the very act of authentic competition and debate is an act of bipartisanship. the opposite is just farking with the other side to try and make them fail, with little regard for arguing your point.

burndtdan: the very act of authentic competition and debate is an act of bipartisanship.

indeed. the act of competition allows the bad ideas from both sides to be burned away, leaving the good ones remaining.

SilentStrider: burndtdan: the very act of authentic competition and debate is an act of bipartisanship.

indeed. the act of competition allows the bad ideas from both sides to be burned away, leaving the good ones remaining.

That seems backwards... well, in our world anyway.

Maybe in a country where people could understand ideas more complex than the Superbowl there could be real politics. Here ?

heh, yeah right.

submitter: Our goal should be, above all, authentic competition

But, that would require voters to actually pay attention to the issues and educate themselves about various candidates' viewpoints.

So, err... good luck with that.

I gotta get back to work on my bird/pig hybrid. I think it has a better chance of success.

Some of the worst monstrosities to come out of Washington have been "bipartisan"- the Patriot Act, the recent bailout frenzy, the Drug War, the Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act (aka McCain-Feingold), etc., etc...

Mixing dog shiat and horse shiat does not magically produce potpourri.

Two entrenched parties swapping power back and forth every couple of years isn't much of a democracy. The enactment of antifusion laws with consistent SCOTUS backing is a travesty.

If you want to really break the two-party system, scrap Weeners the post and adopt some form of preferential voting. Figuring out some way to elect the House other than the outdated system of arbitrary geographic districts would be good, too.

I'm not really a fan of official party lists- as far as I'm concerned political parties are private organizations whose actions endorsing candidates should have no legal recognition- but just as a thought exercise, imagine what would have happened if the 2008 House elections had used proportional representation. Based on national House election vote totals, the next Congress would have 4 Libertarians, 3 independents (if you lump all indies together, which obviously isn't how it would work on a party list system), 2 Greens, and 1 member of the Constitution Party. The ability to start off by electing a small caucus to the lower house of the legislature is always going to be the necessary first step in building a viable third party (as opposed to individual-centered efforts like Perot or Jesse Ventura), because it allows them to get a foot in the door with regards to government policies so they can start actually demonstrating how they'd be different. Cutting off competition for lower offices really does much more to relegate third parties to unelectable status than anything at the Presidential level.


Going back to the vote total breakdowns, the Libertarians also would have won a Senate seat, granted doing something like that in the Senate would be a much bigger change than in the more democratic House. Obviously applying these numbers like this is somewhat imperfect given the outliers of races contested by only one major party candidate. Still, the overall House numbers are reasonably representative of what these parties' candidates got in three-way House races.

Churchill2004: scrap Weeners the post

That's some rather unpleasant imagery.

/preview, preview, preview

That article was chock full of fail.

GoodCopBadCop: Two entrenched parties swapping power back and forth every couple of years isn't much of a democracy. The enactment of antifusion laws with consistent SCOTUS backing is a travesty.

Nothing is going to change any time soon. There are still too many morans out there who believe their party is always right, and anyone who disagrees is a moran full of whaargarble. Independents are also full of whaaargarble as they don't always agree with my party.

Churchill2004: Churchill2004: scrap Weeners the post

That's some rather unpleasant imagery.

/preview, preview, preview

My ex-wife could probably sell you some cheap.

Churchill2004: Some of the worst monstrosities to come out of Washington have been "bipartisan"- the Patriot Act, the recent bailout frenzy, the Drug War, the Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act (aka McCain-Feingold), etc., etc...

All popular pieces of legislation with the public (at least at the time); and, many of them continue to be popular- especially the drug war, despite our disagreements with it.

Churchill2004:
Going back to the vote total breakdowns, the Libertarians also would have won a Senate seat, granted doing something like that in the Senate would be a much bigger change than in the more democratic House. Obviously applying these numbers like this is somewhat imperfect given the outliers of races contested by only one major party candidate. Still, the overall House numbers are reasonably representative of what these parties' candidates got in three-way House races.

Which Libertarians would get elected? Who do they respresent?

Government is, and pretty much always will be, representative of geographic regions. Many of the third parties simply take too many ridiculous stances and ideological burdens for them to populate an area successfully.

sloppy shoes: All popular pieces of legislation with the public (at least at the time); and, many of them continue to be popular- especially the drug war, despite our disagreements with it.

Pointing out that they were popular doesn't mean much- arguably their popularity was in large part a product of bipartisan support rather than other way around. When the Rs and Ds agree on something, it's much less likely that an opposing viewpoint will get airtime. Now we're wandering off into Chomsky territory, though. And no one wants to go there.

