Why only two-parties in the US? Electability trumps Faction

[Crissa]

Fluorescent Dreams Wax Cylinders[/url]]I wanted to write that I'm voting for the candidate most likely to win the general Presidential election...

So I asked the question, 'Why is electability important to you?' and get some tripe about candidates needing the most votes to win or if they don't win the primary, they're unlikely to win the general election.

You know? This is why we don't have more than two parties. Americans are too invested in winning than participating in the party process.

A vote in the Primary is about electing the chap who represents your faction. A vote in the General is about ... Look! The same thing! ...And yet, people don't choose the person who represents them in the first vote and then whine that they don't get to choose in the second. Look, you have to start somewhere!

-Crissa

PS: It's totally an argument that many times, the majority of the states don't get to vote in the Primary. That's honest. But this year... This year we have the most candidates who will still be 'alive' by the first week in February, when the majority of the states will vote.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I actually intend to vote in the Virginia primary on the 12th.

Normally, I dislike politicians in general because they've all sold out to different extents. But I feel it is too important for a republican to not win the election that I'm actually watching and participating in this one.

[Fwib]

I read somewhere that you can make models of most free voting systems and show that (presumably with reasonable assumptions) they tend to lead to set-ups with two main power-blocks - whether they be parties, groups of parties, or whatever.

Like in the US there are the Democrats and the Republicans, here in the UK there are the Conservatives and Labour, and my Italian friend says in Italy, with its multitude of parties, they have two main coalitions ('The Union' and the 'House of Freedoms', wikipedia tells me).

[angelfromanotherpin]

"There will always be the party of the rich and the party of the poor." A Greek said that, back when their civilization was finishing political thought. It remains true today.

[Username17]

Yes, but in systems other than the winner takes all system we have, the direction of the two coalitions is subject to change. Within the Democrats you might have the environmentalist faction and the fiscal responsibility faction. They would agree on some things and not on others. If you could vote for the factional subfactions directly you could influence the overall outcome in a much more substantial way.

But yes, in the US of A your choices are Red or Blue. And you don't even get to choose Commie Red or Libertarian Blue - a vote for the Red Faction counts no differently if you support them on 51% of their proposals than if you support them across the board. And that's why crazy religious fundamentalists end up voting for rich people to not pay taxes and whole scale invasions of nations which didn't do anything to them. The faction that wants to loot the treasury and put black clouds into the air is willing to let the religious zealots have whatever weird thing it is that they want this week.

-Username17

[Falgund]

One solution to have elections where every candidate can participate without being detrimental to similar candidates is to give a note to every candidate instead of choosing the one you want.
Then, the candidate with the best average won.

Thus you don't need primaries, if people really likes the idea of both candidates they will give them the same note. And you will also be able to have more than two big political parties without similar ones "stealing votes" to each other.

Example:
3 candidates:
40% of the people digs for A (Vote 100%), but still like B (70%) and found C boring (20%)
20% are undecided (A, B and C: 50%)
20% only like C (A and B: 0%, C: 100%)
20% know that A is born dictator (0%), and root for B (100%), and don't really care about C being elected or not (50%)
Total:
A: 100%*40%+50%*20%=50%
B: 70%*40%+50%*20%+100%*20%=58%
C: 20%*40%+50%*20%+100%*20%+50%*20%=48%

-> B is elected.

The problem is that it may be too complex for some people, but iirc voting in the US is already complex (and perhaps it is possible to simplify it, maybe only giving 5 choices: Yes=100%, Somewhat Yes=75%, Maybe=50%, Somewhat No=25%, No=0%).

Also, the candidate that will be elected is the "least worse" instead of the "best". (Thus people who like to win won't like this system)

[Username17]

That gives the same results as just letting everyone put a check mark for every candidate they find acceptable. And while it does prevent similar candidates from interfering with each other, it in no way impedes the winner take all aspect nor the drift to simmilarity of political parties.

-Username17

[tzor]

One of the problems with talking about the two party system is that we tend to measure the presidency as the end all and be all of the process. Frankly it is not and this is why most third parties fail in the long term.

The goal of a third party should not be the White House. That is the political equivalent of winning the lottery, it's nice if you get it but don't bet the farm on that lotto ticket.

Politics in the US is both local and personal. In order for a viable party to rise up it has to be both otherwise it is just a legal mechanism for a person to make an independant run for the white house which has a slim to none chance of happening.

In order for any viable third party to form they need to start at the local level. It is at the local level we see the multi-party system at work. We really have two major minor parties in the U.S. The Conserative Party almost always does whatever the Republican Party says and the Liberal Party almost always does whatever the Democratic Party says but at the local level this is not always the case. I know someone who is active in the Republican Party curse under his breath at the former Town Supervisor who "switched parties" from Republican to Conserative ... in part because the former literally kicked him out after he tried to get compensation for the heart attack he got while in office.

