FREE TAPATALK APP

Steve · 1st March 2007, 02:32 PM

Reading the "Political Bias" thread got me to thinking about US elections and the two-party system. As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage points would it be correct to say that the "party-line" voters largely cancel each other out and that the minority of independent voters who are willing to be swayed by the issues are actually the ones responsible for determining the outcome of the elections?

Tmy · 1st March 2007, 02:36 PM

I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!!

steverino · 1st March 2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!!

OK. Um, er, let's see now, which side are YOU on?

Tmy · 1st March 2007, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by steverino

OK. Um, er, let's see now, which side are YOU on?

Is depends what issue we are talking about. Most of the time Im a liberal. I dont think youll find too many people that fit totally into one parties talking points on every issue.

But it drives me nuts when on the eve of election you hear people saying "im undecided." Months of campaining and they cant decide? Geez. Sometimes i think they just like the attention.

Steve · 1st March 2007, 02:54 PM

Sorry if I appear to "post and run" but work is calling and I will unlikely get back to this discussion today. I am still interested in opinions and will check in when I am able.

Tony · 1st March 2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!!

Independent voter over here.

Tmy · 1st March 2007, 03:14 PM

You only vote for independants?

Ziggurat · 1st March 2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by dogguy

Reading the "Political Bias" thread got me to thinking about US elections and the two-party system. As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage points would it be correct to say that the "party-line" voters largely cancel each other out and that the minority of independent voters who are willing to be swayed by the issues are actually the ones responsible for determining the outcome of the elections?

I voted straight party once, in college. I haven't since. I think it's common not to, which is why it's not uncommon for governors and senators from the same state to be from different parties. People certainly tend to vote for their party more often, but that's also because hey, if you're mostly going to vote for the other party, you might as well just switch. But I don't think the idea that it's only a small percentage of independents who determine the election is really accurate. Turnout matters quite a bit in US elections, and plenty of people will also just not bother to vote at all if they don't like their party's candidate.

gtc · 1st March 2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I voted straight party once, in college.

Does that involve placing a tick (or pulling a lever etc) next to each and every candidate from your chosen party or can you simply tick one box?

Ziggurat · 1st March 2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

Does that involve placing a tick (or pulling a lever etc) next to each and every candidate from your chosen party or can you simply tick one box?

I think it depends on the state. In my case I had to check every box. In the state where I live now, they used to have a single check box to vote party line, but they got rid of that option recently, which I think is good. If you're too lazy to check multiple boxes, you shouldn't be voting.

Region Rat · 1st March 2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

<snip> If you're too lazy to check multiple boxes, you shouldn't be voting.

[derail]
Add to that:
-If you're too lazy to make sure you're registered where you plan to vote....
-If you're too lazy to learn how your precinct voting machine works....
-If you're too lazy to even look at the ballot before you enter the voting booth....
-And last, if you're too lazy to ask a poll worker for help, but have enough energy to tell the local "News at Nine" crew that you didn't understand those newfangled machines....

[\derail]

DanishDynamite · 1st March 2007, 04:42 PM

The US system is screwed up at its base. Analysing the minor effects which may cause one party or the other of the two available to prevail, is certainly interesting for someone having to endure the lack of choices in this system, but is at most of academic interest for others.

Ziggurat · 1st March 2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

The US system is screwed up at its base.

Of course you think it's screwed up, becaue it produces results so contrary to your personal preferences. Isn't that sort of the definition of a screwed up political system?

DanishDynamite · 1st March 2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of course you think it's screwed up, becaue it produces results so contrary to your personal preferences. Isn't that sort of the definition of a screwed up political system?

It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging.

Darth Rotor · 1st March 2007, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging.

John Adams and James Madison both think you are full of crap, and they've been dead for about two centuries.

It wasn't built for you.

DR

DanishDynamite · 1st March 2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

John Adams and James Madison both think you are full of crap, and they've been dead for about two centuries.

It wasn't built for you.

DR

When you have something substantial to say, please do so. Thanks.