Churchill2004: That's some rather unpleasant imagery.

/preview, preview, preview

filters don't show up in the preview

/i've farqbacked about that before, it's really annoying because some filters simply remove entire sections of words

sloppy shoes: Which Libertarians would get elected? Who do they respresent?

Under a simply party-proportional system, the party would prepare a list before the election and the top 4 from the list (.92% * 435 = 4.002) would be seated in the House. They would represent the entire nation, rather than any particular district.

Though there are ways to have proportional representation and geographic districts through what's called mixed member proportional representation. Australia and Germany both use something like it if I recall correctly. That would probably be better suited to the US House.

sloppy shoes: Government is, and pretty much always will be, representative of geographic regions.

That's nonsense. Geography is certainly a major factor, but it is not only factor and has in fact long been on the decline in the US.

sloppy shoes: Many of the third parties simply take too many ridiculous stances and ideological burdens for them to populate an area successfully.

I just pointed out that they got enough votes to qualify them for several House seats if we simply used a more representative voting system. And that's votes they got under the current system, where everyone knew they were essentially casting a "wasted vote".

Churchill2004:
Pointing out that they were popular doesn't mean much- arguably their popularity was in large part a product of bipartisan support rather than other way around. When the Rs and Ds agree on something, it's much less likely that an opposing viewpoint will get airtime. Now we're wandering off into Chomsky territory, though. And no one wants to go there.

So we shouldn't do something if both parties agree on it? Or should we only enact legislation if all the third parties agree on it? Or should we just never enact legislation?

Now, many of the examples you listed do have credible problems and vocal opposition. But you are correct- if enough Republicans and Democrats agree, it is much less likely to have the opposition that will discredit the legislation enough to get passed. But, this is a problem with Democracy and representative government.

The reason most Libertarians don't get elected or get major political airtime is because you simply don't represent the philosophies and issues of many Americans. Further, most third parties are centered around a few issues rather than an overarching structure needed to actually manage government. Contrary to what anarcho-minimalists think, most people make a lot of demands upon those that represent them, and the process we have developed is far from perfect, but a collusion of what we need.

So, yes, popularity of legislation has a lot to do with it and government. No matter my dismay, this affects murder legislation, drug legislation, economic legislation, and gay rights legislation. If I'm in the minority, by de facto rules of social systems and the natural ways of politics, the burden is upon me to change the majority. Hopefully, if I have credible arguments- over time- I will be successful.

sloppy shoes: Many of the third parties simply take too many ridiculous stances and ideological burdens for them to populate an area successfully.

Utah?

Churchill2004:
I just pointed out that they got enough votes to qualify them for several House seats if we simply used a more representative voting system. And that's votes they got under the current system, where everyone knew they were essentially casting a "wasted vote".

Over the entire 'voting' United States you claimed they represented less than 1% of the voting population. That is miniscule. (sp?)

Further, contrary to what you think about "geography," representatives do represent their regions interests and issues. Now, you certainly have an ethical obligation to also think about the rest of the country; but, it is absurd to think that politicians don't help their districts.

The system you propose is not necessarily more representative. AT best, it is equally representative but in different ways. If we did what you are proposing, though, the system would be far more focused on whoever gains power and is able to maintain it. It would also require the parties to be far more altruistic and dependent upon caring for the whole country, and not just their particular favorite regions. How many politicians from Idaho, Wyoming, etc... would be selected in your "national" elections where the parties pick a top list of politicians? Virtually none without requirements. But, with requirements, then we are just back to where we are.

You are largely upset that your fringe minority view of politics- less than 1% of the voting population- is poorly represented. But, by your own statistics, it should be poorly represented. You represent very little nationally, and even less in local regions.

TheOther:
Utah?

And they had to found their own state, concede to national obligations, and they are still somewhat fading in the overall political culture out there. There are many liberal areas of Utah- but it is still very conservative by national standards, yes.

sloppy shoes: So we shouldn't do something if both parties agree on it? Or should we only enact legislation if all the third parties agree on it? Or should we just never enact legislation?

You're being obtuse. The point isn't that any particular piece of legislation is bad or good because of who supports it, it's that bipartisan support is no indicator of better legislation.

sloppy shoes: Now, many of the examples you listed do have credible problems and vocal opposition. But you are correct- if enough Republicans and Democrats agree, it is much less likely to have the opposition that will discredit the legislation enough to get passed. But, this is a problem with Democracy and representative government

It's also a problem with an electoral system that inevitably trends towards two-party stagnation rather than genuine competition. Just because elections are generally free and fair doesn't mean they're as representative of public opinion as they could be. The voting method matters, and first-past-the-post is one the least representative voting methods.

sloppy shoes: The reason most Libertarians don't get elected or get major political airtime is because you simply don't represent the philosophies and issues of many Americans.

