"Two-Party" Mindset [Archive]

Roswell-Perseis

22nd May 2007, 03:39 PM

I think a part of this is a historical tradition dating to the birth of the nation. We are a country that really loves something until we hate it. We loved FDR new deal until it got old and then we loved neo-conservativism and now we are (perhaps) falling in love with the green ideology.

That is the "feeling" we have here, and why that is I do not entirely know. The History Channel did a series a while back about the U.S. presidents, and this two-party hate mongering overtone started with Adams or Jefferson (Washington was loved by all). I don't know what idea or event really kicked this whole thing off.

Lastly, please realize that two-party thinking isn't necessarily how most people feel in this country. We are capable of complex thought, although I do not know if we have the patience to communicate those thoughts. There are also a lot of people in this country and I think the two-party system simplifies things for those who are governing. Lastly, I think we simply like gridlocking the government with debate because we like that they can't do as much damage that way-- and there is a major tendency to view the government (even pre-Bush) very negatively.

This issue of "black and white" thinking in politics is simply a manifestation of the "us vs. them" mentality that pervades almost every aspect of Americana.

For the record, I am against the two-party system. I think it is crippling the country and leads to an ignorant government.

steverino

22nd May 2007, 03:43 PM

First of all I'd like to apologize if this thread may be offensive.

It is not as offensive as your other threads and posts.

brodski

22nd May 2007, 04:11 PM

I think that fundamental to understanding the US political system, from a western European stand point is the realisationthat US political parties are not much like most European parties.

Party candidates in the US are (always? usually?) selected by ordinary voters who just happen to have selected a party affiliation when they registered to vote (in some places, I believe, that those registered as "independent" also get to vote in primaries). In Europe you generally have to be a paid party member, or even a relatively high level party activist in order to have any say on the selection of candidates.
As a result of this, coupled with a tradition of much less strictly enforced "party discipline" in the USA each of the two major parties represents a much wider range of opinions than most European political parties.

It may is generally illuminating for Europeans to look at the "Dixicrat" episode, where the Democratic party represented both the "left" and the "right" of US politics, depending on which states the candidates represented (mainly due to a hang over from the Civil war).
Something like that would generally never happen in Europe, as the smaller group would usually just break away and form their own separate party.

Whilst there may only be two parties in the USA that by no means that only two viewpoints are put forward- each member of Congress is pretty free to follow their own politics, with only one eye on the party line. This is why you can have people who are considered "RINOs" and "DINOs" (Republicans/ Democrats In Name Only) politicians who essentially reject large parts of their
party line, but for historical or other reasons could only get elected by standing for one particular party, in the area they wish to represent.
In which case the "real" democratic choice occurred at the primary stage.

Contrast this with the UK, where it is more or less irrelevant what the personal political views of a parliamentary candidate are, it is the party manifesto/ policies which are important, as MPs almost always vote the party line.

Oliver

22nd May 2007, 04:17 PM

It is not as offensive as your other threads and posts.

Well, welcome to the global internet. And I know what I'm doing - so I would appreciate if you have no mercy for me. :)

fuelair

22nd May 2007, 04:23 PM

First of all I'd like to apologize if this thread may be offensive.

I never was political interested most of the time until I was interested to try to understand the World the way it is - and I also never looked into American politics.

Now since I do so, there's a huge amount of questions I have regarding US-Politics, but one of the biggest lacks of mine is to understand the common "2-Party Mindset".

It might be a wrong impression, but everywhere I look, there's always this kind of Pro/Anti-Dem or Pro/Anti-Reps thinking and I wonder why the world is so "black and white" in America.

I also would assume that there must be a huge amount of people between these two mindsets, but they didn't make it to the political stage yet. Why is that "two-party"-thinking so dominant? What about the "third" opinion? There must be more than just Dems and Reps - at least this is my experience over here in Europe.
To answer anti-Republic, check out Shrub (who I loathe) and his puppeteers (who I also loathe). Prior to 2000 I could accept that there were some Republic who were not total slime and a rare few I might have voted for given the right situation. That died - as well as any respect I had left for the supreme Court - in 2000. There are third parties, but they are fringe and act fringe so they really are pointless for any practical purpose. Not offensive, just the tradition here. There are, by-the-by, many people who are between the two - but there is no functional party that is, so.........

Oliver

22nd May 2007, 04:24 PM

Lastly, please realize that two-party thinking isn't necessarily how most people feel in this country. We are capable of complex thought, although I do not know if we have the patience to communicate those thoughts. There are also a lot of people in this country and I think the two-party system simplifies things for those who are governing. Lastly, I think we simply like gridlocking the government with debate because we like that they can't do as much damage that way-- and there is a major tendency to view the government (even pre-Bush) very negatively.

This issue of "black and white" thinking in politics is simply a manifestation of the "us vs. them" mentality that pervades almost every aspect of Americana.

For the record, I am against the two-party system. I think it is crippling the country and leads to an ignorant government.

I shortened your Reply - and I hope it's okay for you that I picked this argument of yours.

For example - over here you're automatically registered and invited to vote if you turn "18". That's one of the lacks I see over there. I really have big confidence that there are a lot of people who don't agree with the major parties, especially the poor and (at least partly) colored people.

But no one is standing up against the common political system. So why is that?

Are these opinions opressed by the pro- dems/reps Media and Parties or why is that? I may be wrong - but there's something really fishy in the US concerning this issue - and I don't understand why.

Oliver

22nd May 2007, 04:36 PM

To answer anti-Republic, check out Shrub (who I loathe) and his puppeteers (who I also loathe). Prior to 2000 I could accept that there were some Republic who were not total slime and a rare few I might have voted for given the right situation. That died - as well as any respect I had left for the supreme Court - in 2000. There are third parties, but they are fringe and act fringe so they really are pointless for any practical purpose. Not offensive, just the tradition here. There are, by-the-by, many people who are between the two - but there is no functional party that is, so.........

May I ask what you mean by "tradition"? I mean after all, if there is a lobby that is big enough, there should be a possibility to get public rank to get into the discussion - with the help of the medias coverage, shouldn't it?

fuelair

22nd May 2007, 05:06 PM

May I ask what you mean by "tradition"? I mean after all, if there is a lobby that is big enough, there should be a possibility to get public rank to get into the discussion - with the help of the medias coverage, shouldn't it?Not size,plus inconvenience and insufficient to do the gigantic quantity of work necessary to start up all over US. The people who tend to care more tend to be the more polarized. Also, with no offense meant here, compared to the US most countries -and definitely the European countries have populations that all live within areas the size of various of our states - the sheer difference in size makes it some difficult for you to understand the difficulty of anyone/group effectively starting a new party that might become successful - and if it looked like one might, the Reps and Dems would concentrate their efforts and people and funds (which they have loads of) to keep it from growing wherever it tried to start - with perfect legality.

Oliver

22nd May 2007, 07:13 PM

Not size,plus inconvenience and insufficient to do the gigantic quantity of work necessary to start up all over US. The people who tend to care more tend to be the more polarized. Also, with no offense meant here, compared to the US most countries -and definitely the European countries have populations that all live within areas the size of various of our states - the sheer difference in size makes it some difficult for you to understand the difficulty of anyone/group effectively starting a new party that might become successful - and if it looked like one might, the Reps and Dems would concentrate their efforts and people and funds (which they have loads of) to keep it from growing wherever it tried to start - with perfect legality.

While I agree with your point and also about the different sizes of our european countries compared to the size of the US. Does it really matter in our age? I mean there is no size at all thanks to Country-Wide Television - and Internet.

My question is: Where could a new Party enter the political stage if the Media itself is either Pro-Dem or Pro-Rep. That's not a good and fair condition for new ideas, is it?

steverino

22nd May 2007, 07:38 PM

To answer anti-Republic, check out Shrub (who I loathe) and his puppeteers (who I also loathe).

...There are third parties, but they are fringe and act fringe so they really are pointless for any practical purpose.

Really? How about Green Party candidate Ralph Nader? He could have served a very practical purpose, by throwing his support to Al Gore, who was much more in step with Nader ecologically. But noooo. So we got Shrub instead.

Ziggurat

22nd May 2007, 07:55 PM

It might be a wrong impression, but everywhere I look, there's always this kind of Pro/Anti-Dem or Pro/Anti-Reps thinking and I wonder why the world is so "black and white" in America.

It's not. It's just that the people who do think that way tend to be the shrillest, which creates an impression of more partisanship on places like the internet than there really is.

For example - over here you're automatically registered and invited to vote if you turn "18". That's one of the lacks I see over there.

Voting is handled at the state level, not at the federal level. That is part of the Constitution, and it will not get changed just for convenience. Since you can move from state to state, each state doesn't actually know who resides there until you register in some fashion. And frankly, if someone cannot be bothered to register to vote (not exactly difficult, BTW), then I don't want them voting.

Oliver

22nd May 2007, 08:04 PM

It's not. It's just that the people who do think that way tend to be the shrillest, which creates an impression of more partisanship on places like the internet than there really is.

Mhmm, in this case I might also choose to watch the shrillest US Media - because they give the same impression. Not that I noted that there are many different opinions like everywhere else on this planet, but the Dem/Reps opinions seem to be far more dominant than the rest - which also may be the Medias purpose to make exactly this impression for their target groups.

Voting is handled at the state level, not at the federal level. That is part of the Constitution, and it will not get changed just for convenience. Since you can move from state to state, each state doesn't actually know who resides there until you register in some fashion. And frankly, if someone cannot be bothered to register to vote (not exactly difficult, BTW), then I don't want them voting.

At least it wouldn't be a problem to automatically register citizens and notice them in our digital age. But I understand you point here.

Ziggurat

22nd May 2007, 08:51 PM

At least it wouldn't be a problem to automatically register citizens and notice them in our digital age. But I understand you point here.

Actually, it WOULD be a problem in the US. The only way of making an automatic system would be essentially to track the location of all citizens, and frankly, Americans don't want that kind of big-brother government if it's not necessary. And it isn't necessary just to make things a little more convenient.