Ziggurat · 1st March 2007, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging.

Does the system prevent new candidates with new ideas from emerging? No, it doesn't. Parties in the US do not serve the same role in the political system that they do in much of Europe, so I'm not sure why you think your objection should matter. And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well.

gtc · 1st March 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well.

That is the key point. I think there are a lot of reforms that America should make. But because the system works pretty well, these changes won't be made.

Not changing things that work pretty well is a philosophy that works pretty well, so I don't see that changing either.

Art Vandelay · 2nd March 2007, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by dogguy

As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage

About a third of voters are Republican, a third Democratic.

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

The US system is screwed up at its base.

And just what makes you an expert on US politics?

Quote:

Analysing the minor effects which may cause one party or the other of the two available to prevail, is certainly interesting for someone having to endure the lack of choices in this system, but is at most of academic interest for others.

There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries.

And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there?

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging.

It's not "inherently prejudiced", and even if were, why would that be "screwed up"? Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system?

Ladewig · 2nd March 2007, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system?

Because there are a lot of people who cannot find a candidate they like in a field of two. I know people who like fiscally conservative policies and socially liberal policies. Others prefer public schools teaching safe sex and gun control laws being loosened. Those people must decide which single issue is the most important and vote for the party that supports that issue.

Steve · 2nd March 2007, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

About a third of voters are Republican, a third Democratic.

This give me a better perspective, thanks. I had assumed that it was greater than 40% for each

Quote:

There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries.

I had forgotten about your primaries. How exactly do these work? Is it just democrats who vote for democratic candidates, and republicans for republicans, or can all voters vote for any candidate?

Quote:

And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there?

I do not care for the idea of proprtional voting. It gets brought up here every few years and has, so far, always been voted down. The last vote on this was too close for my liking.

Tailgater · 2nd March 2007, 09:34 AM

I think a 2 party system forces more change within each party by having to adapt and appeal to the majority. There will always be core voters that never change parties, but the independent voter can come out in force when the pendulum has swung too far one way.

Art Vandelay · 2nd March 2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Because there are a lot of people who cannot find a candidate they like in a field of two.

It seems to me that this basically comes down to complaining because it's not perfect (and "perfect" is defined as "giving me what I want"). Last presidential election, I considered voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote, but I couldn't find anyone I was willing to support, even in a field of a dozen. Maybe an established third party would offer more acceptable options, but I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by dogguy

This give me a better perspective, thanks. I had assumed that it was greater than 40% for each

Maybe. I intended a lot of leeway in saying that it's "about" a third. Not everyone who registers for a party really considers themselves a member of that party. There aren't any dues or anything; it's just a matter of what party's primaries you want to vote in. In fact, some people register the opposite of their political position so that they can vote against people they don't like in the primary.

Quote:

I had forgotten about your primaries. How exactly do these work? Is it just democrats who vote for democratic candidates, and republicans for republicans, or can all voters vote for any candidate?

Each state is slightly different. In California, the state runs a primary election, and anyone registered for a particular party can vote only for that party. Someone registered as "Non Partisan" can sometimes choose a party ballot (but you only get one, so you can't vote in the Democratic primary for governor and the Republican primary for senator). Each party then has slightly different rules for what NP's can vote for. I think all of them restrict administrative positions (Party Chairman, etc.) to registered members, but Rep and Dem allow NP to vote for public positions. Then some states have caucuses, and I'm not quite clear how those work.

Pope130 · 2nd March 2007, 06:08 PM

A couple of points here. First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot. While most national level winners are from one of the top two parties (we have only two third party Senators at the moment), third party winners at the state and local level are more common.
Far from preventing the developement of third parties, the US system seems to encourage them. Both the Democrats and Republicans are third parties, neither having existed at the founding. During the last general election there were (if memory serves) nine parties represented on the Oregon ballot.

Robert

Madalch · 3rd March 2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Tmy

I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!!

I assume you're joking. Such a view might be understandable if the two parties were immutable, instead of completely changing leaders every four or eight years.