Again- it's not that they can't get the votes. I just explained that- they did get the votes in 2008, and have been for quite some time. It's that under the current system, you either have to have a near-majority or you get nothing at all. The system does not allow for parties that draw smaller amounts of votes to have any representation, even when their vote totals are high enough that allowing them seats in the legislature would make the legislature more representative of voter opinion.

sloppy shoes: Further, most third parties are centered around a few issues rather than an overarching structure needed to actually manage government

I don't really see how that's true of the Libertarians, Greens, or Constitution Party. You can debate the desirability of their policies all you want, but they all enunciate a coherent agenda for the entire range of government policies.

sloppy shoes: Contrary to what anarcho-minimalists think, most people make a lot of demands upon those that represent them, and the process we have developed is far from perfect, but a collusion of what we need.

You're trying to turn this into an excuse to rant against libertarianism, and that's not what we're talking about.

sloppy shoes: So, yes, popularity of legislation has a lot to do with it and government. No matter my dismay, this affects murder legislation, drug legislation, economic legislation, and gay rights legislation. If I'm in the minority, by de facto rules of social systems and the natural ways of politics, the burden is upon me to change the majority. Hopefully, if I have credible arguments- over time- I will be successful

You're completely missing the point. "Our system is representative" is not a counter-argument to the point that the system could be more representative, and that it's worse off now because of the lack of representation for certain voters.

The very phrase bipartisanship creates a false dichotomy that the only option is two parties.

sloppy shoes: And they had to found their own state, concede to national obligations, and they are still somewhat fading in the overall political culture out there. There are many liberal areas of Utah- but it is still very conservative by national standards, yes.

Still, gay libertarian Baptists could take over a low-population existing state like Wyoming.

Bipartisan should be as dirty a word as unilateral. The better term would be nonpartisan.

sloppy shoes: Over the entire 'voting' United States you claimed they represented less than 1% of the voting population. That is miniscule. (sp?)

.92% of the House of Representatives is 4 seats. That's certainly noteworthy.

sloppy shoes: Further, contrary to what you think about "geography," representatives do represent their regions interests and issues. Now, you certainly have an ethical obligation to also think about the rest of the country; but, it is absurd to think that politicians don't help their districts.

Yes, legislators "help" their district. Arguably that's one of the worst things about the current system- pork for votes. But in general the important issues of today are not really geographical or sectional in nature. Certainly not like it used to be in the US.


sloppy shoes: The system you propose is not necessarily more representative

The composition of the legislature better reflects the composition of the votes cast. That's the very definition of representative.

I'm not making this shiat up. More or less "representative" is the criteria scholars studying and theorizing about voting systems have used for centuries.

sloppy shoes: If we did what you are proposing, though, the system would be far more focused on whoever gains power and is able to maintain it.

How so? I don't see that at all. Isn't that what the system's all about from the partisan perspective no matter what?

Also, note that I'm not really proposing any one system. I would actually be opposed to any system that used party lists. I'm just advancing a wide range of possible alternatives to simple, antiquated plurality voting.

sloppy shoes: It would also require the parties to be far more altruistic and dependent upon caring for the whole country, and not just their particular favorite regions

Again, I don't see this at all. The incentive would be exactly the other way around- the parties would have to have an agenda of national interest, and would have little to gain by appealing to specific localities. That's assuming our hypothetical preferential and/or proportional system did away with geographic representation altogether, which is exceedingly unlikely (though I'd support it).

sloppy shoes: How many politicians from Idaho, Wyoming, etc... would be selected in your "national" elections where the parties pick a top list of politicians? Virtually none without requirements. But, with requirements, then we are just back to where we are

Again, that would only be an issue if we fully did away with geographic representation. And the idea of having regional (along with gender, race, etc.) requirements for party lists is far from unheard of. Many system that use party lists have such requirements, and though I wouldn't support them, they're a wholly different beast from single-member constituencies.

sloppy shoes: You are largely upset that your fringe minority view of politics- less than 1% of the voting population- is poorly represented. But, by your own statistics, it should be poorly represented.

By my own statistics, they should have a (albeit small) number of seats in Congress.

sloppy shoes: You represent very little nationally, and even less in local regions

Who's this "you"? I'm not affiliated with any particular third party.