Admiral

22nd May 2007, 11:29 PM

My question is: Where could a new Party enter the political stage if the Media itself is either Pro-Dem or Pro-Rep.

I suppose the internet does level the playing field. The internet has provided an incredible system for sharing ideas- both great ideas and terrible ones. The internet can provide both useful and accurate information, and ridiculous and misleading propaganda.

I sort of agree with your central premise, though. I'm a "fringe" thinker myself (a libertarian), so I certainly have my problems with the two party system. At this point, I just make my decisions based their positions rather than their party. I'm a big supporter of Republican Ron Paul, but if a Democrat were aligned with my ideals, I'd definitely support him.

Personally, I'd like libertarians to stop acting like a third party and act more like a special interest group, and try to push one party or another towards a vision of small government.

RandFan

22nd May 2007, 11:54 PM

"Why"?

No easy answers I'm afraid. It's complex but I can give you one reason. Two parties make it easy for the politicians to divvy up power and control their constituents. Dem's Vs Repubs and vice-versa helps keep the citizenry focused on what the leaders want us to focus on. Wedge issues and divisive politics work best with two parties. Hell, there are posters on this forum who have declared that they will never, ever vote for any candidate of the opposition party. They are as proud of this as any Christian is proud of his or her blind faith. Testament of the effectiveness of two party politics.

That said, the system actually works very well. America has very high HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index). And that's after you factor in a very large influx of poor immigrants. Our monetary system is stable. Our inflation is relatively very low. Our unemployment is relatively low. The system works as well as it does because there is a sizeable chunk of thinking human beings that are willing to cross party lines. They voted for Ronald Regan in '80 and Bill Clinton in '90. This makes us dynamic and not static.

Yes, we have a number of problems that are not being addressed and this bothers me. However I wouldn't change our system. I don't think it needs changing. The only thing that needs changing is the populace. They need to be more informed and they need to be more skeptical and think more critically.

Pogo was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo#.22We_have_met_the_enemy.....22). Any problems we have are our own making.

Our two party system is more than adequate to meet our needs if we will but be responsible citizens. The more responsible we are the closer we get to Lincoln's ideal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people.

stilicho

23rd May 2007, 12:25 AM

Comparing and contrasting American electoral processes and institutions with those of other (at least nominally) democratic nations is worthy of a Master's thesis. In fact, several of such have been written.

Parliamentary systems with party caucuses and appointed Cabinets, such as we have in Canada, are actually more autocratic in their methodology than the much-maligned American system. A Minister of Public Works here is merely a party stooge and cannot be scrutinised by a (presumably independent) Congress as a Secretary of the Interior would have to be in the USA.

Moreover, the American electoral system fosters a prodigious wealth of propositions and candidates for everything from justices to dog catchers to whether the freeway will be routed through your living room. Having experience in both Canada and the USA, I would have to say there are numerous advantages and disadvantages to both systems, and I couldn't say that I'd recommend one over the other.

Puppycow

23rd May 2007, 02:47 AM

I think there are some structural factors with the US system that tend to favor a 2-party system.

We don't have a run-off election like in France, so people are discouraged from "wasting" their votes on smaller parties, even if they better match their own political views. I think that is the main reason. If there was a run-off election then people would feel free to vote for whoever they like best in the first round. And the same rules and dynamics seem to apply in state and local elections too.

OTOH, there may be more diversity within each party, from Dennis Kucinich to Jim Webb in the Democrats, and from Michael Bloomberg to Tom Coburn in the Republican party.

The Painter

23rd May 2007, 03:32 AM

After doing a quick search, it seems Germany has 2 major parties and a number of smaller parties. So here’s my question for you. Why the “Two party” mindset in Germany?

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 04:32 AM

After doing a quick search, it seems Germany has 2 major parties and a number of smaller parties. So here’s my question for you. Why the “Two party” mindset in Germany?

These big "Parties" are coalitions. They found a shared course and work together in most matters. Which isn't surprising at all because the political issues are pretty common without any huge oppositions. Another advantage to coalite is to gain more influence within the parliament. Right now there are 7 Parties in the Parliament: CDU, SPD, FDP, Die Linkspartei., WASG, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, CSU.

ETA: Anyway - there is no such "2 Party"-mentality in the Media over here. Mostly because the Media doesn't have such a major role in political marketing. In America the presidential race is almost like American Idol. Another thing is that the Media doesn't touch the privacy of Politicians as long it doesn't involve criminal activities. So we don't have this type of "mud-wrestling" in political races (yet).

Ladewig

23rd May 2007, 04:52 AM

Historically, third party movements are often founded on a single issue. If that issue becomes popular enough that the third party starts to gain voters, one of the major parties will take over that issue to steal the voters.

Also, some states pass ballot laws that make it more difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot.

The two parties are very interested in keeping the status quo because they realize that if the senate were divided with 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 Lilliputicans, then those 2 members would wield an immense amount of power.

fuelair

23rd May 2007, 08:24 AM

While I agree with your point and also about the different sizes of our european countries compared to the size of the US. Does it really matter in our age? I mean there is no size at all thanks to Country-Wide Television - and Internet.

My question is: Where could a new Party enter the political stage if the Media itself is either Pro-Dem or Pro-Rep. That's not a good and fair condition for new ideas, is it?
You miss the size point - you have to have a decent physical presence in every major state, you have to put money in every major state, you have to locally advertise in every major state. The two major parties can easily outgun you any or everywhere if you want to try that - and they will if they see you have the remotest chance. And nothing about it would be illegal, immoral or unethical within the context of US politics/law. In Germany (for example) no group has to catch on "every major state" because the country is small/compact/easy to reach all parts of.

They (a new party) would have to follow the same procedures as anyone else (previous and still existing fringe parties) - and , with no offense, they are free to advertise - and media are free to support a particular group or be neutral. You may not like that - but it is referred to here as freedom of the press. Fringes have tried internet and such. Their fans pay attention, most people don't. By choice. Also their right.

Dancing David

23rd May 2007, 09:16 AM

First of all I'd like to apologize if this thread may be offensive.

I never was political interested most of the time until I was interested to try to understand the World the way it is - and I also never looked into American politics.

Now since I do so, there's a huge amount of questions I have regarding US-Politics, but one of the biggest lacks of mine is to understand the common "2-Party Mindset".

It might be a wrong impression, but everywhere I look, there's always this kind of Pro/Anti-Dem or Pro/Anti-Reps thinking and I wonder why the world is so "black and white" in America.

I also would assume that there must be a huge amount of people between these two mindsets, but they didn't make it to the political stage yet. Why is that "two-party"-thinking so dominant? What about the "third" opinion? There must be more than just Dems and Reps - at least this is my experience over here in Europe.

The issue is one of modern ideaology (from my POV). The parties (or at least one party) has fostered an intense demonization of the other party and has also pandered to the most radical and inflamatory rhetoric.

This has created an enviroment where party lines are much less fluid than they used to be.

Then there is the bogus notion that "the two party system is the best", which is just a load of dogmatic crap.

Dancing David

23rd May 2007, 09:22 AM

Dancing David

23rd May 2007, 09:31 AM

May I ask what you mean by "tradition"? I mean after all, if there is a lobby that is big enough, there should be a possibility to get public rank to get into the discussion - with the help of the medias coverage, shouldn't it?

American politics is a weird series of ducks.

The problem is that people often don't start at the local level, to be successful you have to have a local base.

Since Perot has caused the Republicans to believe that he stole the election for Clinton, the Pubs have been reluctant to do anything but hold the straight line.

To be successful a third party must start localy and move on, meanwhile the mainstream parties will poor money that the third party doesn't have into the election.

The main thing is that most people don't vote, only those who care vote and we usualy have a good idea of who we will vore for prior to the election. I am a typical voter, I never voted straight party until R. tregan and then the Publican ballyhoo was so obnoxious that I vote straight party democrat every time. But in Illinopis we can cross vote for other people. So I also cast votes for the Reps when I don't like the Crat or the Pubs is better. I voted for Jim Edgar(R) cuz I liked hims, I voted for J. Thompson(R) once because I hated the Dems candidate.

This year I voted for Topinka in the republican primary (govenor) because I despised the other Pub candidates, but I really dislike Blagovich(D), and Topinka ticked me off so I voted Green Party. I used to use the Libertatrian Party for my protest vote, but now there are the Greens, whose platform i do like.

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 09:44 AM

I never voted straight party until R. tregan and then the Publican ballyhoo was so obnoxious that I vote straight party democrat every time. Proving my claim.

IXP

23rd May 2007, 10:01 AM

The WikiPedia ariticle is quite enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Roswell-Perseis

23rd May 2007, 11:55 AM

I shortened your Reply - and I hope it's okay for you that I picked this argument of yours.

For example - over here you're automatically registered and invited to vote if you turn "18". That's one of the lacks I see over there. I really have big confidence that there are a lot of people who don't agree with the major parties, especially the poor and (at least partly) colored people.

I don't mind, pick whatever argument you like. As far as automatically registering people, I fail to see how registering 300 million people would be easy to implement. I also echo sentiments that Americans are not going to agree to that kind of government involvement. Where do you live? I don't want to be mean, but I cannot tell if you understand just how much we love breaking the government into parts and keeping them from being fully centralized because Americans believes this keeps them from weilding power. The trade off is efficiency.

The socio-economic and ethnic discrimination in the US is very real and very powerful. I would also warn you, before going to far down that path if you choose, that as harmful as discrimination is, US history has seen phenomenal change when those minority groups actively participate in the government. The civil rights movement and feminist movement are two solid examples of what working within the system can accomplish (this is not to say they have achieved equality). To believe these people are powerless to change the system is as untrue as the belief that the system is fair.

But no one is standing up against the common political system. So why is that?

Are these opinions opressed by the pro- dems/reps Media and Parties or why is that? I may be wrong - but there's something really fishy in the US concerning this issue - and I don't understand why.