That being said, it's frightening how many people stick to one party regardless of what its current policies are. I once read an interview with a old voter in Alberta, who said he hated Ralph Klein (until recently the premier of Alberta). But he was voting for him anyway, since he'd always voted Conservative. He'd always voted Conservative because his Daddy'd always voted Conservative, and his Daddy before him, etc. He was greatly offended at the suggestion that he might vote against his family tradition.

So he was voting for policies he hated, simply because his great-grandfather didn't like Laurier.

Also in Alberta, the Social Credit party (extreme right wing) went from 4th place in the polls to second place, simply by changing their name to the "Alberta Alliance" (to match the name of the "Canadian Alliance" national party). People put far too much faith in names instead of policies.

Alt+F4 · 3rd March 2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Pope130

First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot.

In NYC we have "The Rent Is Too Damn High!" party.

Kerberos · 3rd March 2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pope130

A couple of points here. First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot. While most national level winners are from one of the top two parties (we have only two third party Senators at the moment), third party winners at the state and local level are more common.

That's all technically true, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States is a two party system rather than a multiparty system. A two party system means that the political system is overwhelmingly dominated by 2 parties, not that no other parties exist. Just like a bipolar world order means that the world order is dominated by two powers, not that no other countries exist. So the US is a two party system, the Cold War had a bipolar world order.

Originally Posted by Pope130

Far from preventing the developement of third parties, the US system seems to encourage them. Both the Democrats and Republicans are third parties, neither having existed at the founding. During the last general election there were (if memory serves) nine parties represented on the Oregon ballot.

Robert

Are you seriously claiming that because twice (or perhaps a bit more) in the almost 250 years your country has existed a third party has become a dominant party that means that you system encourages it? You got be kidding, Denmark has had as many new parties getting into parliament in my life time and I'm 24. Let's try to keep to the facts, the American system very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. That is not an opinion that is a fact, well supported by both empirical observations and theory.

Pope130 · 3rd March 2007, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

That's all technically true, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States is a two party system rather than a multiparty system. A two party system means that the political system is overwhelmingly dominated by 2 parties, not that no other parties exist. Just like a bipolar world order means that the world order is dominated by two powers, not that no other countries exist. So the US is a two party system, the Cold War had a bipolar world order.

Are you seriously claiming that because twice (or perhaps a bit more) in the almost 250 years your country has existed a third party has become a dominant party that means that you system encourages it? You got be kidding, Denmark has had as many new parties getting into parliament in my life time and I'm 24. Let's try to keep to the facts, the American system very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. That is not an opinion that is a fact, well supported by both empirical observations and theory.

Kerberos,
Accepting your definition of terms your conclusions would not be unreasonable. This illustrates the difficulty in holding a discussion without first establishing the meaning of terms. I do not agree with your definitions, your alleged facts, observations or theories.

Robert

Kerberos · 4th March 2007, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Pope130

Kerberos,
Accepting your definition of terms your conclusions would not be unreasonable. This illustrates the difficulty in holding a discussion without first establishing the meaning of terms. I do not agree with your definitions, your alleged facts, observations or theories.

Robert

The definition is the standard one, as for the theories I must wonder how you can disagree with theories I very much doubt you're familiar with, and concerning the fact I remember I quote I heard once: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

Pope130 · 4th March 2007, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

The definition is the standard one, as for the theories I must wonder how you can disagree with theories I very much doubt you're familiar with, and concerning the fact I remember I quote I heard once: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

Kerberos,
Now you've moved the goal post. Had you originaly said "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation." I would have agreed with you.

Robert

Kerberos · 4th March 2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Pope130

Kerberos,
Now you've moved the goal post. Had you originaly said "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation." I would have agreed with you.

Robert

But that is what I said, I said "the American system [winner takes all, geographical representation, system] very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. " I really don't see any substantial difference between that statement and "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation.". Could you explain what you think the difference between the two statements are, because I honestly don't follow you.