On the federal level the goal of the third party is not the white house, but the senate. It only takes enough seats to give the third party enough votes that when combined with the minority party they have a 2/3 majority that they become a major player in Washington. (One example is a 40/35/25 split in the Senate.) Without their cooperation on either side nothing would get done.

Unfortunately, most third level parties are so small they simply struggle to survive. There is a law in some states that requires a political party to get a certain percentage of the vote in order to remain a political party. Thus as a result they will often unite with a larger party so that the question of electability and faction becomes moot. The Liberal and Conserative parties work under this model but also so do parties like the "Working Family" as well because they lack the first and most important requirement of any political party - viable candidates.

[Voss]

1200924233[/unixtime]]I actually intend to vote in the Virginia primary on the 12th.

Normally, I dislike politicians in general because they've all sold out to different extents. But I feel it is too important for a republican to not win the election that I'm actually watching and participating in this one.

You do realize that voting in the primary has no meaningful effect on the actual election, right? The real one where you choose Red or Blue? Just don't bother voting for Edwards. He's just wandering around hoping the winner will pick him for the VP slot in an effort to pick up a southern state or two in November.

By the time the VA primary rolls around, you're just going to be choosing between going on the books for 'first real black candidate or first real woman candidate'. Assuming Super Tuesday doesn't settle it for you.

The primaries are a little weird this year because they actually matter a little. Several of these candidates are questionable when it comes to electability in the national election, what with all the funky prejudices of the American public. Or at least the 25% percent or so of the total population that actual can and will vote.

You've pretty much have to coldly work out the odds. Mellow & Safe Black Guy can probably beat Crazy Religious Nut, but probably not Two-Faced War Veteran. He, in turn, might lose to Angry Queen of the Bitch People, but only if Chubby Hubby can continue to wrangle the 'minorities' into the voting booth. Not Particularly Conservative Catcher's Glove might be able to win with a centrist (and economy focused) position, but only if he can keep his family's freakishly deformed chins off national television. But he has to drag the whole fucking thing out and win delegates the hard way, because they're no way in hell he's outright winning primaries in the south.

That actually works, too. 'Winning' the primaries doesn't mean shit. (Except for the momentum thing in the next state, but even that isn't doing much this year) Most states divvy up their delegates based on the percentage of the vote the candidates actually got, which means in the states that have actually had primaries, Obama and Clinton basically have equal shares of the delegates, regardless of who actually won. Of course, with the funky pre-pledged delegate thing that the Dems do, Clinton actually has a fair lead.

On the GoP side, Romney is ahead on the delegate count despite the fact that he didn't 'win' the highly publicized primaries. As long as he can keep doing well, he doesn't have to actually win the South. And South Carolina has pretty much demonstrated that Huckabee can't win. If he can't take crazy southern states, he doesn't have a prayer in the rest of the country.

So take your pick. Obama or Clinton vs Romney or McCain.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Geez louise.


I tell people I don't participate in politics, and I get my shit jumped.

I then say that I've decided to get involved in the political process, and someone else jumps my shit.

You people suck, you know that?

[Voss]

Aww. Someone got their political naivety plucked. It sucks when the systems designed for fail, isn't it?

[tzor]

But Count ... Shit jumping is an olympic sport around here.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1200953486[/unixtime]]Aww. Someone got their political naivety plucked. It sucks when the systems designed for fail, isn't it?

Go fuck yourself. Seriously.

[Neeek]

1200946240[/unixtime]]

You do realize that voting in the primary has no meaningful effect on the actual election, right? The real one where you choose Red or Blue? Just don't bother voting for Edwards. He's just wandering around hoping the winner will pick him for the VP slot in an effort to pick up a southern state or two in November.

Uh. No, not really.

Voting in the primary has a huge effect on the general election. It determines who will be in the general election.

Though, frankly, The Count is best off voting in the GOP primary if not electing the Republican is what is important to him: McCain is the only guy they've got who can win the general. So votes for whomever is closest to McCain (or in first if McCain isn't winning) is pretty much a vote against the GOP. And I'm not even sure McCain can beat Obama, who is probably the best campaigner ever (going from 20 points down to a dead-heat in a month and a half is unbelievable).

Edwards isn't going to win, but that really doesn't matter much, because he can still get delegates, possibly enough to swing the election one way or the other. I'd be shocked if he took the VP slot even if it was offered to him. He'd probably prefer being AG or the head of Health and Human Services.

[Username17]

Especially because it is not even true. Your vote in the Primary actually matters quite a bit, although in a really weird way.

Each of the Democrats has a slight variation on the same themes. Contrary to what you see on Faux News, Hillary and Obama are not getting into a "race war" and are actually keeping things pretty high brow and friendly. When Clinton, Obama, and Edwards sat around a table to debate, they did so ammicably at a shared damn table.

But they do have slightly different platforms. And when the Democrats have their convention, the delegates they send will hash out a party platform and a strategy for the coming years.