Have you only looked at our national system? I think you may see some pleasant differences in state governance. You would also see that not all of our decisions are made at the national level. This is an interesing time for the US; we are no longer so isolated from the world. For the past sixty years we have become more entrenched in global affairs and have, therefore, needed to use our national government more. We have an impact on the world that brings us into the limelight. I do not think any country has ever handled that position well, and I don't believe the US will be any different. The system was not set up for such a concentration of power, in fact it was designed for the opposite. But no one is going to dismantle our government over this fact. I think the election of feuding parties leads Americans to believe that we can block our national government from grabbing too much power. However, I think the next two years may disabuse many of us from this notion.

The media and the polity acting with each other is a startling and frightening fact. I don't believe they are oppressed as much as they are swallowed up by one of the two parties. The dems are (supposedly) going to vote like the green party on environmental issues. The republicans vote like a christian political party would on social issues. The coalitions of different parties in Europe exist within parties in the U.S.- this is not a perfect comparision, I know, but I believe there are similiarities.

Lastly, as far as "fishy" is concerned, I'm not sure where you get that as I don't know where you live and what your experiences have been. I'm sure the government is corrupt and ineffecient and a pain in my side. I know there is a feeling sometimes, like you are living in Orwell's 1984, but the last 200 years have been neither idealistic nor hideous. The point of our government is to change with the times and people, and sometimes those changes are good and other times they suck. When the government does not change with people, then there is tension and conflict. We are seeing that now, but that does not mean things won't change.

It is easy to be idealistic or pessimisstic. I have absolutely hated the republicans and I don't like that the only other choice is the democrats. But before the system is declared broken, I would like to see if the republicans and democrats will come down to Earth and govern more in line with the will of the people. I would like to see that happen. If the republicans cannot divorce themselves from the Bush ideology and the democrats do not get the environmental and militarial issues resolved, then the American people will need to make a stand and change the system and not just keep exchanging power between two parties- parties that have stayed this long because they have changed certain views after a big loss.

And once again I add that I would love to have more parties because I think it would help our government in a number of ways. However, this will not change unless a lot of people decide to build and financially support another party.

sackett

23rd May 2007, 12:07 PM

An argument can be made that the two big American parties (there are plenty of others, too tiny to count for anything) are coalitions of similar- but not altogether like-minded people. In other countries, they'd be coalitions of separate parties, but over here we like to celebrate our democratic ruckus within a single party.

It can also be argued that there are not two but 100 American parties: a different Republican and a different Democratic party in each state. Every four years these state parties clump together long enough to hold a national convention, and then scatter again.

Overman

23rd May 2007, 01:45 PM

The two major parties call everything in the middle 'liberal'.

marksman

23rd May 2007, 02:39 PM

These big "Parties" are coalitions. They found a shared course and work together in most matters.
The Dems and Republicans can be described that way as well.

These parties are coalitions of many different interest groups.

Democrats traditionally are seen as the party for unions, environmentalists, non-working poor, and civil rights advocates, among others. (Obviously, fringe parties, like the Green Party, also attract some of these folks.)

Republicans are generally seen as the party for business interests, fundamentalist Christians, deficit hawks, and, somewhat contradictorily, free traders and isolationists. (Obviously, fringe parties, like the Libertarian Party, also attract some of these folks.)

The winner take all system of Congresses (both at the State and federal level) encourages a two-party system. So all of these little groups long ago formed into two parties. Were we a Parliamentary system, the Democrats would probably break quickly down into a stronger Green Party, a Union Party, a Civil Rights Party, etc., while the Republicans would break up into a stronger Libertarian Party, Christian Nation Party, Fiscal Conservative Party, etc.

In America the presidential race is almost like American Idol.
Well, it's easy to look down on other systems. I don't see much American Idol-ish about American politics. You don't have successive eliminations of single candidates after a multi-candidate debate.

I assume that by this you mean leaders are chosen on personality. I think that is overstated, although it makes a convenient scapegoat for the loser's supporters. Rather than saying "My candidate's position is unpopular", they can say "The American People were duped by a charismatic demagogue!" (Republicans said it about Clinton and Democrats say it about Bush.)

I also don't think Europe is particularly better at avoiding personality cults. I think Italy's SIlvio Berlusconi had a bit of a personality following. So did Mitterand for a while, as did Tony Blair before the Iraq War. Many of these people did good for their country, but if we can include folks like Russia's Putin, I don't think European voting patterns come off much better or worse than American.

Another thing is that the Media doesn't touch the privacy of Politicians as long it doesn't involve criminal activities. So we don't have this type of "mud-wrestling" in political races (yet).
I seem to remember the losing party in the last French election claiming that there would be massive rioting if her opponent won. It seems to me that Europe has its own version of mudslinging and fear-mongering. I think that's just the cost of democracy.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 02:55 PM

I suppose the internet does level the playing field. The internet has provided an incredible system for sharing ideas- both great ideas and terrible ones. The internet can provide both useful and accurate information, and ridiculous and misleading propaganda.

I sort of agree with your central premise, though. I'm a "fringe" thinker myself (a libertarian), so I certainly have my problems with the two party system. At this point, I just make my decisions based their positions rather than their party. I'm a big supporter of Republican Ron Paul, but if a Democrat were aligned with my ideals, I'd definitely support him.

Personally, I'd like libertarians to stop acting like a third party and act more like a special interest group, and try to push one party or another towards a vision of small government.

Why is there no separate liberal Party? I guess that many people are liberals in the US, even in the Republican Party, is that wrong?

Well, let's see if the Internet stays free - I guess it's political impact is a pain in many politicians asses . :p I heard about some efforts for regulations concerning "Internet 2", but I missed to follow the discussion in the last months.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 03:11 PM

The issue is one of modern ideaology (from my POV). The parties (or at least one party) has fostered an intense demonization of the other party and has also pandered to the most radical and inflamatory rhetoric.

This has created an enviroment where party lines are much less fluid than they used to be.

Then there is the bogus notion that "the two party system is the best", which is just a load of dogmatic crap.

I would suspect that the different political spectra within the big two parties would guarantee much higher tolerance. So I guess it's the Media that plays the most polarizing role. Which is somehow funny, because it says nothing about factual success of the parties in general. I mean the best president of all times has no chance at all if he once said "the military sucks" - or even worse, if he's gay or something.

So it's not about talent at all - unless it's an Obama who had no bigger "flaws" in his life. In this case the talent plays an issue, to use it against someone.

All of that is pretty strange for me because the politicians privacy is respected by the Media here, no matter if divorced, female, religious and so on.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 03:17 PM

freedom to vote is freedom not to vote.

there are plenty of people who don't agree with the political parties in general, most of the time, regardless of thier personal history.

It requires the effort to register and vote, it is only the really interessted that vote, most people don't give a hoot.

Well, first off there is this "I don't care" attitude , followed closely by "They are all corrupt, so why vote?", then there are the ones who vote only when they think there is something really big at stake (usualy because they loathe one of the candidates).

Then there is the whole mix of the capital driven media circus.

Quite frankly - this sounds like the Ideal ground to start a new party, or to push one of the "forgotten" parties. But they have no chance, I guess. On one Hand there's the Media who isn't neutral on this issue (I suspect) - and on the other Hand they may not be able to raise enough money to keep up with Dems and Reps. Which is also strange - everyone who runs for President should have the same chances in a democracy. That's what's democracy is about from my understanding.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 04:01 PM

The WikiPedia ariticle is quite enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Thank you, IXP. This article is indeed very interesting and I have to admit that I have read it again studying most of the included sub-links, too - to fully understand all Pro and Contras. :blush:

The Painter

23rd May 2007, 04:01 PM

Why is there no separate liberal Party?

There is. Maybe you should do a little more research.

MaGZ

23rd May 2007, 04:33 PM

MaGZ

23rd May 2007, 04:45 PM

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 05:04 PM

I don't mind, pick whatever argument you like. As far as automatically registering people, I fail to see how registering 300 million people would be easy to implement. I also echo sentiments that Americans are not going to agree to that kind of government involvement. Where do you live? I don't want to be mean, but I cannot tell if you understand just how much we love breaking the government into parts and keeping them from being fully centralized because Americans believes this keeps them from weilding power. The trade off is efficiency.

I understand the Americans love for Freedom but since every Citizen is registered anyway thanks to the identification, driver-license, social security card and so on, what would be the difference to automatically register and send appeal-letters to go and vote as soon they turn 18? I live in Germany and we have this kind of policy to be automatically registered - which isn't some kind of government control at all. It's an appeal to give your opinion about the future course of the county.

The socio-economic and ethnic discrimination in the US is very real and very powerful. I would also warn you, before going to far down that path if you choose, that as harmful as discrimination is, US history has seen phenomenal change when those minority groups actively participate in the government. The civil rights movement and feminist movement are two solid examples of what working within the system can accomplish (this is not to say they have achieved equality). To believe these people are powerless to change the system is as untrue as the belief that the system is fair.

This point makes sense in Terms of minorities or "declared" minorities. But what about poor people, for example. Since the US doesn't have global social-welfare for every of it's citizen, there should be a HUGE amount of people who have no big impact at all in the current Parties. I mean they don't have a real lobby that focuses on this issue, do they?

Have you only looked at our national system? I think you may see some pleasant differences in state governance. You would also see that not all of our decisions are made at the national level. This is an interesing time for the US; we are no longer so isolated from the world. For the past sixty years we have become more entrenched in global affairs and have, therefore, needed to use our national government more. We have an impact on the world that brings us into the limelight. I do not think any country has ever handled that position well, and I don't believe the US will be any different. The system was not set up for such a concentration of power, in fact it was designed for the opposite. But no one is going to dismantle our government over this fact. I think the election of feuding parties leads Americans to believe that we can block our national government from grabbing too much power. However, I think the next two years may disabuse many of us from this notion.