DanishDynamite · 4th March 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Does the system prevent new candidates with new ideas from emerging? No, it doesn't. Parties in the US do not serve the same role in the political system that they do in much of Europe, so I'm not sure why you think your objection should matter. And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well.

No, it doesn't directly prevent new parties emerging. It just makes it very, very difficult. For a system supposedly multi-party, why is that?

DanishDynamite · 4th March 2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

And just what makes you an expert on US politics?

Have something relevant to say?

Quote:

There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries.

How many parties have primaries?

Quote:

And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there?

No, the people at the top of the list don't get in. The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate, is up to the party fielding the candidates.

Quote:

It's not "inherently prejudiced", and even if were, why would that be "screwed up"? Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system?

It is inherently screwed up as it makes it very, very difficult for third parties to have a chance.

Art Vandelay · 4th March 2007, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Have something relevant to say?

The issue of what your basis for speaking authoritatively is is not relevant?

Quote:

How many parties have primaries?

As far as I know, all of them.

Quote:

No, the people at the top of the list don't get in. The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate, is up to the party fielding the candidates.

Can you translate that into English?

Quote:

It is inherently screwed up as it makes it very, very difficult for third parties to have a chance.

So, by "inherently screwed up", you mean "interferes with something that I like".

SezMe · 4th March 2007, 06:43 PM

For statistics on political party demographics, go here.

DanishDynamite · 4th March 2007, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

The issue of what your basis for speaking authoritatively is is not relevant?

Nope.

Quote:

As far as I know, all of them.

Cute. How many other than the two "institutionalized" parties?

Quote:

Can you translate that into English?

It already is. Read it again a few times if your comprehension abilities are weak.

Quote:

So, by "inherently screwed up", you mean "interferes with something that I like".

No, I mean "interferes with providing a multi-party system", where "multi" means more than the absolute minimum of two.

Steve · 5th March 2007, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

For statistics on political party demographics, go here.

Thanks for this link SezMe. This is exactly what I was wondering in my OP. It looks like my guess at the numbers of registered party members was way higher than reality. The actual number of unaligned voters is very significant. Thanks to everyone for your input. I am now somewhat better informed as to this aspect of politics in the US.

Art Vandelay · 6th March 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Nope.

Can you explain that?

Quote:

Cute.

What is "cute" about my response?

Quote:

How many other than the two "institutionalized" parties?

What part of "all of them" do you not understand? Do you not realize that the word "both", rather than "all", is generally used when talking about only two items?

Quote:

It already is. Read it again a few times if your comprehension abilities are weak.

No, it's not. Perhaps you meant to say "The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate is up to the party fielding the candidates"? If you had posted that sentence, it would have taken several readings for me to parse it. It's bad enough that you put it in a confusing form; putting in an extra comma means that I have to play guessing games as to what confusing statement you are trying to make. And then, on top of the form, the content doesn't make sense. Can you explain in plain language what you mean and how it contradicts my statement?

Quote:

No, I mean "interferes with providing a multi-party system", where "multi" means more than the absolute minimum of two.

So you don't want a multi-party system?

Ziggurat · 6th March 2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

No, it doesn't directly prevent new parties emerging. It just makes it very, very difficult. For a system supposedly multi-party, why is that?

Did you not read what I wrote? I wasn't talking about parties. I rather explicitly said candidates and ideas. Does the system prevent the emergence of new candidates and ideas? Does it discourage them from emerging? These are separate questions from whether or not the system discourages new parties, and they are also far more important, as I already indicated. And you haven't answered them in any fashion.

Kerberos · 6th March 2007, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

No, it's not. Perhaps you meant to say "The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate is up to the party fielding the candidates"? If you had posted that sentence, it would have taken several readings for me to parse it. It's bad enough that you put it in a confusing form; putting in an extra comma means that I have to play guessing games as to what confusing statement you are trying to make. And then, on top of the form, the content doesn't make sense. Can you explain in plain language what you mean and how it contradicts my statement?

