over the last 30 or so years. They allow incumbents to get free publicity and even taxpayer funds while stopping challenging parties and candidates from raising enough funds to really be able to compete.

3. If Democrats were in the majority, would they have pulled the same stunt? I would argue yes.

Without question.

4. In general, political parties run on the survival of the fittest mentality.

No, they run on the survival of the winners mentality, using their political power to unfairly prevent other parties from having fair ballot access.

5. What are the long-term effects on the voters for actions like this? If the majority of people just vote the party line,

They don't. The majority of people—even the majority of registered voters—don't vote at all, because they don't like the choice either party gives them and the incumbent parties are too successful at keeping third parties down.

[Tmy]

I say we ban political designations from the ballot.

Vote for who you think is best. If you dont know, then you shoudl skip that section.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Tmy
I say we ban political designations from the ballot. Actually, I'm quite the fan of the political party system in theory, I just think we got some stuff wrong in practice. In some countries, you vote by party, not by individual. So, you would vote for "Party A" for the Congress. Then, if Party A ended up getting, say, 30% of the vote, then 30% of Congress would be off of Party A's ballot. The advantage of this is that there are many parties, and you vote by political philosophy, not by candidate (read: "celebrity"). Don't like what Party A is doing? Vote for another party and help rid the legislature of Party A appointees.

Of course, if several parties band together, you could essentially end up with the same two-party behavior as is seen in the U.S.

Originally posted by shanek
They don't. The majority of people—even the majority of registered voters—don't vote at all, because they don't like the choice either party gives them and the incumbent parties are too successful at keeping third parties down. Indeed, most registered voters don't vote at all. I can't say if your reasons are correct (I have not studied voter apathy) but the statistics are pretty dismal when it comes to participation.

[Tmy]

Party designations can be rendered useless. I live in Massachusetts. Just about veryone runs under Democrat even if they really arent.

Are there any rules that require you to run under a certain party. If Im truely a communist cant I still run under a Republican banner. Who can stop me?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I say we ban political designations from the ballot.

Vote for who you think is best. If you dont know, then you shoudl skip that section.

Works for me!

[shanek]

Originally posted by dwb
Indeed, most registered voters don't vote at all. I can't say if your reasons are correct (I have not studied voter apathy) but the statistics are pretty dismal when it comes to participation.

That's based on my own conclusions, drawn from numerous unscientific anecdotes.

[Malachi151]

IMO we need about 20 major parties. Haivng 3 or 4 parties just causes problems. We need way more people running in the final elections of any half major office. Most minor things only have 1 or maybe two 2 even running for them at all ususally anyway. Many people get elected unoppposed here so smaller positions.

The fact that the Dems and Repubs are allowed to persue a self rewarding system of government is mind blowing to me. We knwo that we want more choice and we know that the Dems and Repbs are working against that. Thats ourtagous.

After WWII is when that all happened. Prior to WWII, before our democracy was taken over by fascist :p, there was a lot more participation of other parties at all levels of government.

[Tmy]

Lets say 100% of registered voters turned out. Whos to say the results would be any different than wh a 30% turnout?

Why is it OK to rely on public opinion polls that use a miniscule sample, but after every election we get the press browbeating the public about low voter turnout.

[Samus]

Originally posted by shanek
That's based on my own conclusions, drawn from numerous unscientific anecdotes. And I think they are good conclusions. I would also add that they don't believe it makes a difference who they vote for.

Interesting thing about the two party system: it drives away voters. Follow me here...

Studies have been conducted on where people fit into the conservative-liberal political spectrum (high-level stuff, not specific policy stances). It has been found that the American political ideology is normal; i.e. like a bell curve. The majority lie within one standard deviation of the "middle of the road" between traditional conservative and liberal viewpoints. I don't have a cite for this, and I would need to locate my college poly sci notes to obtain a cite. If you want, take it as an assumption on my part.

So, you've got two major political parties, in order for both to survive, they each take (generally) one half of that bell curve. So, the Republicans are everyone to the conservative side of the middle, the Democrats the other half. With me so far?

Now, in order to win elections, political parties need to aim at that middle ground, where all the votes are. The end result is that both major parties are competing for the same real estate: the swing voters within that first standard deviation.

Voters that will always vote for their party aren't as important in the scheme of things, because they're loyal. So, they feel neglected because the party does not focus on them.

Voters in the "swing" territory will see two separate political parties that are both saying essentially the same thing. Anyone remember some of the Bush/Gore debates in 2000? See what I mean? So, the swing voters will feel that it doesn't matter which party you vote for, they both sound the same.

End result? Apathy.

If, on the other hand, you had a political system with many parties, each strong and able to enforce the party platform amongst their candidates, then you could vote by philosophy. Legislatures would be filled with an accurate representation of the philosophies of their constituents. Policy would be a reflection of the compromises and consensus built between those competing parties; and obtaining consensus would require approval from more than 1-2 parties.

[/idealism]

Obviously, a real-world implementation of a many party system isn't as clean as I've just described, but I'm of the belief it would work better than what we have, even with any flaws it will develop over time.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lets say 100% of registered voters turned out. Whos to say the results would be any different than wh a 30% turnout?

Why is it OK to rely on public opinion polls that use a miniscule sample, but after every election we get the press browbeating the public about low voter turnout.

Because the small sample in an election is not randomly chosen as it should be in a good public opinion poll.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lets say 100% of registered voters turned out. Whos to say the results would be any different than wh a 30% turnout?

Why is it OK to rely on public opinion polls that use a miniscule sample, but after every election we get the press browbeating the public about low voter turnout.

Because in the above case the 30% is not a representative sample. They are largely party loyalists, whereas the other 70% are fed up with the same old same old but aren't given any viable alternatives.