Quite frankly - I have the Impression that the current Administration dismantled the principle of freedom as good as possible. But you're right, I'm still learning on national level and there is still too much to learn to look into this simultaneously right now. Probably the other Way around would have been wiser. :boxedin:

The media and the polity acting with each other is a startling and frightening fact. I don't believe they are oppressed as much as they are swallowed up by one of the two parties. The dems are (supposedly) going to vote like the green party on environmental issues. The republicans vote like a christian political party would on social issues. The coalitions of different parties in Europe exist within parties in the U.S.- this is not a perfect comparision, I know, but I believe there are similiarities.

That's my guess, too - there must be more wings and opinions than two, but they place themselves in the most favorite political program - or like over here, many simply adopt their parents/social-environments political view. :rolleyes:

Lastly, as far as "fishy" is concerned, I'm not sure where you get that as I don't know where you live and what your experiences have been. I'm sure the government is corrupt and ineffecient and a pain in my side. I know there is a feeling sometimes, like you are living in Orwell's 1984, but the last 200 years have been neither idealistic nor hideous. The point of our government is to change with the times and people, and sometimes those changes are good and other times they suck. When the government does not change with people, then there is tension and conflict. We are seeing that now, but that does not mean things won't change.

While I also sometimes have the impression that America looks a little bit like 1984, I was rather thinking of the Iraq tragedy and my complete lack of understanding how this can happen in a modern, democratic Country. I guess it's the 2-Party system which was responsible for the lack of a real opposition. Also the poor and colored people don't appear very often on the political scene - so I'm curious about their political absence.

It is easy to be idealistic or pessimisstic. I have absolutely hated the republicans and I don't like that the only other choice is the democrats. But before the system is declared broken, I would like to see if the republicans and democrats will come down to Earth and govern more in line with the will of the people. I would like to see that happen. If the republicans cannot divorce themselves from the Bush ideology and the democrats do not get the environmental and militarial issues resolved, then the American people will need to make a stand and change the system and not just keep exchanging power between two parties- parties that have stayed this long because they have changed certain views after a big loss. And once again I add that I would love to have more parties because I think it would help our government in a number of ways. However, this will not change unless a lot of people decide to build and financially support another party.

From my experience I think it's more democratic if there are several parties in the parliament, and therefore representing a broader spectrum of the opinions and also minorities. And it seems to be safer in terms of overhurried decisions.

On the other Hand - the endless discussions can be pretty annoying unless they get to an absolute majority.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 05:05 PM

There is. Maybe you should do a little more research.

They must be pretty small if I have to search for them. :p
But kidding aside ... I'll try to find them nevertheless...

ETA: I heard about the Libertarian Party - but what about all the Liberals within the two major parties? Why don't they support the Libertarian Party to get seats within the parliament?

Ziggurat

23rd May 2007, 05:21 PM

WildCat

23rd May 2007, 05:34 PM

Why don't they support the Libertarian Party to get seats within the parliament?
You think the US has a Parliament? :eye-poppi

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 06:09 PM

You think the US has a Parliament? :eye-poppi

Nitpicking again, eh? :D You know what I meant. :D

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 06:24 PM

I already said, you just didn't understand. The Constitution requires that states handle voting, not the federal government. It is therefore not enough that the federal government knows you exist somewhere: in order to be registered to vote, the state government must know you live at some particular address.

Huh? Does that mean that if you live in Houston, the Texan State has no Idea where exactly you live? What if you did a crime? I'm sure they must have some Records about your current dwelling place to find you quickly if necessary. :confused:

That's all it is, though: an impression. It has little bearing on reality. The truth is we've had far greater impossitions on our freedoms at plenty of points in our past history. European governments have long engage in the kind of monitoring of citizens on a routine basis that people here are in a tizzy about regarding the Patriot act. And civil law criminal codes (derived from Roman law, such as France) have never had the same kind of protections for defendants that common law codes (those of English derrivation, including the US) have. So when a European says that we're losing our freedom because the government here can now do in unusual situations a little of what many governments in Europe have always been doing on a regular basis, well, I have to conclude that someone sold you a pack of lies.

Well, I just listened to Gore's speech and he talks 60 minutes long about the Bush administration along with words like "treason", "criminal", "unconstitutional", "lies" and so on - talking about Wiretapping, WMD, Torture ...

Sounds pretty real to me:

-887013633025834957

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 06:32 PM

Sounds pretty real to me: :rolleyes:

That's some logic there Oliver. Reminds me of my religious friends after church.

Skibum

23rd May 2007, 06:38 PM

Huh? Does that mean that if you live in Houston, the Texan State has no Idea where exactly you live? What if you did a crime? I'm sure they must have some Records about your current dwelling place to find you quickly if necessary. :confused:

If you have a drivers license or register to vote they probably know where you live, but it's not too difficult to go under the radar.

Well, I just listened to Gore's speech and he talks 60 minutes long about the Bush administration along with words like "treason", "criminal", "unconstitutional", "lies" and so on - talking about Wiretapping, WMD, Torture ...

Sounds pretty real to me:

While what Gore says may be true, as a general rule, just because a politician says something about a person in the opposite political party doesn't automatically make it true. Remember there is a lot of political mudslinging here, and much of what is said is distorted and exaggerated.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 06:48 PM

:rolleyes:

That's some logic there Oliver. Reminds me of my religious friends after church.

So he's completely wrong but giving a speech about this issue nevertheless?
Why should he if there's nothing to it? Oh, and sorry if I could make the same Joke about the WMD's and "some" religious friends after church. :rolleyes:

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 06:51 PM

If you have a drivers license or register to vote they probably know where you live, but it's not too difficult to go under the radar.

While what Gore says may be true, as a general rule, just because a politician says something about a person in the opposite political party doesn't automatically make it true. Remember there is a lot of political mudslinging here, and much of what is said is distorted and exaggerated.

Sorry, this Mudslinging aspect is pretty confusing. Is there anything I can believe about what an American politician is saying? I mean the opposed Party will always refuse anything. What a strange place.

Skibum

23rd May 2007, 06:56 PM

Is there anything I can believe about what an American politician is saying?

Good question, I'll let you know when I find the answer. :D

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 06:57 PM

So he's completely wrong but giving a speech about this issue nevertheless??

Where did I say he was completly wrong? I'm critisizing your logic. It sucks.

Why should he if there's nothing to it? More bad logic. By this logic anyone who gives a speech does so because it isn't completly wrong.

Oh, and sorry if I could make the same Joke about the WMD's and "some" religious friends after church. :rolleyes:?

Not a clue Oliver.

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 06:59 PM

I mean the opposed Party will always refuse anything. ?

What the hell are you talking about?

Ladewig

23rd May 2007, 07:10 PM

I assume that by this you mean leaders are chosen on personality. I think that is overstated, although it makes a convenient scapegoat for the loser's supporters. Rather than saying "My candidate's position is unpopular", they can say "The American People were duped by a charismatic demagogue!" (Republicans said it about Clinton and Democrats say it about Bush.)

I think that the number of people that vote for a candidate based on his positions is rather overstated. The 2004 PIPA Study (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/united_statescanada_br/87.php?nid=&id=&pnt=87) showed that 72% of Bush supporters believed that Bush supported a treaty banning land mines (he didn't). The report showed that 51% incorrectly assumed he favored US participation in the Kyoto treaty. A further 74% incorrectly assumed that he favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favored the positions they impute to Bush.

The American public is not as informed as many would like to believe. In 2004, 74% of all Americans believed that "Iraq provided substantial support to al-Qaeda."

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 07:28 PM

?

Where did I say he was completly wrong? I'm critisizing your logic. It sucks.

More bad logic. By this logic anyone who gives a speech does so because it isn't completly wrong.

?

Not a clue Oliver.

Well, so why exactly is there nothing to it?

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 07:35 PM

*snip*
The American public is not as informed as many would like to believe. In 2004, 74% of all Americans believed that "Iraq provided substantial support to al-Qaeda."

At least now they do according to the CIA - funded with rerouted US-money . But who believes the CIA anymore?

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 07:40 PM

?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.

Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the dominant party proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation), especially reforms that may benefit the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Roswell-Perseis

23rd May 2007, 09:12 PM

I understand the Americans love for Freedom but since every Citizen is registered anyway thanks to the identification, driver-license, social security card and so on, what would be the difference to automatically register and send appeal-letters to go and vote as soon they turn 18? I live in Germany and we have this kind of policy to be automatically registered - which isn't some kind of government control at all. It's an appeal to give your opinion about the future course of the county.

I know other posters have mentioned this, but I will once again echo their sentiments. No, it would not be easier to register 300 million people, and even if it would be more efficient, that is not enough reason to give up what little degree of anonymity we maintain from the government. No one would approve of this and paying for it would be horrible. I'm glad you enjoy it in Germany, but we are not Germany. If I wanted to learn about your government, would I not be better off to understand the mindset of Germans, even if I did disagree with it?

This point makes sense in Terms of minorities or "declared" minorities. But what about poor people, for example. Since the US doesn't have global social-welfare for every of it's citizen, there should be a HUGE amount of people who have no big impact at all in the current Parties. I mean they don't have a real lobby that focuses on this issue, do they?

Again, do not oversimplify this matter. No, they don't have a lobby, but they do have a vote. If they have the will to organize and be heard by our government, they will get some degree of positive action. It is as unfair to blame a two party system as it is to blame these people for being poor. There are tons of factors that go into a proper analysis of these situations. Would you like to derail/ start a new thread for that? I would personally advise you to not take up this aspect of the US government until after you have learned about it- trust me it is more enlightening this way.

Quite frankly - I have the Impression that the current Administration dismantled the principle of freedom as good as possible. But you're right, I'm still learning on national level and there is still too much to learn to look into this simultaneously right now. Probably the other Way around would have been wiser. :boxedin:.

Again, I get the feeling and I think a lot of people have it once in a while, but we don't know if things will change. The midterms sent a message. I said it would take two massive events for the sytem to be declared broken- the dems change out of favor with the public and the republicans do not change and stay out of favor with the public. That would just be insane.

That's my guess, too - there must be more wings and opinions than two, but they place themselves in the most favorite political program - or like over here, many simply adopt their parents/social-environments political view. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how you got that from my post, but I apologize. That was NOT my point. My point was that the two parties take smaller platforms on as they become popular in the states. Eventually, this spills over into a National platform. This negates the need for a third party. Our parties are not held to the strict standards that European parties are held to by their constituents.

