posted by O-TrapI actually agree with this.
More candidates and multiple parties absolutely doesn't matter when voters are stupid and/or disinterested. Heck, one party would work just fine if voters picked the best candidate, and the best candidates knew they could win.
The reason money wins campaigns is because voters are dumb. Giving the voters more options doesn't fix that.
You are in the minority .
posted by gutMore candidates and multiple parties absolutely doesn't matter when voters are stupid and/or disinterested. Heck, one party would work just fine if voters picked the best candidate, and the best candidates knew they could win.
The reason money wins campaigns is because voters are dumb. Giving the voters more options doesn't fix that.
This operates on the premise that voters are stupid. That's fair enough. However, part of what seems to cause so many to vote the way they do is because of the perception that there are only two options. Functionally, as it has played out, that's been true.
If that's no longer true, they still may be led to vote for the person who pontificates the best or debates the most dishonestly. A stupid voter will still make a stupid vote, but of the things that influence the stupid vote will NOT be the self-imposed false dichotomy, raising the potential that the vote is less stupid, if only incrementally.
Frankly, I don't mind your idea of one party (which would functionally be no parties ... which was intended as far as I can tell). I'd prefer that, in fact. But we categorize everything, whether out of laziness or expediency. If I am an "evangelical," that's just a faster way to tell you a lot of things about me at once.
Granted, one can be categorized without being an official party, but while I'm sure that's true conceptually, I'm not sure we could ever get it to stay that way practically. As such, I think parties are somewhat inevitable in politics. That being the case, I'd argue that it should essentially be open season for parties, with no one getting any sort of federally sanctioned leg up over another. I realize how hairy that might get, when you have 12 candidates for the presidency, all from a different party, and that one could conceivably win a general election with significantly less than half the vote. At this point, though, I'm not sure that's worse than the "only A or B" setup we functionally have now.
posted by O-TrapThis operates on the premise that voters are stupid. That's fair enough. However, part of what seems to cause so many to vote the way they do is because of the perception that there are only two options. Functionally, as it has played out, that's been true.
We don't have to speculate - there are many democracies with multiple parties, and there is absolutely no evidence they function better.
You're not changing anything voting 3rd party - that's the political equivalent of virtue-signaling. Elections are about getting your base to vote, and their base to stay home. 3rd party voters are viewed the same as people who don't vote - ignored and irrelevant.
posted by gutWe don't have to speculate - there are many democracies with multiple parties, and there is absolutely no evidence they function better.
You're not changing anything voting 3rd party - that's the political equivalent of virtue-signaling. Elections are about getting your base to vote, and their base to stay home. 3rd party voters are viewed the same as people who don't vote - ignored and irrelevant.
Eh, as far as I can tell, you can't help yourself to any given other nation as an accurate test case. There are virtually innumerable cultural and historical differences that taint such a one-to-one parallel. It's the same reason you can't look at Japan's gun laws and try to apply them here expecting the same result. Too many other variables at play.
And regarding voting for third-party, you kind of illustrate my point here. If we assume, as you suggest, that third-party voters are viewed the same way as people who don't vote, and people who go to the voting booths place a high priority on their vote "counting" (I'd argue it still doesn't matter that much), they're probably going to vote for a major candidate, and this assumption becomes part of what perpetuates the unnecessary dichotomy. The dichotomy, in turn, makes the assumption true. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Moreover, the fact that you can honestly say (and I agree with you) that at the present time, you don't change anything by voting third-party is effectively taking a portion of the population who did take every bit as much civic action and making them irrelevant without justifiable cause.
Frankly, how much would say is changed by voting for one of the main two parties? Doesn't seem like much there either.
How you've framed elections is, it seems, pretty accurate, but I'd argue that's hardly what we should settle for or view as a wash with any other system. When you only have one other candidate, campaigns can be run much more effectively on a platform as simply being 'not the other guy'. When you have 2-3 other possibly viable candidates, you see campaigns swing more to emphasize the virtues of voting FOR a candidate as opposed to against the other candidate. Hell, that's what we see through most of the primaries. When there's a field, campaigns have to distinguish their candidate instead of trying to smear other ones, not to mention the fact that there would theoretically be an increased pressure to perform while in office, since you'd have more candidates offering to do what you don't/cant' in office, and it won't work to just try to campaign against one of them in a reelection bid.
Shoot, it really can be viewed as similar to talent pools in athletics. You got two guys trying out for QB? You might get a good one, but odds of you getting a good one are better if you have those same two plus ten others.