I don't think that what DD said was unclear, but then I know the system. The way it works is that you vote for a party or a specific candidate. The votes for the party are distributed among the candidates along rules determined by the party. There are basically two way of doing this. Some parties do it as you implied according to a prearranged list, meaning that personal votes don't matter that much unless a low rank candidate gets so many votes that they can be elected on those votes alone (called breaking the list). Other parties however distribute the party vote according to how many personal votes a candidate gets which means that personal votes matter very much. Votes for individual candidates that don't get enough votes to be elected are distributed among his fellow party member according to the same rules as party votes. Is it clear now?

1st March 2007, 02:32 PM	#1
Steve Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2005 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 1,352	US Voting Patterns Reading the "Political Bias" thread got me to thinking about US elections and the two-party system. As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage points would it be correct to say that the "party-line" voters largely cancel each other out and that the minority of independent voters who are willing to be swayed by the issues are actually the ones responsible for determining the outcome of the elections?
	__________________ Formerly known as dogguy. Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

1st March 2007, 02:36 PM	#2
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!!
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

1st March 2007, 02:46 PM	#3
steverino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 3,688	Originally Posted by Tmy I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!! OK. Um, er, let's see now, which side are YOU on?
	__________________ "Ferchrissakes I am not Jewish..."- Darth Rotor "Well, my nipples are pink. I've never looked at my own butt-hole, but I hope it's pink too." Mycroft "In the military, a gay man might see a wiener, and we all know that when a gay man sees a wiener, he goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of lust."- Marquis de Carabas

1st March 2007, 02:50 PM	#4
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by steverino OK. Um, er, let's see now, which side are YOU on? Is depends what issue we are talking about. Most of the time Im a liberal. I dont think youll find too many people that fit totally into one parties talking points on every issue. But it drives me nuts when on the eve of election you hear people saying "im undecided." Months of campaining and they cant decide? Geez. Sometimes i think they just like the attention.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

1st March 2007, 02:54 PM	#5
Steve Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2005 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 1,352	Sorry if I appear to "post and run" but work is calling and I will unlikely get back to this discussion today. I am still interested in opinions and will check in when I am able.
	__________________ Formerly known as dogguy. Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

1st March 2007, 03:10 PM	#6
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,808	Originally Posted by Tmy I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!! Independent voter over here.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

1st March 2007, 03:14 PM	#7
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	You only vote for independants?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

1st March 2007, 03:33 PM	#8
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by dogguy Reading the "Political Bias" thread got me to thinking about US elections and the two-party system. As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage points would it be correct to say that the "party-line" voters largely cancel each other out and that the minority of independent voters who are willing to be swayed by the issues are actually the ones responsible for determining the outcome of the elections? I voted straight party once, in college. I haven't since. I think it's common not to, which is why it's not uncommon for governors and senators from the same state to be from different parties. People certainly tend to vote for their party more often, but that's also because hey, if you're mostly going to vote for the other party, you might as well just switch. But I don't think the idea that it's only a small percentage of independents who determine the election is really accurate. Turnout matters quite a bit in US elections, and plenty of people will also just not bother to vote at all if they don't like their party's candidate.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st March 2007, 03:45 PM	#9
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I voted straight party once, in college. Does that involve placing a tick (or pulling a lever etc) next to each and every candidate from your chosen party or can you simply tick one box?

1st March 2007, 04:28 PM	#10
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by gtc Does that involve placing a tick (or pulling a lever etc) next to each and every candidate from your chosen party or can you simply tick one box? I think it depends on the state. In my case I had to check every box. In the state where I live now, they used to have a single check box to vote party line, but they got rid of that option recently, which I think is good. If you're too lazy to check multiple boxes, you shouldn't be voting.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st March 2007, 04:42 PM	#11
Region Rat Stinky Cheese Eater Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sprung from Da Calumet Region Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by Ziggurat <snip> If you're too lazy to check multiple boxes, you shouldn't be voting. [derail] Add to that: -If you're too lazy to make sure you're registered where you plan to vote.... -If you're too lazy to learn how your precinct voting machine works.... -If you're too lazy to even look at the ballot before you enter the voting booth.... -And last, if you're too lazy to ask a poll worker for help, but have enough energy to tell the local "News at Nine" crew that you didn't understand those newfangled machines.... [\derail]
	__________________ The Optimist sees the glass as half full. The Pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The Engineer sees the glass as twice as big as it needs to be.