While I also sometimes have the impression that America looks a little bit like 1984, I was rather thinking of the Iraq tragedy and my complete lack of understanding how this can happen in a modern, democratic Country. I guess it's the 2-Party system which was responsible for the lack of a real opposition. Also the poor and colored people don't appear very often on the political scene - so I'm curious about their political absence.

I mean this nicely and respectfully- Please keep learning about the institution and history before delving into the Bush Admin. and Iraq war. Even with a basic knowledge, it is a difficult issue.

From my experience I think it's more democratic if there are several parties in the parliament, and therefore representing a broader spectrum of the opinions and also minorities. And it seems to be safer in terms of overhurried decisions.

On the other Hand - the endless discussions can be pretty annoying unless they get to an absolute majority.

Americans are big on action and short on patience. It would be annoying. :)

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 09:22 PM

I know other posters have mentioned this, but I will once again echo their sentiments. No, it would not be easier to register 300 million people, and even if it would be more efficient, that is not enough reason to give up what little degree of anonymity we maintain from the government. No one would approve of this and paying for it would be horrible. I'm glad you enjoy it in Germany, but we are not Germany. If I wanted to learn about your government, would I not be better off to understand the mindset of Germans, even if I did disagree with it?

Again, do not oversimplify this matter. No, they don't have a lobby, but they do have a vote. If they have the will to organize and be heard by our government, they will get some degree of positive action. It is as unfair to blame a two party system as it is to blame these people for being poor. There are tons of factors that go into a proper analysis of these situations. Would you like to derail/ start a new thread for that? I would personally advise you to not take up this aspect of the US government until after you have learned about it- trust me it is more enlightening this way.

Again, I get the feeling and I think a lot of people have it once in a while, but we don't know if things will change. The midterms sent a message. I said it would take two massive events for the sytem to be declared broken- the dems change out of favor with the public and the republicans do not change and stay out of favor with the public. That would just be insane.

I'm not sure how you got that from my post, but I apologize. That was NOT my point. My point was that the two parties take smaller platforms on as they become popular in the states. Eventually, this spills over into a National platform. This negates the need for a third party. Our parties are not held to the strict standards that European parties are held to by their constituents.

I mean this nicely and respectfully- Please keep learning about the institution and history before delving into the Bush Admin. and Iraq war. Even with a basic knowledge, it is a difficult issue.

Americans are big on action and short on patience. It would be annoying. :)

Okay, I will do so and keep learning about the system and the American Mindset. Right now I have no more points about this particular "2-Party" Issue anyway. But thanks for your help to shed some light into it. :)

But let me ask you about Bush/Iraq. What's complicated about it? If preemtive war's against imaginary threats can happen in modern, western democracies - there's something wrong with the system.

Roswell-Perseis

23rd May 2007, 09:52 PM

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 10:04 PM

What is wrong with the system? What, other than the lack of competence and humanitarianism, is wrong? That is the complicated part. I know parts of it- expansive presidential power, apathetic voters, etc. However, what specific laws or institutions need to be corrected is not something I have studied up on enough to know. Frankly, no law would even really touch the heart of the issue (lack of voting and citizen involvment).

Also, I'm not sure the entire system is broken and I don't think I will weigh in on that until after the next election. If the people vote and our government gets back on track, then did not the system endure a terrible time without breaking?

I didn't say that the entire system is broken - but it was hair raising how the whole War started. What's really frightening about this is that the Media swallowed it, the CIA didn't put the facts straight and most importantly, the missing link to 9/11 or terrorists - and an preemptive war ignoring all allies.

At this point it shows that Americas leading role can be dangerous. The torture issue substantiated this "Head up" and simultaneously weakened the trust in "americas" definition of freedom.

Even if I think that the next elections will change all of these Issues, the whole thing shouldn't have happened - there were too many safety measures that didn't work very well. Also on UNO/international level.

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 10:31 PM

Well, so why exactly is there nothing to it??

Again, WHO said there is nothing to it?

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 10:39 PM

?

Again, WHO said there is nothing to it?

You realize that talking to you is as informational as being a victim in a secret CIA-Brainwash operation, do you? :D

I have no idea what your opinion is - beside that my Logic sucks. But I also have no Idea why you think this way. You shouldn't mix up provocation with logical understanding on my part. :)

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 10:41 PM

"Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.

Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the dominant party proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation), especially reforms that may benefit the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

And this has what to do with my point?

Let me simplify this though I suspect I do so in vain.

In reference to Gore's speech you stated "sounds pretty real to me".
Your statement is vacuous. That something "sounds" real doesn't make it true.
The fact that I point out that your statement is vacuous does not speak to Gore's speech.
Everything that you have said since has been a non-sequitur.

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 10:47 PM

You realize that talking to you is as informational as being a victim in a secret CIA-Brainwash operation, do you? :DOliver, I'm trying to point out to you that your statement is spurious. It doesn't mean anything.

I have no idea what your opinion is - beside that my Logic sucks. But I also have no Idea why you think this way. It's real simple.

You shouldn't mix up provocation with logical understanding on my part. :) If this was your intent then don't follow-up with non-sequiturs.

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 10:47 PM

And this has what to do with my point?

Let me simplify this though I suspect I do so in vain.
In reference to Gore's speech you stated "sounds pretty real to me".
Your statement is vacuous. That something "sounds" real doesn't make it true.
The fact that I point out that your statement is vacuous does not speak to Gore's speech.
Everything that you have said since has been a non-sequitur.

Essentially you're right concerning your estimation - but I said "Sounds real" after Ziggurat http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2627373#post2627373) said it's nothing but an impression on my side. So the "sounds real" was a disagreement. I should have said: "Sounds pretty real for an unfounded impression" - to avoid misunderstandings.

RandFan

23rd May 2007, 10:48 PM

Essentially you're right concerning your estimation - but I said "Sounds real" after Ziggurat http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2627373#post2627373) said it's nothing but an impression on my side. So the "sounds real" was a disagreement. I should have said: "Sounds pretty real for an unfounded impression" - to avoid misunderstandings.Ok, then I owe you a bit of an apology because I didn't understand the context. Ignore my previous post.

RandFan

Oliver

23rd May 2007, 10:51 PM

Oliver, I'm trying to point out to you that your statement is spurious. It doesn't mean anything.

It's real simple.

If this was your intent then don't follow-up with non-sequiturs.

We simply were thinking on different levels - and spoke away from each other - assuming the other side is following the discussion. So I apologize for this confusion. :)

ETA: *LOL* :D ...no problem ;)

Beerina

24th May 2007, 06:53 AM

First of all I'd like to apologize if this thread may be offensive.

Nah. Hell, I even enjoy the "drive bys" that irritate the moderators.

I never was political interested most of the time until I was interested to try to understand the World the way it is - and I also never looked into American politics.

Long story short: people are power hungry, like every other place on the planet.

Now since I do so, there's a huge amount of questions I have regarding US-Politics, but one of the biggest lacks of mine is to understand the common "2-Party Mindset".

It might be a wrong impression, but everywhere I look, there's always this kind of Pro/Anti-Dem or Pro/Anti-Reps thinking and I wonder why the world is so "black and white" in America.

I also would assume that there must be a huge amount of people between these two mindsets, but they didn't make it to the political stage yet. Why is that "two-party"-thinking so dominant? What about the "third" opinion? There must be more than just Dems and Reps - at least this is my experience over here in Europe.

The US has a 2 party system not because of the electoral college, or a lack of a simple majority vote for the president, or a bunch of other reasons offered.

It has a 2 party system because the presidency is a politically valuable prize. The president can veto legislation, and thus is a key factor in passing laws. Lesser, but major prizes are proposing legislation, especially $2 trillion budgets, sorry, $2.1, sorry, $2.2, well, you get the picture, which, as George Will points out, are a benefit incumbants in Congress have -- spending that much every year to get elected.

Another lesser but still major prize is nominating the Supreme Court justices, who sit for life, and decide whether various laws are Constitutional or not.

In any case, the best chance you have to get the presidency, as a party, is to be as big as possible. Hence all the little factions, which in parliamentary systems would remain separate parties, all band together into mega parties. This continues evolving until there are just two major parties.

In other words, US parties are similar to "coalition governments" in a parliamentary system. After the election in a parliamentary system, the parties band together to form a majority so they can wield the legislative power.

That happens in the US, it's just that it's a permanent merger since the person on the ballot has to list their political party (if any.)

For example, the Republican party is built primarily of two major factions: religious conservatives, and economic libertarian types, with smaller groups for gun ownership rights, among others.

The Democratic party is build of various factions, including labor unions, trial lawyers (who love lots of regulations they can sue over), and the majority of minority groups, from race to sexual orientation to whatever (which dovetails nicely, due to regulations, with the trial lawyers' desires.)

Both parties currently give the elderly whatever they want because, as retirees, they vote in very high numbers, and get scared easily about losing their Social Security money.

They are also fighting over who gets credit for legalizing 12 million illegal Mexicans in the US now. Whoever postures best will get, presumably, the votes of them, their children, and all their already-legal friends and family.

So both parties are claiming those two factions, but the fighting is still way up in the air at the moment.

marksman

24th May 2007, 06:55 AM

I think that the number of people that vote for a candidate based on his positions is rather overstated.
But I didn't say that. I said the idea that they base their vote exclusively on charisma is also overrated.

Dancing David

24th May 2007, 09:21 AM

I would suspect that the different political spectra within the big two parties would guarantee much higher tolerance.

Not in one of the parties currently. there is a real polarizing efect happening when they have the neo-cons and the religous right together. The Dems are still the hodeg podge that a party traditionaly is, I think a lot of it is the moeny. State parties have much less pwoer than they used to in thier local stuff because of the national money.

So I guess it's the Media that plays the most polarizing role. Which is somehow funny, because it says nothing about factual success of the parties in general. I mean the best president of all times has no chance at all if he once said "the military sucks" - or even worse, if he's gay or something.