Churchill2004:

1. I'm not being obtuse. You are arguing that popularity and majorities don't matter. Whether or it's a plurality, majority, or super majority, you need some method for passing legislation. But, popularity is also a figure for good legislation. It's not the only figure, as I suggested in my other post, but it has to be a factor. As I also indidcated- I may hate anti-gay marriage legislation, but it is wildly popular in many places and has attached itself to thirty state constitutions or in their legal code. That is a significant observation in and of itself.

2. The reality is that most Americans have a lot in common and share many beliefs. The fringe parties do not represent these beliefs. Further, they structure themselves around issues, mostly, rather than comprehensive government.

3. As I stated, your voting system is largely not representative. In fact, it simply represents parties more than people or areas. Parties are able to change under the current system, and they do as time passes. The Democratic party is nothing that it was 100 years ago.

4. You can't get the votes. Less than 1% of the overall voting population is a statistical joke. Further, you get representation in the media.

5. I'm not turning this into a rant against libertarianism. I'm using that party as an example of why third parties don't really represent the people. Having an ideology is simply not enough. In reality, you must bring progress, benefits, and projects to your district. Further, you must build support in your district for what they want- an example is the many midwestern republicans breaking with the overall party concerning the Auto bailout. Ideology alone is not enough because most people aren't really that ideological.

6. The system will never represent everyone- only direct democracy would do that. You get certain representation in the media, and significantly in internet forums. Further, there are some lower areas that have third party representation. But, to be a national representative, you must represent a large area. Most third parties simply do not represent the issues of a significant amount of people.

Churchill2004: the parties would have to have an agenda of national interest,

Probably, an even more generic, platitude-driven platforms than we have now. Not a good thing.

sloppy shoes: I'm not being obtuse. You are arguing that popularity and majorities don't matter.

No, I'm not. I never said any such thing.

sloppy shoes: Whether or it's a plurality, majority, or super majority, you need some method for passing legislation. But, popularity is also a figure for good legislation. It's not the only figure, as I suggested in my other post, but it has to be a factor.

Popularity is not a measure of good policy. Legitimately enacted, perhaps, but many of the failures we're talking about- the drug war, for instance- are enacted on the basis of objective, factual misunderstandings that are not in any way mitigated by democratic majority. Besides, you seem to think that the system is affected by what's popular, and that it never goes the other way. In reality the system itself plays a huge role in how public opinion is formed.

sloppy shoes: 2. The reality is that most Americans have a lot in common and share many beliefs. The fringe parties do not represent these beliefs. Further, they structure themselves around issues, mostly, rather than comprehensive government.

This is just a bare assertion that completely ignores my response to this point. And it's also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand- this isn't about what third parties advocate.

sloppy shoes: 3. As I stated, your voting system is largely not representative.

You stated it, but you didn't do anything else about it. You completely reject the meaning of "representative" as it's understood by anyone who studies voting systems.


sloppy shoes: In fact, it simply represents parties more than people or areas.

Again, you completely ignore what I'm actually saying. I wouldn't support a system that institutionalized party lists. I just gave it as an example of an alternative system, because it's possible to make a rough approximation of how that system would have turned out in 2008.

sloppy shoes: Parties are able to change under the current system, and they do as time passes. The Democratic party is nothing that it was 100 years ago

That's not what this is about. It's about the competitiveness between existing parties.

sloppy shoes: 4. You can't get the votes. Less than 1% of the overall voting population is a statistical joke.

And yet again you completely ignore the point I made about how many House seats that equates to.

sloppy shoes: 5. I'm not turning this into a rant against libertarianism. I'm using that party as an example of why third parties don't really represent the people. Having an ideology is simply not enough. In reality, you must bring progress, benefits, and projects to your district. Further, you must build support in your district for what they want- an example is the many midwestern republicans breaking with the overall party concerning the Auto bailout. Ideology alone is not enough because most people aren't really that ideological

And none of that is possible in a system specifically set up in a manner where third parties don't get any elected representatives in proportion to their votes. That's part of my point- third parties can't get their foot in the door by electing small numbers of lower offices. It's an all-or-nothing system, which inevitably leads to two-party stagnation rather than dynamic, fluid competition.

sloppy shoes: . The system will never represent everyone- only direct democracy would do that

The system will never be perfect, so we shouldn't improve it?

sloppy shoes: You get certain representation in the media, and significantly in internet forums.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

sloppy shoes: Further, there are some lower areas that have third party representation. But, to be a national representative, you must represent a large area. Most third parties simply do not represent the issues of a significant amount of people.

I explained, and you continue to ignore, how various third parties won enough votes to receive several seats in Congress if the composition of the House reflected the votes cast.

Churchill2004: How so? I don't see that at all. Isn't that what the system's all about from the partisan perspective no matter what?