1st March 2007, 04:42 PM	#12
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	The US system is screwed up at its base. Analysing the minor effects which may cause one party or the other of the two available to prevail, is certainly interesting for someone having to endure the lack of choices in this system, but is at most of academic interest for others.

1st March 2007, 05:29 PM	#13
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite The US system is screwed up at its base. Of course you think it's screwed up, becaue it produces results so contrary to your personal preferences. Isn't that sort of the definition of a screwed up political system?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st March 2007, 05:52 PM	#14
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Of course you think it's screwed up, becaue it produces results so contrary to your personal preferences. Isn't that sort of the definition of a screwed up political system? It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging.

1st March 2007, 06:12 PM	#15
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,372	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging. John Adams and James Madison both think you are full of crap, and they've been dead for about two centuries. It wasn't built for you. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

1st March 2007, 06:17 PM	#16
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor John Adams and James Madison both think you are full of crap, and they've been dead for about two centuries. It wasn't built for you. DR When you have something substantial to say, please do so. Thanks.

1st March 2007, 09:54 PM	#17
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging. Does the system prevent new candidates with new ideas from emerging? No, it doesn't. Parties in the US do not serve the same role in the political system that they do in much of Europe, so I'm not sure why you think your objection should matter. And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st March 2007, 10:17 PM	#18
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Ziggurat And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well. That is the key point. I think there are a lot of reforms that America should make. But because the system works pretty well, these changes won't be made. Not changing things that work pretty well is a philosophy that works pretty well, so I don't see that changing either.

2nd March 2007, 12:37 AM	#19
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by dogguy As a Canadian it is my impression (possibly wrong) that the majority of US citizens identify themselves as either republicans of democrats and usually, if not always, vote for their chosen party. As the majority of elections seem to be decided by no more than a few percentage About a third of voters are Republican, a third Democratic. Originally Posted by DanishDynamite The US system is screwed up at its base. And just what makes you an expert on US politics? Quote: Analysing the minor effects which may cause one party or the other of the two available to prevail, is certainly interesting for someone having to endure the lack of choices in this system, but is at most of academic interest for others. There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries. And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there? Originally Posted by DanishDynamite It is screwed up at base because the system is inherently prejudiced towards not allowing any viable third (or fourth or fifth, etc) party emerging. It's not "inherently prejudiced", and even if were, why would that be "screwed up"? Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system?

2nd March 2007, 05:33 AM	#20
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,932	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system? Because there are a lot of people who cannot find a candidate they like in a field of two. I know people who like fiscally conservative policies and socially liberal policies. Others prefer public schools teaching safe sex and gun control laws being loosened. Those people must decide which single issue is the most important and vote for the party that supports that issue.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

2nd March 2007, 06:33 AM	#21
Steve Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2005 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 1,352	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay About a third of voters are Republican, a third Democratic. This give me a better perspective, thanks. I had assumed that it was greater than 40% for each Quote: There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries. I had forgotten about your primaries. How exactly do these work? Is it just democrats who vote for democratic candidates, and republicans for republicans, or can all voters vote for any candidate? Quote: And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there? I do not care for the idea of proprtional voting. It gets brought up here every few years and has, so far, always been voted down. The last vote on this was too close for my liking.
	__________________ Formerly known as dogguy. Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

2nd March 2007, 09:34 AM	#22
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	I think a 2 party system forces more change within each party by having to adapt and appeal to the majority. There will always be core voters that never change parties, but the independent voter can come out in force when the pendulum has swung too far one way.
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