Yeah not really impoprtant to the rulers role as a leader. But what church you go to matters to some silly people.

So it's not about talent at all - unless it's an Obama who had no bigger "flaws" in his life. In this case the talent plays an issue, to use it against someone.

Unfortunately it is about the 'getting elected" talent.

All of that is pretty strange for me because the politicians privacy is respected by the Media here, no matter if divorced, female, religious and so on.

Free press is always hunting for trash and through the trash.

Dancing David

24th May 2007, 09:24 AM

Quite frankly - this sounds like the Ideal ground to start a new party, or to push one of the "forgotten" parties. But they have no chance, I guess. On one Hand there's the Media who isn't neutral on this issue (I suspect) - and on the other Hand they may not be able to raise enough money to keep up with Dems and Reps. Which is also strange - everyone who runs for President should have the same chances in a democracy. That's what's democracy is about from my understanding.

I agree, equal time on the media would make a huge difference, but given the free speech aspects of spending money, I don't think that is likely to change.

I like what i heard about the French elections, equal time and no ads for two days prior to the election.

But that would stop the money train.

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 09:26 AM

Huh? Does that mean that if you live in Houston, the Texan State has no Idea where exactly you live?

No, that's not what I mean, so let me give you a more personal example.

I moved last year from one state to another. When I moved, there was no direct requirement that I tell the state I was leaving that I was leaving, and there was no direct requirement that I tell the state that I moved into that I moved in. It wasn't until after I had physically moved, when I wanted to get a driver's license for my new state, that I actually informed the state government that I had moved there. And while getting my new driver's license, I also registered to vote (same time, same place as the driver's license registration). But that happened about a month after I had moved. And the federal government was never involved. The post office knew I moved because I sent a change of address form so my mail would get forwarded, but that's optional, the address change need not have been my legal place of residence anyways, and the rest of the government didn't know. The IRS (tax guys) only found out I moved because my new job informed them, but had I been retired they wouldn't have any way of knowing without me telling them. So different parts of the state and federal government often get informed about your place of residence, but that's mostly through YOU telling them where you are, and they may have a mailing address for you but that need not always be the same as your legal residence. And in the case of someone with, say, multiple residences in different states, it's up to the individual to inform the government which is his legal residence (since you can only have one, to keep you from voting in multiple jurisdictions). Again, this is a result of our federal system which places certain issues, like voting, at the state level. And it CANNOT be changed without changing the constitution.

What if you did a crime? I'm sure they must have some Records about your current dwelling place to find you quickly if necessary. :confused:

That would generally be done through driver's license records, which are done at the state level. And they would only have that info because you gave it to them when you signed up to get a driver's license. Although you are supposed to inform the state when you move so that they can update your driver's license info, there isn't actually any enforcement method for this. And Americans like it that way.

Sounds pretty real to me

Gore has found himself a new role: shrill partisan hack. The pay is pretty good, if your profile is large enough (and if there's one thing Gore's got, it's a large profile), but it requires you to pander to the fringes. It's a lot easier to sell books (he's got a new one out) if you're running around shouting "the sky is falling!" If he just said, "things aren't quite the way we want them to be, but they're really not so bad", well, that would be a lot closer to the truth, but far fewer people would put down money to hear that message.

BTW, there's more than a touch of hypocricy in Gore's attacks on Bush. Back before he blew a fuse, he was actually a proponent of "extraordinary rendition" and breaking international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Usage_by_the_Clinton_Admin istration) to capture terrorists (according to Richard Clarke):
'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government...The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'
I like the old Gore better than the new Gore. He was a heck of a lot more honest.

Dancing David

24th May 2007, 09:28 AM

Sorry, this Mudslinging aspect is pretty confusing. Is there anything I can believe about what an American politician is saying? I mean the opposed Party will always refuse anything. What a strange place.

What is truth changes alot on the media circus and is often debated here.

American Platitudes:

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
Thier lips are moving.

An honest politician is one who stays bought.

Oliver

24th May 2007, 10:33 AM

No, that's not what I mean, so let me give you a more personal example.

I moved last year from one state to another. When I moved, there was no direct requirement that I tell the state I was leaving that I was leaving, and there was no direct requirement that I tell the state that I moved into that I moved in. It wasn't until after I had physically moved, when I wanted to get a driver's license for my new state, that I actually informed the state government that I had moved there. And while getting my new driver's license, I also registered to vote (same time, same place as the driver's license registration). But that happened about a month after I had moved. And the federal government was never involved. The post office knew I moved because I sent a change of address form so my mail would get forwarded, but that's optional, the address change need not have been my legal place of residence anyways, and the rest of the government didn't know. The IRS (tax guys) only found out I moved because my new job informed them, but had I been retired they wouldn't have any way of knowing without me telling them. So different parts of the state and federal government often get informed about your place of residence, but that's mostly through YOU telling them where you are, and they may have a mailing address for you but that need not always be the same as your legal residence. And in the case of someone with, say, multiple residences in different states, it's up to the individual to inform the government which is his legal residence (since you can only have one, to keep you from voting in multiple jurisdictions). Again, this is a result of our federal system which places certain issues, like voting, at the state level. And it CANNOT be changed without changing the constitution.

I understand the system in the US but I really can't grasp your argument here. Essentially the federal government can access your latest Records within minutes anyway. So they actually know where you probably are or how to find you. And I doubt that the "informatic age" didn't change the conditions, especially after the "9/11 phobia". Do you think the government didn't touch this issue?

That would generally be done through driver's license records, which are done at the state level. And they would only have that info because you gave it to them when you signed up to get a driver's license. Although you are supposed to inform the state when you move so that they can update your driver's license info, there isn't actually any enforcement method for this. And Americans like it that way.

I guess I don't understand why Americans like that. Now Germany is as small as one single US-State, so it makes no difference to me if the state or the government knows this Data. But maybe there is some kind of distrust I simply don't understand here.

Gore has found himself a new role: shrill partisan hack. The pay is pretty good, if your profile is large enough (and if there's one thing Gore's got, it's a large profile), but it requires you to pander to the fringes. It's a lot easier to sell books (he's got a new one out) if you're running around shouting "the sky is falling!" If he just said, "things aren't quite the way we want them to be, but they're really not so bad", well, that would be a lot closer to the truth, but far fewer people would put down money to hear that message.

That's also a point I don't understand. If someone here is exaggerating, he probably will loose all his credibility because everyone will point out that this is not exactly true. Also the Media will point this out without caring if it's a "Dem" or "Rep". Why doesn't it work the same Way in the US? Is this a free speech issue - basically tolerating and supporting untruthfulness to some degree? :confused:

BTW, there's more than a touch of hypocricy in Gore's attacks on Bush. Back before he blew a fuse, he was actually a proponent of "extraordinary rendition" and breaking international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Usage_by_the_Clinton_Admin istration) to capture terrorists (according to Richard Clarke):

I like the old Gore better than the new Gore. He was a heck of a lot more honest.

Well, in this case I think he initially was breaking up with the general understanding of law and justice. And I guess he realized that it is getting out of hand. But even if I don't know if money plays a big role concerning this example, I completely miss the general moral definition here. If you grew up with the Idea of liberty, justice and individual freedom - how is it possible to ignore these principals if it's about others? What's the psychological trigger?

I really have hard times to set opinion apart from facts in America. There is a huge difference to Germany and I have problems to distillate the difference (psychologically). I suspect it's the general moral understanding, but I'm not sure about it.

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 11:41 AM

I understand the system in the US but I really can't grasp your argument here. Essentially the federal government can access your latest Records within minutes anyway.

There isn't one set of records that the government has, so this statement doesn't make much sense without some more context. And the records they have wouldn't amount to much without you giving them information for things like drivers licenses, and unless you've got a criminal record, their records are only as good as what you provide them.

So they actually know where you probably are or how to find you.

No, they don't. I know this because I've moved from state to state, and there were a whole lot of different things I had to do to let various parts of the government know I had moved. The IRS is the only government body which was informed by anyone else (namely my new employer) that I had moved, every other branch only found out because I told them myself.

I guess I don't understand why Americans like that.

Take it as a given, then.

That's also a point I don't understand. If someone here is exaggerating, he probably will loose all his credibility because everyone will point out that this is not exactly true.

People get away with dishonesty all over the world. I highly doubt Germany is actually exempt from this. And I've read enough of http://medienkritik.typepad.com to know that German media can be quite dishonest about the US, but still hasn't lost its credibility.

Well, in this case I think he initially was breaking up with the general understanding of law and justice. And I guess he realized that it is getting out of hand.

Or perhaps he took American security seriously when he had some responsibility for it, but will attack Bush over the exact same thing he previously advocated because it sells well to his audiences.

But even if I don't know if money plays a big role concerning this example, I completely miss the general moral definition here. If you grew up with the Idea of liberty, justice and individual freedom - how is it possible to ignore these principals if it's about others?

Who said these principles were being ignored? I'm sorry, but I don't see kidnapping a terrorist as some violation of justice, and as far as liberty and individual freedom are concerned, well, it's pretty much universally considered necessary to deprive criminals of them, and for good reason.

I really have hard times to set opinion apart from facts in America.

Have you ever visited the US?

Ladewig

24th May 2007, 11:48 AM

But I didn't say that. I said the idea that they base their vote exclusively on charisma is also overrated.

Yes, I'll agree that "exclusively on charisma" is probably overrated, but I think that the number of voters that consider charisma to be an important factor may not be overrated. Still, it may be hard to accurately estimate a number because many of those that do consider it a major factor will not admit it to a pollster. That being said, one is still left with the frequency with which pundits described Bush in 2000 as the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with [1]. Likewise in 2004, many people said that Kerry looked like the tree that throws apples in the Wizard of Oz. Political advisors do focus on making sure that their candidates are charismatic - Kennedy's and Nixon's televised appearances are still discussed in political science classes.