Also, note that I'm not really proposing any one system. I would actually be opposed to any system that used party lists. I'm just advancing a wide range of possible alternatives to simple, antiquated plurality voting.

People cross party lines or don't vote all the time.

And if you are opposed to parties, what system would you propose? Who would pick the candidates that we are voting for? A group of rich people? A group of people bounded by similar ideas? A group of people bounded by a region?


As for your other comments,

1. I'm not arguing that a system can't be more or less representative. What I said was that your system was at best equally representative, but in a different way; at worst, it is far less representative.

2. "Pork" is not always bad.

3. If you didn't propose getting rid of geographic requirements, what did you propose? You said that Libertarians should get 4 representatives, yet what region or districts would they represent?

4. You are less than 1% of the voting population overall, but not in any particular area. That is why the number is insignificant. Again, there are other political outlets to get your views heard.

5. You have not really made any arguments as to why your system is "more respresentative" other than it directly represents the mathematical ratios. However, there is more to government and political action than mathematical ratios.

And before you jump me on the apparent contradiction in my first two replies there, let me explain. Popularity is not a measure of good policy. It speaks only to the legitimacy of enacting the policy.

It's really pointless trying to have a conversation about this with someone who is completely ignorant of the whole science of voting systems. When I say a certain system is more "representative" than another, I'm used the exact same definition used by scholars and scientists who have been studying the issue for centuries. You're completely talking past me because you aren't comprehending the references to the wide range of ideas out there.

Churchill2004:

1. Popularity is a measure of "good" policy. All the people who support the drug war would consider it good. If you have scientific or factual disagreements with why they consider it good, as I said before, by de facto social system, you must convince them otherwise.

2. Yes the system does reinforce itself, but not necessarily a "huge" role. People's beliefs are more formed by their experiences, knowledge, and background more than the overall political structure. Politics changes over time, as I said.

3. The point that third parties don't present an overall structure of government is hugely important. It plays to the fact that they really don't "represent" the people. Representation is not simply a mathematical ratio. I am not a scholar of those who study representative systems, but all the college professors who I know would agree that representation is more than just the mathematical ratio of voters to a party.

4. If 1% equates to 4 house seats- what districts do they represent? If you are eliminating districts, what do you propose instead? You have not yet explained this.

5. You can get your foot in the door in smaller elections. That is how parties grow.

6. You have not really presented any reason why your system is more competitive. As I stated earlier, your system would require an elimination of geographic specialties, which in and of itself would be a huge loss of competition. Those who study competition- or at least economists who study competition- will tell you that the number of firms in the picture does not mean more competition.

7. What does representation mean then? (for you, at least)

8. Whose districts would those libertarians represent?

Churchill2004: It's really pointless trying to have a conversation about this with someone who is completely ignorant of the whole science of voting systems. When I say a certain system is more "representative" than another, I'm used the exact same definition used by scholars and scientists who have been studying the issue for centuries. You're completely talking past me because you aren't comprehending the references to the wide range of ideas out there.

From another wikipedia link: Disadvantages of proportional respresentative systems. Link (new window)

n practical terms, proportional systems tend to give results with different properties, at least compared to traditional plurality systems. Namely, it tends to create more fractionalized results with small, often single-issue parties or candidates. Whether this is a desirable or undesirable property is hotly debated. Detractors claim that a legislature dominated by factions is sometimes unable to form a consensus on a particular issue.

Many proportional systems have a thresholding system to minimize the damage that these single-issue factions can cause. In these systems, only parties which receive more than some minimum percentage of votes receive representation.

As I said- representation is not simply the mathematical ratio of voters. That is a very limited definition.

Churchill2004: And before you jump me on the apparent contradiction in my first two replies there, let me explain. Popularity is not a measure of good policy. It speaks only to the legitimacy of enacting the policy.

Again, you have to define "good." As I said in earlier posts, it was a measure of validity and "goodness," but not the only one.

sloppy shoes: 1. Popularity is a measure of "good" policy. All the people who support the drug war would consider it good. If you have scientific or factual disagreements with why they consider it good, as I said before, by de facto social system, you must convince them otherwise.

Then on what grounds can you declare those policies bad?


sloppy shoes: 2. Yes the system does reinforce itself, but not necessarily a "huge" role. People's beliefs are more formed by their experiences, knowledge, and background more than the overall political structure. Politics changes over time, as I said.


It is a proven fact that the voting system used is the biggest single factor in the number of viable, competitive parties that are represented in the government/legislature. Denying this is literally on par with denying evolution or that the earth is round.

sloppy shoes: 3. The point that third parties don't present an overall structure of government is hugely important.

