- This topic has 45 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
mike92104.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 7, 2010 at 8:56 AM #547634May 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM #548245
poorgradstudent
ParticipantThe big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
May 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM #547664ParticipantThe big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
May 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM #548518ParticipantThe big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
May 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM #547553ParticipantThe big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
May 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM #548147ParticipantThe big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
May 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM #548280briansd1
Guest[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. We have a winner takes all system.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th party in America. The conservatives would never win presidential elections.
And conservatives would never be able to build a coalition in Congress because social conservatives and business interests are inherently at odds. Right now, it’s a marriage of convenience for them within the Republican party.
May 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM #548553Guest[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. We have a winner takes all system.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th party in America. The conservatives would never win presidential elections.
And conservatives would never be able to build a coalition in Congress because social conservatives and business interests are inherently at odds. Right now, it’s a marriage of convenience for them within the Republican party.
May 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM #547699Guest[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. We have a winner takes all system.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th party in America. The conservatives would never win presidential elections.
And conservatives would never be able to build a coalition in Congress because social conservatives and business interests are inherently at odds. Right now, it’s a marriage of convenience for them within the Republican party.
May 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM #548182Guest[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. We have a winner takes all system.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th party in America. The conservatives would never win presidential elections.
And conservatives would never be able to build a coalition in Congress because social conservatives and business interests are inherently at odds. Right now, it’s a marriage of convenience for them within the Republican party.
May 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM #547588Guest[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
[/quote]
Yes I agree. We have a winner takes all system.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th party in America. The conservatives would never win presidential elections.
And conservatives would never be able to build a coalition in Congress because social conservatives and business interests are inherently at odds. Right now, it’s a marriage of convenience for them within the Republican party.
May 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM #548355Eugene
ParticipantWhat we really need is to do away with the primary system. The way things work now, sensible moderate candidates can’t hope to win primaries for either party, because they would get steamrolled by their wingnut colleagues. So they run as independent or they don’t run at all. And it’s hard to win as independent. (Looks like Crist might pull it off in Florida, which is an excellent example.)
It would be interesting to see what happens if the Tea Party formally secedes from the Republican Party. At first, neither fraction would ever get more than 10-15 seats in the Senate. That would force them to adjust and rethink their strategies.
May 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM #548257ParticipantWhat we really need is to do away with the primary system. The way things work now, sensible moderate candidates can’t hope to win primaries for either party, because they would get steamrolled by their wingnut colleagues. So they run as independent or they don’t run at all. And it’s hard to win as independent. (Looks like Crist might pull it off in Florida, which is an excellent example.)
It would be interesting to see what happens if the Tea Party formally secedes from the Republican Party. At first, neither fraction would ever get more than 10-15 seats in the Senate. That would force them to adjust and rethink their strategies.
May 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM #547663ParticipantWhat we really need is to do away with the primary system. The way things work now, sensible moderate candidates can’t hope to win primaries for either party, because they would get steamrolled by their wingnut colleagues. So they run as independent or they don’t run at all. And it’s hard to win as independent. (Looks like Crist might pull it off in Florida, which is an excellent example.)
It would be interesting to see what happens if the Tea Party formally secedes from the Republican Party. At first, neither fraction would ever get more than 10-15 seats in the Senate. That would force them to adjust and rethink their strategies.
May 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM #548628ParticipantWhat we really need is to do away with the primary system. The way things work now, sensible moderate candidates can’t hope to win primaries for either party, because they would get steamrolled by their wingnut colleagues. So they run as independent or they don’t run at all. And it’s hard to win as independent. (Looks like Crist might pull it off in Florida, which is an excellent example.)
It would be interesting to see what happens if the Tea Party formally secedes from the Republican Party. At first, neither fraction would ever get more than 10-15 seats in the Senate. That would force them to adjust and rethink their strategies.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.