[1] personally, I thought it was strange that people would want to have a beer with someone who gave up drinking because it almost cost him his family and his driver's license.

ETA: content and grammar corrections

Oliver

24th May 2007, 12:09 PM

There isn't one set of records that the government has, so this statement doesn't make much sense without some more context. And the records they have wouldn't amount to much without you giving them information for things like drivers licenses, and unless you've got a criminal record, their records are only as good as what you provide them.

No, they don't. I know this because I've moved from state to state, and there were a whole lot of different things I had to do to let various parts of the government know I had moved. The IRS is the only government body which was informed by anyone else (namely my new employer) that I had moved, every other branch only found out because I told them myself.

Take it as a given, then.

People get away with dishonesty all over the world. I highly doubt Germany is actually exempt from this. And I've read enough of http://medienkritik.typepad.com to know that German media can be quite dishonest about the US, but still hasn't lost its credibility.

Or perhaps he took American security seriously when he had some responsibility for it, but will attack Bush over the exact same thing he previously advocated because it sells well to his audiences.

Who said these principles were being ignored? I'm sorry, but I don't see kidnapping a terrorist as some violation of justice, and as far as liberty and individual freedom are concerned, well, it's pretty much universally considered necessary to deprive criminals of them, and for good reason.

Have you ever visited the US?

Yes, I visited the US and Canada - but I was a teenager during this time and didn't have the sensibility or political comprehension to understand or even grasp such social/political differences.

Concerning the Government knowledge: My point here is that they can get you everywhere, no matter if based on registrations or simply because your usage of your credit card. I doubt that they play a fair game concerning laws if the FBI or CIA is out to find information about you. Is this a wrong impression?

I also have no compunction concerning proven Terrorists - but to handle terror-suspects as if they already were sentenced Terrorists is out of line and completely opposes the meaning of individual rights or freedoms in general because this is tending to a so called "1984 - Police State", isn't it?

RecoveringYuppy

24th May 2007, 12:12 PM

From the report you cited (The 2004 PIPA Study (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/united_statescanada_br/87.php?nid=&id=&pnt=87)):
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well.
Well, Bush supporters are also much more likely to be the people who believe they'll be alive when they're dead. The dissonant information cited by the report is nothing compared to that.

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 12:44 PM

Concerning the Government knowledge: My point here is that they can get you everywhere, no matter if based on registrations or simply because your usage of your credit card.

Ah, but that takes a warrant. Doing that on a regular basis would be a MAJOR violation of your constitutional rights - far more invasive than the wiretapping issue, and without even any possible crimes to justify it.

I doubt that they play a fair game concerning laws if the FBI or CIA is out to find information about you. Is this a wrong impression?

Yes, it is wrong. Because a credit card company isn't going to give them such records without a search warrant. If they've got probable cause, they can get a warrant. But they can't get a warrant without cause, and they sure as hell can't do it to everyone just to check voter registration rolls.

I also have no compunction concerning proven Terrorists - but to handle terror-suspects as if they already were sentenced Terrorists is out of line

No, it isn't. It's war. War has NEVER followed the same rules as criminal law. That's why there was no trial to determine that it was Japan which had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, for example. Was Hirohito denied due process because Congress simply declared war? No, I don't think so.

and completely opposes the meaning of individual rights or freedoms in general

And not protecting people from terrorists is in line with individual rights and freedoms? No, it isn't. I've already alluded to the difference between civil law traditions and common law traditions. One of those differences is the issue of "discovery": basically, in the US, the defense must have access to basically all the information the prosecution has. In a terrorism trial, this creates security breaches. And that's not just speculation, either: it's what DID happen in the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. People complain that the terrorists rights are being violated if they don't get a full criminal trial with the right of discovery. But such rights don't even exist in many other legal systems, such as France. So France can prosecute terrorists without giving them the right of discovery, but since that's not a fundamental deviation from the normal criminal system, it's not considered a violation of rights, even though the effect is the same. We are, in effect, being held to a different standard than anyone else. And it's just absurd.

because this is tending to a so called "1984 - Police State", isn't it?

No, it isn't tending that direction. We've had far greater restrictions on civil rights in the past than we do now. Hell, habeas corpus was actually suspended during the civil war, for example - and yet, Lincoln didn't turn the union into a totalitarian state. You might not like the particular balance that this administration has chosen between security and restrictions on government power, but it's just silly to compare any of this to Orwell's nightmare scenario. And unlike any alternatives you and me could come up with for how best to handle this balance, if the Bush administration misses an opportunity to catch a terrorist, people really can get killed. And I think everyone in the federal government takes that obligation seriously. Gore certainly did while in office - though not so much now, sadly.

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 12:52 PM

From the report you cited (The 2004 PIPA Study (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/united_statescanada_br/87.php?nid=&id=&pnt=87))

Funny how such polls don't ask about misconceptions that might be held by Bush opponents. For example, how many Bush opponents thought Saddam had complied with UN resolutions (he never did)? How many Bush opponents thought the UN inspectors had proven Saddam was disarmed (they didn't, nor was that within their ability or job description)? How many Bush opponents thought that Saddam had no ties to Islamic terrorists (he did - Abu Nidal, Abu Abas, and the PKK all come to mind)? But such questions were never asked. I wonder why? Don't think too hard about it, though, you might strain a nerve.

RecoveringYuppy

24th May 2007, 12:57 PM

OK. Why weren't such questions ever asked? Bush supporters can't publish their own polls?

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 01:46 PM

OK. Why weren't such questions ever asked? Bush supporters can't publish their own polls?

Does this question mean you think that this poll was conducted and published by Bush opponents, rather than by a non-partisan neutral entity?

RecoveringYuppy

24th May 2007, 02:01 PM

No, but that seem to be your implication and I'm willing to accept it for the moment. So why don't such questions get asked?

fuelair

24th May 2007, 02:06 PM

They must be pretty small if I have to search for them. :p
But kidding aside ... I'll try to find them nevertheless...

ETA: I heard about the Libertarian Party - but what about all the Liberals within the two major parties? Why don't they support the Libertarian Party to get seats within the parliament?
First, we do not have Parliament, we have Congress. Some related but not the same. Second, (and you seem to have trouble accepting this) the ones who are THAT concerned are already just fringees in their own parties and the Libertarians are mostly considered whack jobs (I do not fully agree - their are thinking Libertarians [the one's who know their party has no real chance of winning any major election] who are in it because they believe it's the right tack but......... There is more but it runs along the same line. With no offense, let's just agree you do not (choose to?) understand how the US system works and apparently assume no one here has ever considered that point either.

Ziggurat

24th May 2007, 02:12 PM

Could be that Bush supporters don't think it will get much play in the media. Could be that the media itself isn't interested in such a story, and wouldn't push it even if it were available. Could be that Bush supporters have just decided to focus on other things (performing an extensive poll isn't free). I don't know. All I know for sure is that the poll itself is obviously designed to uncover the prevalence of misconceptions in only one direction. And whether or not it this design flaw is part of a concious effort to advance a particular partisan stance, the fact remains that this flaw renders the poll useless, and the conclusions based on it untennable.

RecoveringYuppy

24th May 2007, 06:36 PM

Funny how such polls don't ask about misconceptions that might be held by Bush opponents.
I can see that you might have a point in there being a bias in the questions about the runup to the war, but what about the questions relating to Kyoto and missile defense? I don't see that there was a way to guess in advance which side might have misconceptions on those issues, nor do I see a bias in the formulation of the question.

For example, how many Bush opponents thought Saddam had complied with UN resolutions (he never did)? How many Bush opponents thought the UN inspectors had proven Saddam was disarmed (they didn't, nor was that within their ability or job description)?
OK. So your point is that war supporters would be more likely to exxagerate the evidence in support of the war and that opponents would be more likely to downplay the points in favor of it? That seems plausible to me.
How many Bush opponents thought that Saddam had no ties to Islamic terrorists (he did - Abu Nidal, Abu Abas, and the PKK all come to mind)?
OK, but I don't recall those kind of ties being mentioned in the case for and against the war. Abu Nidal was already dead at the time, even. And I think most people wouldn't even recognize the PKK at first. I had to look it up and I'd heard of them before.
Could be that Bush supporters don't think it will get much play in the media. Could be that the media itself isn't interested in such a story, and wouldn't push it even if it were available. Could be that Bush supporters have just decided to focus on other things (performing an extensive poll isn't free). I don't know.
So what was the point of your questions about certain questions not being asked?
All I know for sure is that the poll itself is obviously designed to uncover the prevalence of misconceptions in only one direction.
As I said above, you may have a point about the questions about the war, but the other questions look fair to me.
And whether or not it this design flaw is part of a concious effort to advance a particular partisan stance, the fact remains that this flaw renders the poll useless, and the conclusions based on it untennable.
I wouldn't agree with all that. Would agree that no poll, especially on charged subjects, is likely to give anywhere near the whole picture.

arthwollipot

25th May 2007, 01:22 AM

In Australia there are two "major parties" - the Liberal/National coalition and the Labour party. There are also a host of minor parties, the largest of which are the Australian Greens and the Democrats. Voting is compulsory in Australia, and you will be given a stiff fine if you choose not to vote.

And while there are minor parties to choose from, the system of preferential voting here is such that all votes for a party that does not obtain a quota are redistributed to another party. The upshot of all this is that even if you don't vote for a major party, your vote will usually end up going to one of them anyway.

I don't like this at all, but it's what we've got. And it effectively turns Australian politics into a two-party system even though there's more than two parties.

Oliver

25th May 2007, 01:45 AM

Rolfe

25th May 2007, 03:02 AM

Arthwollipot has brought up the matter of proportional representation (PR), which I'm surprised didn't surface earlier in the thread. I'm intrigued by his take on it.

My own view has always been that it's the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system that is the major factor promoting a two party system. For example, in Britain until recently, and in England even now, it's all to play for between the Conservative and Labour parties. If one party is seen as being very much ahead so that the result is a foregone conclusion then voters may flirt with minority parties. However, when it's seen as being a close thing, the pressure is very much on to choose between the two main players rather than "waste" your vote on a no-hoper.