I still don't see what you're getting at. The national platforms of the three "major minor" parties are all available online, and all three state a broad agenda for the entire range of government policies. These are not single-issue parties, any more than the two major parties are.

sloppy shoes: It plays to the fact that they really don't "represent" the people

For the purposes we're talking about, they represent the people who vote for them just as much as any other candidate.

sloppy shoes: Representation is not simply a mathematical ratio. I am not a scholar of those who study representative systems, but all the college professors who I know would agree that representation is more than just the mathematical ratio of voters to a party.

When it comes to voting systems, representation has a very clearly defined meaning and it is largely mathematical.

sloppy shoes: 4. If 1% equates to 4 house seats- what districts do they represent? If you are eliminating districts, what do you propose instead? You have not yet explained this.

sloppy shoes: 8. Whose districts would those libertarians represent?


For the umpteenth time, my hypothetical was a single national multi-member constituency. The same result could be achieved through mixed member proportional system, in which "at large" members are added as necessary to bring a party's number of seats in line with their vote totals.

sloppy shoes: 5. You can get your foot in the door in smaller elections. That is how parties grow

No, you can't under the current system. That's my point.

sloppy shoes: 7. What does representation mean then? (for you, at least)

How closely the composition of the legislature matches up to the intent of the voters. Under the current system, a party that gets any number of votes, but not a majority in a single constituency, is denied representation and thus effectively so are those who vote for it. There are alternate voting systems, that are just democratically legitimate, that can fix this problem.

sloppy shoes: As I said- representation is not simply the mathematical ratio of voters. That is a very limited definition.

That's not a matter of how representative the system is, that's a dispute about whether or not more representative is necessarily better. In other words, it's an argument over whether or not a two-party system is functionally better than a multiparty system at producing good policy.

Besides, the experience of the numerous countries where such systems exist shows that smaller parties with broad agendas are much, much more common and successful than single-issue campaigns.

Churchill2004:

1. I have reasons for declaring them bad. My point was that other people have reasons to declare them good. There is not universal way to prove good. The point is that if you strongly oppose a policy then fight it. If you don't care to do that, live with it- this will happen in any system.

2. I didn't say anything about the "number of political parties that are viable. What I said was that the parties don't necessarily guide people's beliefs- we guide the party's beliefs. Now, I did say that experiences and background influence beliefs- so in some ways your existing form of government does affect your views on government, but it would be hard to come up with an exact beta coefficient for this effect. Again, extreme competition can exist in a 2 firm situation.

3. The third parties "overall platform" for government is not reprsentative for the majority, or even a large minority of Americans. That is why I say they are mainly single issue parties.

4. Representation is not simply a mathematical formula. A good reason why it is not is that you simply don't equate every value you have with your representative. For instance, a Republican can represent democrats by siding with them on certain issues and obtaining their votes. You will never have a system, besides direct democracy, that directly represents all of your concerns. The fact that third parties really can't propose

5. Third parties do win smaller elections- so some have gotten their foot in the door. You are wrong if you think they can't win smaller elections.

6. For the "umpteenth time," if you eliminate geographic districts you eliminate a very real method of representation. Politics can be and are very geographic. Political solutions vary by region. As I said above, eliminating this would lead the parties to be excessively fragmented into single issue selections- which in and of itself is retarded- or it would lead politics to be dominated by a party system that is geared towards isolated ideologies. Like I said- they both have their own practical problems that affect representation.

7. As I said before- there is more to representation than a mathematical ratio. It is foolish to think a party can represent your whole ideology. Most Americans don't claim to be broadly represented by any party consistently- they are 'independents.' The system you propose eliminates this form of representation- broad representation- in form of minute single issue parties. However, government deals with a lot of issues, so in reality you lose a lot of overall representation.

Churchill2004:
That's not a matter of how representative the system is, that's a dispute about whether or not more representative is necessarily better. In other words, it's an argument over whether or not a two-party system is functionally better than a multiparty system at producing good policy.

Besides, the experience of the numerous countries where such systems exist shows that smaller parties with broad agendas are much, much more common and successful than single-issue campaigns.

NO, this has nothing to do with "two party" versus "multi-party." The point is that government deals with a lot of issues day to day. Much of what you consider to be "pork" is important funds allocated to a district for necessary projects.

But, the system you propose requires an ideological party stance on all issues. In reality, our system is not like that day to day. For instance- Nancy Pelosi did not make the TARP program a partisan issue, force the party whip to convince members to vote for it, and elected officials were free to vote against it- and many did based on responses for their districts.