2nd March 2007, 05:11 PM	#23
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Ladewig Because there are a lot of people who cannot find a candidate they like in a field of two. It seems to me that this basically comes down to complaining because it's not perfect (and "perfect" is defined as "giving me what I want"). Last presidential election, I considered voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote, but I couldn't find anyone I was willing to support, even in a field of a dozen. Maybe an established third party would offer more acceptable options, but I'm not convinced. Originally Posted by dogguy This give me a better perspective, thanks. I had assumed that it was greater than 40% for each Maybe. I intended a lot of leeway in saying that it's "about" a third. Not everyone who registers for a party really considers themselves a member of that party. There aren't any dues or anything; it's just a matter of what party's primaries you want to vote in. In fact, some people register the opposite of their political position so that they can vote against people they don't like in the primary. Quote: I had forgotten about your primaries. How exactly do these work? Is it just democrats who vote for democratic candidates, and republicans for republicans, or can all voters vote for any candidate? Each state is slightly different. In California, the state runs a primary election, and anyone registered for a particular party can vote only for that party. Someone registered as "Non Partisan" can sometimes choose a party ballot (but you only get one, so you can't vote in the Democratic primary for governor and the Republican primary for senator). Each party then has slightly different rules for what NP's can vote for. I think all of them restrict administrative positions (Party Chairman, etc.) to registered members, but Rep and Dem allow NP to vote for public positions. Then some states have caucuses, and I'm not quite clear how those work.

2nd March 2007, 06:08 PM	#24
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 972	A couple of points here. First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot. While most national level winners are from one of the top two parties (we have only two third party Senators at the moment), third party winners at the state and local level are more common. Far from preventing the developement of third parties, the US system seems to encourage them. Both the Democrats and Republicans are third parties, neither having existed at the founding. During the last general election there were (if memory serves) nine parties represented on the Oregon ballot. Robert

3rd March 2007, 11:11 AM	#25
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,745	Originally Posted by Tmy I find there really is no such thing as an independant voter. Just a bunch of scatterbrains who cant make up thier minds. PICK A SIDE AND GO WITH IT!!!! I assume you're joking. Such a view might be understandable if the two parties were immutable, instead of completely changing leaders every four or eight years. That being said, it's frightening how many people stick to one party regardless of what its current policies are. I once read an interview with a old voter in Alberta, who said he hated Ralph Klein (until recently the premier of Alberta). But he was voting for him anyway, since he'd always voted Conservative. He'd always voted Conservative because his Daddy'd always voted Conservative, and his Daddy before him, etc. He was greatly offended at the suggestion that he might vote against his family tradition. So he was voting for policies he hated, simply because his great-grandfather didn't like Laurier. Also in Alberta, the Social Credit party (extreme right wing) went from 4th place in the polls to second place, simply by changing their name to the "Alberta Alliance" (to match the name of the "Canadian Alliance" national party). People put far too much faith in names instead of policies.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

3rd March 2007, 11:25 AM	#26
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,804	Originally Posted by Pope130 First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot. In NYC we have "The Rent Is Too Damn High!" party.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

3rd March 2007, 12:09 PM	#27
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Pope130 A couple of points here. First, in the US we have a multi-party system, not a two party system. Anyone is free to form a party, and most places it is fairly easy to get on the ballot. While most national level winners are from one of the top two parties (we have only two third party Senators at the moment), third party winners at the state and local level are more common. That's all technically true, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States is a two party system rather than a multiparty system. A two party system means that the political system is overwhelmingly dominated by 2 parties, not that no other parties exist. Just like a bipolar world order means that the world order is dominated by two powers, not that no other countries exist. So the US is a two party system, the Cold War had a bipolar world order. Originally Posted by Pope130 Far from preventing the developement of third parties, the US system seems to encourage them. Both the Democrats and Republicans are third parties, neither having existed at the founding. During the last general election there were (if memory serves) nine parties represented on the Oregon ballot. Robert Are you seriously claiming that because twice (or perhaps a bit more) in the almost 250 years your country has existed a third party has become a dominant party that means that you system encourages it? You got be kidding, Denmark has had as many new parties getting into parliament in my life time and I'm 24. Let's try to keep to the facts, the American system very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. That is not an opinion that is a fact, well supported by both empirical observations and theory.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim Last edited by Kerberos; 3rd March 2007 at 12:13 PM.

