The Two-Party System

[Neopergoss]

I would find it grossly offensive if someone wasn't willing to vote for another party.

A 2 party system where the parties won't work together is a 2 party system that won't work. This by extension go's to all parties.

If you ask me, the 2 parties are working together far too much to support the policies that favor their lobbyists and not the country. Lack of bipartisanship is a beltway myth.

Way to miss the point to sound smart.

I think you're missing the point. What Democrat has stood up to the war on terror abuses under Obama? This is but one example.

[Neopergoss]

The problem is that a third party, under the current system, hurts the major party closer to it on the issues. A conservative Christian party would hurt the Republicans by splitting the conservative vote. A Green party would hurt the Democrats by splitting the progressive vote.

What is needed is proportional representation (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm). If the Green Party gets X% of the vote, it should get X% of seats in the legislature. There are a few ways to implement PR, and I prefer the ways that allow people to vote for individual candidates, not just a party.

Proportional representation would be nice, but we can't instantly convert our system to something like that. Our only recourse if we don't like the way things are going is to vote for a third party. It means that we make it more likely that the party we like least will win in the short term, but in the long term it makes it more likely for good policies to be supported by the party we like more. If this isn't done, no party will support the issues that matter to us.

[Belthus]

Proportional representation would be nice, but we can't instantly convert our system to something like that. Our only recourse if we don't like the way things are going is to vote for a third party. It means that we make it more likely that the party we like least will win in the short term, but in the long term it makes it more likely for good policies to be supported by the party we like more. If this isn't done, no party will support the issues that matter to us.

I think that if a few high-profile people advocated PR, it could be on the agenda in a few years. Many proposals of huge changes to the way government does something started out with a small core of dedicated people and gained momentum. Look at the flat tax, which would be a very radical change from the progressive income tax. It's no longer a fringe idea.

If you want to do something within the current system, a protest vote is not the best means. If a third party or independent candidate has a decent chance of winning, then I'd say go for it. But the best way to discipline a major party is to support primary challenges to those in the party who aren't living up to its principles. Many incumbents are unchallenged in the primary. If that changed, they would have to be more responsive to the base, which makes up most of primary voters.

[Neopergoss]

Proportional representation would be nice, but we can't instantly convert our system to something like that. Our only recourse if we don't like the way things are going is to vote for a third party. It means that we make it more likely that the party we like least will win in the short term, but in the long term it makes it more likely for good policies to be supported by the party we like more. If this isn't done, no party will support the issues that matter to us.

I think that if a few high-profile people advocated PR, it could be on the agenda in a few years. Many proposals of huge changes to the way government does something started out with a small core of dedicated people and gained momentum. Look at the flat tax, which would be a very radical change from the progressive income tax. It's no longer a fringe idea.

If you want to do something within the current system, a protest vote is not the best means. If a third party or independent candidate has a decent chance of winning, then I'd say go for it. But the best way to discipline a major party is to support primary challenges to those in the party who aren't living up to its principles. Many incumbents are unchallenged in the primary. If that changed, they would have to be more responsive to the base, which makes up most of primary voters.

The flat tax being realistically talked about by anyone is a good example that supports my initial point. GOP voters are able to make their party increasingly radical by making their support for the party conditional. That's why insane things like the flat tax are openly discussed. Next thing you know we're going to be nuking Iran.

Good point about primary challenges, though. A group I'm really interested in called Accountability Now is devoted to making more primary challenges, mostly for Democratic incumbents. These serve the same function. A problem is that it's hard for incumbents to be challenged from within their own party. In general, the system is set up so that there is a huge incumbent advantage and this is one of the biggest problems (ie: gerrymandering).

[BluePriest]

The poll is a little biased. It gives the impression that people either vote or dont vote on third parties just because they are a third party. A better additional option would be "No, I haven't found one I agree with" and "No, I wont vote for third parties"----No, and I dont plan to, and no, but I plan on it imply that you either are or arent voting on them BECAUSE they are third party.

As stated before, the biggest problem with a third party is that it would split the vote. Although Im a conservative, Im aware of the problems of trying to get someone who is too conservative into office. It will split the votes because many independents will think the person would be too conservative. It is actually a problem the republicans will have in this election. The "Grass Roots" movement is a big part of the republican party, and could easily cause a Ultra Conservative to reach the primarys, however, it will polarize the votes, and although I hate to say it, almost guarantee a republican loss come election day.

[Belthus]

The poll doesn't have an option that fits me. I voted for Nader in 2000. I looked at the polls ahead of time. I knew that in my state, the Presidential race was not close, so I felt free to vote for a third party. (The Green Party was hoping to get 5%, which would have had benefits for getting on the ballot in the future.) In other words, I will consider a third party, but I am strategic. If a race is close between a Republican and a Democrat, I will vote for a Democrat over a third party candidate.

[Daxx]

I think what some people might be missing is that the "Obama is a left wing radical" meme was never true to begin with, even to describe his politics as a younger man. In fact, politicians in high positions are very rarely radical unless they came to power in a radical political shift. Compared to other politicians in your country he was relatively moderate (by the the standards of the rest of the industrialised world, extremely right wing). The democratic "base" would have voted for him regardless of his actual views, simply because he was closer to them than McCain was, and he could easily throw them a few bones in his campaign promises. What he did was go after the moderate, swing voters, and brought home the election that way.

Of course he has enacted a few "left" wing measures, and he's leant on the sane side of social issues for the most part, but he was never as radical as the Republican propaganda machine made him out to be. If you look at his rhetoric and his negotiation style, he's always been about moderation, compromise and bipartisanship - expecting him to push heavily for more socially liberal issues is like expecting him to renounce his Christianity. The only reason he has come across as confrontational at all is because he's been fought tooth and nail by congress for most of his term, even for relatively sane things like healthcare reform and budget proposals.

[Neopergoss]

The democratic "base" would have voted for him regardless of his actual views, simply because he was closer to them than McCain was, and he could easily throw them a few bones in his campaign promises. What he did was go after the moderate, swing voters, and brought home the election that way.

That said, he has violated many campaign promises: closing Guantanamo, protecting whistleblowers, removing the retroactive immunity from the FISA bill he infamously voted for, having a transparent administration, etc. Those are a few examples in the civil liberties area, where conflicts between Obama the candidate and Obama the president are most pronounced. Here is a comic (http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/03/the-flustercluck-doctrine/) dramatizing some inconsistencies.

edit: And many of us wouldn't have voted for him in the primary if we had known he would reverse himself on so many issues.

[jmizzle7]

I have fewer issues with presidential elections than with congressional elections. The office of the presidency, by its very nature, faces an uphill battle from day one. Corruption and overall ineffectiveness lies in congress, as they are the ones that are being fed (literally - food on/under the table) by lobbyists and "interest" groups. The scary thing here is that the ones with the political muscle are the ones that aren't on the ballot (lobbyists, etc.). My family has taken a "contrary" approach to elections, where we vote for the non-incumbent we feel is best fit for the job. Incumbents are far too affected to be effective anymore.

[Belthus]

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147461/Support-Third-Party-Dips-Majority-View.aspx?version=print), April 20-23


Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Neopergoss]

Interesting poll, Belthus. It makes me hopeful that as things get worse, public discontent will increase, forcing positive change. There aren't many positive signs yet, but maybe we just need to give things more time.