As I said before- you are shifting the responsibilty of representation to ideological party stances, rather than geographic standards which have their own advantages. At best, you are creating a system which is equally representative, but in a different way. At worst, you are creating a system which is less representative and more responsive to ideological and single issue stances.

sloppy shoes: 2. I didn't say anything about the "number of political parties that are viable. What I said was that the parties don't necessarily guide people's beliefs- we guide the party's beliefs. Now, I did say that experiences and background influence beliefs- so in some ways your existing form of government does affect your views on government, but it would be hard to come up with an exact beta coefficient for this effect. Again, extreme competition can exist in a 2 firm situation

When the system forces an artificial shoe-horning of the entire range of opinion into two options, ideas that would otherwise be heard are effectively shut out.

And while "extreme competition" might be theoretically possible, it sure as hell doesn't exist in the current system, and voting theory explains why it is extremely unlikely to ever exist under plurality voting.

sloppy shoes: 3. The third parties "overall platform" for government is not reprsentative for the majority, or even a large minority of Americans. That is why I say they are mainly single issue parties.

That is not what single-issue means.



sloppy shoes: 4. Representation is not simply a mathematical formula. A good reason why it is not is that you simply don't equate every value you have with your representative. For instance, a Republican can represent democrats by siding with them on certain issues and obtaining their votes. You will never have a system, besides direct democracy, that directly represents all of your concerns. The fact that third parties really can't propose

This seems to be just "It can't be perfect, so don't bother trying to improve it".

sloppy shoes: 5. Third parties do win smaller elections- so some have gotten their foot in the door. You are wrong if you think they can't win smaller elections

Look, I'll put it simply. Why does the German legislature look like this?




Do you really think it's because the American electorate only has two views about how the government should be run? That we're that much less ideologically diverse?

sloppy shoes: 6. For the "umpteenth time," if you eliminate geographic districts you eliminate a very real method of representation. Politics can be and are very geographic. Political solutions vary by region. As I said above, eliminating this would lead the parties to be excessively fragmented into single issue selections- which in and of itself is retarded- or it would lead politics to be dominated by a party system that is geared towards isolated ideologies. Like I said- they both have their own practical problems that affect representation

Since you clearly understood my answer to the question, since you've answered it before, why did you demand I answer it again?

sloppy shoes: 7. As I said before- there is more to representation than a mathematical ratio. It is foolish to think a party can represent your whole ideology. Most Americans don't claim to be broadly represented by any party consistently- they are 'independents.' The system you propose eliminates this form of representation- broad representation- in form of minute single issue parties. However, government deals with a lot of issues, so in reality you lose a lot of overall representation

You really don't seem to understand what a "single issue" party is. The Marijuana Party would be a single issue party. All parties have their own ideological agenda- the major parties no less than the minor ones. All a two-party system does is ensure that only two ideologies will be represented.

sloppy shoes: NO, this has nothing to do with "two party" versus "multi-party."

That is exactly what it's about.

sloppy shoes: But, the system you propose requires an ideological party stance on all issues. In reality, our system is not like that day to day. For instance- Nancy Pelosi did not make the TARP program a partisan issue, force the party whip to convince members to vote for it, and elected officials were free to vote against it- and many did based on responses for their districts

You're talking about something completely different- the idea of party discipline. Party-line voting is indeed more prevalent in party-list systems (though exactly what you're describing is still exceedingly common in Congress), which is one reason I said I don't support such a system that institutionalizes political parties.

sloppy shoes: As I said before- you are shifting the responsibilty of representation to ideological party stances, rather than geographic standards which have their own advantages. At best, you are creating a system which is equally representative, but in a different way. At worst, you are creating a system which is less representative and more responsive to ideological and single issue stances

Despite my constant protests to the contrary, you still seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating one particular system. I'm not. I would much prefer a system of preferential voting to a party-proportional system.

Churchill2004:

1. Democrats and Republicans vary widely by region. The reality is that politics is much more regional and geographic than it is by ideology. Ideological stances represent a minority of overall political opinion, which is why Democrats and Republicans cross party lines all the time.

2. Most third parties are single issue. And, when they do get large number of votes their issues are taken up.

3. By your own statistics the third parties represent a statistically insignificant amount of voters. Again, what you are proposing is a switch from politics by region to politics by major issue or select ideological stance. However, this has its own problems- including the fact that most Americans don't really gravitate to overarching ideological stances. For instance, Republican Senators in the midwest voted for the auto bailout because it benefited their regions and was important to their voters.

4. I answered your question again because you are ignoring the practical realities of what you are suggesting. You are claiming there are no practical "representation" problems with what you are suggesting when clearly there are.