Sure, Kucinich is not going to get elected. He is short and the American People only elect tall people. But a vote for him in the primary actually does put his primary issues up higher in the queue when the convention goes down.

---

Making fun of people for voting their conscience in the primary is wrong. Not just because you're being a jerk, but because you are physically and actually wrong.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Voss's post demonstrates why the Primary fails to work. His vote is basically worthless in the Primary.

Because 'winning' is more important to him than his own positions.

In this election cycle, all Democrats have polled better than all Republicans (with a few polls saying that McCain might be able to compete). So if you're voting in the Democratic Primary - you get to choose whoever you want.

Unlike what Frank says, the Democratic Party has tilted left - despite the current set of Senators - because of the last Primary. The leader of the Democratic Party is Dean. And we do have other factions. And because each state chooses their own Senator, that changes the mix of the whole party... Which is why many say the Democratic Party is weak: We have two Conservative factions 'Establishment' and 'DINOs' as well as Liberal factions (DNC for instance, Dean). Obama and Clinton are from the 'Establishment' faction, although Clinton is preferred by them. Edwards is from the DNC faction, being established by the middle of the party. Kucinich and Gravel represent the most Liberal faction, while Dodd is from the established Liberal faction.

Sure, it's a little more fluid, but someone from inside the party can point to the names and money that flock together.

Vote for the faction you want. It will influence the Party. That's how it's supposed to work. That's how it does work.

-Crissa

[Neeek]

1200957154[/unixtime]]The leader of the Democratic Party is Dean.

For now. If Clinton wins the primary, Dean's gone, and the Dems will be back to the DLC inanity that screwed the party for a couple decades.

[Voss]

Yes, yes. Party platform at the convention. I know. But its a general agreement compromise sort of piece of shit (based on their slight differences that they can't even articulate to the primary voters, let alone the general election voters) that doesn't mean anything, because they can't actually push most of it through the political system.

It still doesn't matter who the figurehead is at the end of the night. You're still just going to push the red button or the blue button when November rolls around, because those are the only real choices you're given.


Neeek- I'd say Romney has a shot. He's much better than McCain at telling people what they want to hear (as Michigan showed) and he has a lot more money. Those factors matter a lot more than 'Waa, waa, I was a POW and I change my positions every election cycle.'

[Neeek]

1200958935[/unixtime]
Neeek- I'd say Romney has a shot. He's much better than McCain at telling people what they want to hear (as Michigan showed) and he has a lot more money. Those factors matter a lot more than 'Waa, waa, I was a POW and I change my positions every election cycle.'

Michigan showed that people from Michigan voted for the guy from Michigan. Romney's dad used to be their governor. Also, a bunch of Dems voted for Romney specifically to keep him and his piles of money in the race as long as possible.

McCain, despite 7 years of trying very hard to wreck his own reputation, still is seen by many as at least somewhat anti-partisan, and he is the only GOPer who gets any significant amount of Indy voters.

[Lago_AM3P]

I guess this is the place to bring it up.

I don't have anything against Hillary. I think she'll make a fine leader, but the amount of vast unearned hatred she draws, even from people who normally support her, might be a problem in the general election.

As in, people go to the voting booth just to vote against her. Even if she wins, these same people will go 'well, while I'm here, might as well vote for all of the other GOP candidates'.

What do you think? I've been hearing this meme a lot and while I don't quite buy it, I do believe that she attracts a lot more negative attention than the other candidates.

[Lago_AM3P]

But Jesus Christ won't I vote for her no matter what.

The Supreme Court--let alone our foreign and economic policy--is just way too damn important to even cast a 'teach her a lesson' vote that my parents did in voting for Ralph Nader.

All of the candidates running for the GOP are major scumbags; while Huckabee and Giuliani is a degree scummier than their compatriots, all of them are bad news. I fear for the future of this country if any of them win the general.

[Crissa]

If Clinton hatred mattered, she'd lose in national, state polls to each of the Republican candidates.

She doesn't.

In fact, she wins bigger than any of the other Democrats. Even 'unspecified'.

Try facts next time, 'kay? ^-^

-Crissa

[Neeek]

1200964566[/unixtime]]
In fact, she wins bigger than any of the other Democrats. Even 'unspecified'.

Uh...no, not really. Edwards generally leads those polls, Obama generally gets second, and Hillary gets third. They all usually beat all the GOPers other than McCain, who is generally a statistical tie with Obama and Clinton. Edwards actually beats McCain.

[Surgo]

That sure is a lot of talking about polls and throwing poll numbers around without actually linking to these polls.

[Neeek]

1200974803[/unixtime]]That sure is a lot of talking about polls and throwing poll numbers around without actually linking to these polls.

When I say "generally" that's exactly what I mean. I'm talking about 40 or 50 polls over a few months. I don't have the time it would take to provide that many links.