There is the added complication that with this system many constituencies are foregone conclusions (red rosette on a hamster sort of thing), and voters there really have little or no influence. So in fact it's the undecided voters in the marginal constituencies who really have the influence and who are targeted by the party machines.

The net result is that it's very difficult for a minority party to make any real headway. They may concentrate of a few of their best-hope constituencies, and they may win in some of them, but the arithmetic usually pans out so that one of the largest parties tends to have an overall majority, and even holding the balance of power is a pipe-dream for a smaller party.

The constant complaint with this system is that voters who support a minor party are effectively disenfranchised. That party can rack up oodles of votes across the country, but if it can't make a majority in one constituency then they end up with no representation. Hence pressure for some form of PR.

This of course is a whole other can of worms, and I'm intrigued to see that Arthwollipot thinks that also promotes a two-party system.

The fact is that under a PR system it is extremely difficult indeed for a single party to gain an overall majority. Thus coalition politics becomes almost inevitable. It seems to me that Arthwollipot is implying that in Australia the coalitions are hammered out in advance, which I can see might easily end up as two-party politics under another name. However, if the coalitions are not hammered out in advance, then things can become quite interesting.

The view from the British Isles has been quite fascinating recently. For generations, all general elections were first-past-the-post. Minor parties despaired of making any breakthrough, especially those which had a fairly even geographical support and saw hundreds of thousands of votes get them nothing (English LibDems). Even those with concentrated geographical support were restricted to only their traditional handful of stronghold seats, and couldn't break out (Scottish LibDems).

Then when the Scottish and Welsh parliaments were set up, the decision was taken to use a PR system. This was partly pragmatic, because it was clear that FPTP would inevitably deliver a Labour stranglehold for the foreseeable future and this prospect did not endear itself to an awful lot of people, and partly democratic in that PR was seen as inherently fairer.

However, one interesting sideline was that the Labour party believed that by adopting this system they "would kill nationalism stone dead". I could never understand this, as it had always seemed to the SNP that PR would be a big boost, actually translating votes into seats for the first time. I think the Labour thinking was twofold - firstly that simply delivering a devolved parliament would satisfy most Scottish nationalist voters so that they would be less likely to agitate for independence. But secondly, and this is the interesting bit, I think they realised that while the system would deny them (Labour) an overall majority, it would also deny the SNP any hope of an overall majority by vastly increasing the majority of votes needed to get a majority of seats. Labour, I think, were relatively happy to settle for governing in coalition, assuming that the LibDems would play ball (as they did), in order to deny the SNP any possibility that a future boost in support could take them over the tipping point at which FPTP seats would begin to fall like dominoes.

The jury is still out on that one. The first thing that happened of course is that thanks to PR the SNP acquired far more parliamentary representatives than it had ever had before, people working full time to promote the party as a serious contender for government. This virtually coincided with the collapse of the vote of the former second party in the former two-party system (the Conservatives), so that in one bound the SNP was no longer a minority party, but one of the two "big parties".

However, when the SNP did finally pull ahead into first place, earlier this month, it was as I think the Labour party had foreseen, and the SNP was unable to put together a coalition with an overall majority. So currently the party is running a minority administration which looks certain to prevent it from implementing the parts of its manifesto Labour is most afraid of.

You might say that PR has neutered the party, and boxed it inot a corner. On the other hand, you might just as well give PR the credit for allowing the party to break out from small minority status in the first place, and become a credible force.

I can see that if you're an adherent of one of the two big players in a FPTP system, then you'll want to keep that because it effectively keeps your position as one of only two contenders slugging it out from being challenged. On the other hand there is a view which believes that PR mandates a more consensual, inclusive sort of government, and puts checks and balances in place which can prevent wild excesses by a party which has been gifted an unassailable majority of seats from only a tiny majority (or even no majority at all) of votes.

What do posters think might be the consequences in the US if some sort of PR were adopted?

Rolfe.

Dancing David

25th May 2007, 07:14 AM

But let me ask you about Bush/Iraq. What's complicated about it? If preemtive war's against imaginary threats can happen in modern, western democracies - there's something wrong with the system.

I think the answer lies in the nature of representative democracy. there are not direct plebicites (thank goodness) on most issues. Instead a person is chosen to exercise power for the legislative district.

So first off, you hav ethe interestes of the representative that infuence thier choices. Mainly getting re-elected and raising money.

As to why the Iraq War?

Well first off there was a war powers resoultion passed to allow tghe president to take war acts to decrease the ability of the terrorists to make attacks on the United States, and this was fairly well supported by most representatives at the time. Some of us were in diagreement with that, but my congersman is not the guy I voted for, so he doesn't care. He voted to support the resolution. As did a majority of representatives.

Now when most people heard that the US was going to take action in Afghanistan, most people thought that sounded like a good idea, I was sort of iffy on it but I understood the rationale and basicaly agreed. However almost all of the congress at that time thought it was a good idea.

Then came the decision to invade Iraq, which many people agreed with and many people disagreed with. I disagreed, called my congersman and let him know, and participated in three silent vigils against the war. However the majority of the representatives in congress thought it was agood idea and did not act to remove the war powers resolution.

Which brings in party politics and the nature of the current power structure in the Repuplican party. The Republicans often have very good ideas that i garee with, especialy when it comes to equitable fiscal conservatism. However the neo-cons have cut a deal with the religous right, and along with the 'single face ' policy of the party, this has led to an amazing homegenaity in the Pub party. This could continue or they could begin to show a more diverse face. A lot of it has to do with the current dependance of the state parties on the national party, something that has started since Regan or around there. It is also likely to happen to the Dems as well.

But when you have a unified party with control of the executive and both chambers of congress, it gives that party substantial power to direct the course of policy.

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the Pubs have a stronger 'single party' messaage than the Crats ever did, and they have a much stronger central party line than the Dems will likely ever have.

So Clinton was forced to work on a slightly more bipartisan basis that the current Bush. Despite the labels applied to Clinton he was also a mostly conservative mainstream Dem, he was no Govenor Moonbeam by any means, and he had a rather bussiness friendly outlook. This is constrasted by the current Bush's edge of the Publican party stance. there are many old school Pubs who are very unhappy with the currenty administration. (Especialy regard the current fiscal policies).

Dancing David

25th May 2007, 07:27 AM

I didn't say that the entire system is broken - but it was hair raising how the whole War started. What's really frightening about this is that the Media swallowed it, the CIA didn't put the facts straight and most importantly, the missing link to 9/11 or terrorists - and an preemptive war ignoring all allies.

Well there are a lot of market factors influenced by the current administration and media companies that have something to do with that.
The first is media consolodation, where the diverse marketplace of media has been made unified.
Second is the media's shift to the 'news for profit' model which has led to the 'infotainment' industry. This has really degreded the level of 'old fashioned reporting' in the USA.
Third is the consolodation and the influence of who owns the media companies and thier apparent desire to support the current administrations policies.
Fourth is the rather typical american tendancy to go with the dogma soundbyte, because it sounds like it makes senswe and fits into a cultural norm. The usage of the term 'book learning" or 'book smarts' and 'common sense' are rather typical of this. If something sounds good and fits a cultural stereotype than it is ofetn taken to be true. Thsi allowed the electorate to be bombarded with the talking points of the administration and the war policy and take it as gospel.

There were media outlets and media stories about the possible lack of substantial evidence for certain claims regarding Iraq and 9-11 or the WMD in Iraq, but they were flooded out in the common dogma.

I will say Ziggurat is very correct, Iraq had not complied with the sanctions, especialy the flow of oil into Turkey.

But calling the paper tiger of Iraq a 'threat', depends on the threat you are thinking of.

At this point it shows that Americas leading role can be dangerous. The torture issue substantiated this "Head up" and simultaneously weakened the trust in "americas" definition of freedom.

You mean what was left after Mosadeh and Pinochet? This is a long standing issue of the parochial american influence in world politics.

Even if I think that the next elections will change all of these Issues, the whole thing shouldn't have happened - there were too many safety measures that didn't work very well. Also on UNO/international level.

Well, lots of things shouldn't happen. Does Germany recognise that Turks born in Germany are citizens of Germany? I ask sincerely i have heard rumors but I don't know the truth.

RandFan

25th May 2007, 07:53 AM

But let me ask you about Bush/Iraq. What's complicated about it? If preemtive war's against imaginary threats can happen in modern, western democracies - there's something wrong with the system.Oliver I think this is a silly statement. Assuming that the war was simply a preemtive war, which I don't and assuming that the war was wrong which I'm leaning strongly that in hindsight it was, it doesn't at all prove that there is something wrong with the system that wouldn't be in any human run system.

marksman

25th May 2007, 02:50 PM

Yes, I'll agree that "exclusively on charisma" is probably overrated, but I think that the number of voters that consider charisma to be an important factor may not be overrated.
Charisma is not an insignificant factor, but it may be that people put more emphasis on it than you or I do. That's an entirely different issue.

one is still left with the frequency with which pundits described Bush in 2000 as the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with
As I said before a lot of people like to blame charisma or demagoguery rather than admit the voters do not agree with them. Pundits are particularly prone to that.

Political advisors do focus on making sure that their candidates are charismatic - Kennedy's and Nixon's televised appearances are still discussed in political science classes.
Charisma is an important trait in politics. Clinton got as much accomplished as he did because he knew how to gladhandle people.

I thought it was strange that people would want to have a beer with someone who gave up drinking because it almost cost him his family and his driver's license.
Ugh. It's metaphorical. It meant people felt Bush understood their lives better than wooden Gore or wooden Kerry who seemed to understand only sterile intelligence reports and journal articles.

It's the same thing as when people said they felt Clinton "felt their pain", even though Clinton didn't have a painful day in his life after the age of 12.

The ability to listen -- and to make people know you're listening -- is important for politicians. Even had we the ability to accurately measure Intelligence, it would be a piss-poor way to choose a leader. Charisma counts for a lot in this world, as much as we might wish it to be otherwise.