As for calling it the equivalent of virtue-signaling, I'd only agree if you're intending to make your vote known. Otherwise, there's no "signaling." But I get your point.
posted by O-Trap...you see campaigns swing more to emphasize the virtues of voting FOR a candidate as opposed to against the other candidate.
Everyone has their pet policies. While there is a party agenda that tend to get pushed and members strong-armed into supporting, there's never been a lack of individual ideas and policies on the campaign trail. The "don't vote for him/her" is not the norm - most are trying to give voters a reason to vote for them, especially given the key is to turn out your base.
But I'm talking about actually legislating, not campaigning. I see no evidence multi-party legislatures in other countries are any more effective at governing. The more ideas at a table, and the more equal the leverage, the more a compromise is going to deviate from all the individual ideas....which is a good way to end-up with a mish-mash of mediocrity.
There seems to be this idea that diversity of thought dies as soon as a politician decides to associate with one of the two parties. I think that's patently false. The parties filter their best ideas such that a bill starts off with close to majority support. The two parties are not monolithic, nor are they the same. That spineless politicians won't make tough spending choices is more about re-election than anything - more parties won't change that.
Change we can [really] believe in…
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/us-trade-deficit-jumps-by-the-most-in-3-years.html
Change we can [really] believe in...
Interesting read: NYT Opinion: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
posted by justincredibleInteresting read: NYT Opinion: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
So I read that article nodding my head "yep, believe it....not surprising....not surprising". Then I get to the leftist talking point about cozying up to autocrats and dictators and distancing us from our allies. That is a rather simple, partisan and misguided view. And I think "ehhhh, I don't expect a senior official to be that naive or oblivious....unless maybe it's Ben Carson"
I feel a night of the long knives coming soon
posted by SpockI feel a night of the long knives coming soon
LOL.....I think the dirty little secret is the "deep state" has more power and autonomy than ever before. Trump is a big picture, hands-off guy. While he's clowning around, the career staffers are running things with an unprecedented LACK of Presidential oversight. And the media is too focused on Trump to pay any attention, either.
Asleep at the wheel.....the media is working that narrative today.
The well orchestrated attacks continue unabated……becoming quite laughable, particularly in light of all the winning that is occurring on a daily basis. I guess the corruption at the DoJ and the FBI is so vast and historic that the attacks on Trump must continue in order to overwhelm what the media has been complicit in covering up. Incredible times.
posted by QuakerOats
Change we can [really] believe in…
Uncoincidentally this coincides with the 32% increase in the federal budget deficit which is now at $859 billion!
Thank God for President Trump and Congress making our deficits great again!
posted by BoatShoesUncoincidentally this coincides with the 32% increase in the federal budget deficit which is now at $859 billion!
Thank God for President Trump and Congress making our deficits great again!
Funny how the Federal deficit was not an issue from 1.20.2009 - 1.19.2016.......
posted by wkfanFunny how the Federal deficit was not an issue from 1.20.2009 - 1.19.2016.......
Goes both ways. Funny, how the Rs don't give a shit about it now.
Shows no one really cared about it then, and shows no one cares about it now.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Goes both ways. Funny, how the Rs don't give a shit about it now.
Shows no one really cared about it then, and shows no one cares about it now.
Pretty much why I gave up identifying as a republican years ago. I was slowly realizing it from 2010-2012 (still somewhat in denial during this period), but right after the 2012 election I gave up on them. They are 100% full of shit when it comes to fiscal responsibility and that's my #1 issue. I know many other "normal" or moderate conservatives who no longer identify as republican, because of this. We have had many years of data to prove the GOP does not give a fuck about the debt.
I am still waiting for the "normal"/moderate (not the bat shit crazy liberals who are overtaking the party as pew research has show) liberals to realize and admit the democrats are also full of shit. Especially when it comes to pretending they care about minorities. They only have 50+ years of the dems doing absolutely nothing for them, except win their votes.
posted by wkfanFunny how the Federal deficit was not an issue from 1.20.2009 - 1.19.2016.......
My complaint during the Obama years was that the federal budget deficit was not large enough and that it was a terrible mistake for Obama to spend political capital trying to reduce the deficit as they did with the "Fiscal Cliff" after 2010. I have been wrong in voting for Democrats all of this time and should be voting for Republican presidents because conservatives will support any amount of deficit spending so long as the president is a Republican.
posted by BoatShoes... conservatives will support any amount of deficit spending so long as the president is a Republican.