3rd March 2007, 07:15 PM	#28
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 972	Originally Posted by Kerberos That's all technically true, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States is a two party system rather than a multiparty system. A two party system means that the political system is overwhelmingly dominated by 2 parties, not that no other parties exist. Just like a bipolar world order means that the world order is dominated by two powers, not that no other countries exist. So the US is a two party system, the Cold War had a bipolar world order. Are you seriously claiming that because twice (or perhaps a bit more) in the almost 250 years your country has existed a third party has become a dominant party that means that you system encourages it? You got be kidding, Denmark has had as many new parties getting into parliament in my life time and I'm 24. Let's try to keep to the facts, the American system very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. That is not an opinion that is a fact, well supported by both empirical observations and theory. Kerberos, Accepting your definition of terms your conclusions would not be unreasonable. This illustrates the difficulty in holding a discussion without first establishing the meaning of terms. I do not agree with your definitions, your alleged facts, observations or theories. Robert

4th March 2007, 12:16 AM	#29
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Pope130 Kerberos, Accepting your definition of terms your conclusions would not be unreasonable. This illustrates the difficulty in holding a discussion without first establishing the meaning of terms. I do not agree with your definitions, your alleged facts, observations or theories. Robert The definition is the standard one, as for the theories I must wonder how you can disagree with theories I very much doubt you're familiar with, and concerning the fact I remember I quote I heard once: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

4th March 2007, 07:15 AM	#30
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 972	Originally Posted by Kerberos The definition is the standard one, as for the theories I must wonder how you can disagree with theories I very much doubt you're familiar with, and concerning the fact I remember I quote I heard once: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts". Kerberos, Now you've moved the goal post. Had you originaly said "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation." I would have agreed with you. Robert

4th March 2007, 09:24 AM	#31
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Pope130 Kerberos, Now you've moved the goal post. Had you originaly said "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation." I would have agreed with you. Robert But that is what I said, I said "the American system [winner takes all, geographical representation, system] very, very strongly discourages the formation of viable third parties, compared to proportional systems. " I really don't see any substantial difference between that statement and "Proportional representation encourages the formation of more political parties than geographic representation.". Could you explain what you think the difference between the two statements are, because I honestly don't follow you.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim Last edited by Kerberos; 4th March 2007 at 09:32 AM.

4th March 2007, 03:02 PM	#32
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Does the system prevent new candidates with new ideas from emerging? No, it doesn't. Parties in the US do not serve the same role in the political system that they do in much of Europe, so I'm not sure why you think your objection should matter. And frankly, our track record since the birth of this country demonstrates that the system works pretty well. No, it doesn't directly prevent new parties emerging. It just makes it very, very difficult. For a system supposedly multi-party, why is that?

4th March 2007, 03:07 PM	#33
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay And just what makes you an expert on US politics? Have something relevant to say? Quote: There's choice. It's just that a lot of that choice is made during the primaries. How many parties have primaries? Quote: And what about proportional voting systems? The people at the top of the list get in no matter what. Where's the choice there? No, the people at the top of the list don't get in. The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate, is up to the party fielding the candidates. Quote: It's not "inherently prejudiced", and even if were, why would that be "screwed up"? Why do people just take it for granted that there's something wrong with a two party system? It is inherently screwed up as it makes it very, very difficult for third parties to have a chance.

4th March 2007, 05:33 PM	#34
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite Have something relevant to say? The issue of what your basis for speaking authoritatively is is not relevant? Quote: How many parties have primaries? As far as I know, all of them. Quote: No, the people at the top of the list don't get in. The allocation of votes which are for the party and not for a particular candidate, is up to the party fielding the candidates. Can you translate that into English? Quote: It is inherently screwed up as it makes it very, very difficult for third parties to have a chance. So, by "inherently screwed up", you mean "interferes with something that I like".

4th March 2007, 06:43 PM	#35
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,645	For statistics on political party demographics, go here.