5. Actually, I do understand what a "single issue" party is. For instance, even the Libertarian party would be described as a single issue because they take a single ideological stance that they apply to the overall spectrum of problems. However, as I said above, the Democratic and Republican parties are highly regional (and technically defined by state).

Again, what you are proposing is not really "more representative," but largely just representative in a different way. Further, I'm not arguing our current system is perfect- far from it. I do, personally, think it is better than what you are proposing.

Churchill2004:
You're talking about something completely different- the idea of party discipline. Party-line voting is indeed more prevalent in party-list systems (though exactly what you're describing is still exceedingly common in Congress), which is one reason I said I don't support such a system that institutionalizes political parties.

Despite my constant protests to the contrary, you still seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating one particular system. I'm not. I would much prefer a system of preferential voting to a party-proportional system.

1. The bold part first- if you are arguing for one system over the other- whether or not it is your "ideal" system- you are advocating for it. ad⋅vo⋅cate -verb (used with object)
--to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly

2. You can't argue for the system you are suggesting without institutionalizing political parties. You must define some way in which we elect representatives. SO far you have claimed you don't want parties or geographic regions. What, then, do you propose as your ideal?

--Now, you could be claiming that you dislike the idea of organized power or parties, but that is a reality that you will always face. Humans are collectivized. We make alliances. So you won't really necessarily change the way politics works or the overall system, but you will make it more private and harder to identify alliances and dealings.

Churchill2004

I enjoyed the conversation. I think you're wrong, but it's been fairly intellectual- so that's always exciting.

Going to bed or watching a movie; might be back in awhile. Hopefully you'll get more support and prove me wrong when the thread opens up!

sloppy shoes: Churchill2004

I enjoyed the conversation. I think you're wrong, but it's been fairly intellectual- so that's always exciting.

Going to bed or watching a movie; might be back in awhile. Hopefully you'll get more support and prove me wrong when the thread opens up!

Somewhat frustrating, but I think we were groping towards an understanding. Good show.

Americans seem to be content with the Democrat and Republican wings of the Corporatist Party.

Churchill2004: I'm not affiliated with any particular third party.

In my case, the democrats seem to do good things overall. However, there are 1 or 2 things they do that just ruin it for me.

Conversely, the republicans do every possible thing on the planet to piss me the fark off. But there are, at most, maybe 2 things they do that I find acceptable.

Having said all of this, I feel much better, safer and happier having the democrats in charge.

Churchill2004: If you want to really break the two-party system, scrap Weeners the post and adopt some form of preferential voting. Figuring out some way to elect the House other than the outdated system of arbitrary geographic districts would be good, too.

I'm not really a fan of official party lists- as far as I'm concerned political parties are private organizations whose actions endorsing candidates should have no legal recognition- but just as a thought exercise, imagine what would have happened if the 2008 House elections had used proportional representation. Based on national House election vote totals, the next Congress would have 4 Libertarians, 3 independents (if you lump all indies together, which obviously isn't how it would work on a party list system), 2 Greens, and 1 member of the Constitution Party. The ability to start off by electing a small caucus to the lower house of the legislature is always going to be the necessary first step in building a viable third party (as opposed to individual-centered efforts like Perot or Jesse Ventura), because it allows them to get a foot in the door with regards to government policies so they can start actually demonstrating how they'd be different. Cutting off competition for lower offices really does much more to relegate third parties to unelectable status than anything at the Presidential level.


Going back to the vote total breakdowns, the Libertarians also would have won a Senate seat, granted doing something like that in the Senate would be a much bigger change than in the more democratic House. Obviously applying these numbers like this is somewhat imperfect given the outliers of races contested by only one major party candidate. Still, the overall House numbers are reasonably representative of what these parties' candidates got in three-way House races.

The problem with your big tent idea is that you end up being like European countries, with their ten thousand different parties within their parliaments.

Germany for example: The Greens, the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the socialists, and all of the little nook parties that have one or two or three seats. There is no discipline, and things move sclerotically.

Then again, if you want less law coming from congress, it might be a good thing.

Bipartisanship in this country often takes the form of people who say the sky is green compromising with people who say the sky is red to say the sky is yellow.

When that's not the case it's people who say the sky is blue versus people who believe the sky is red (who do you believe, me, or your lying eyes?) who end up compromising that the sky is purple.

We're too 'diverse'; nearly everyone is a non-reflective kool-aid drinker, or a shill of varying degrees of consciousness.

That there is (or can be) a genuine competition of ideas between those sorts of parties is illusory.

We are now just waiting for the wheels to come off completely.

RemyDuron: Bipartisanship in this country often takes the form of people who say the sky is green compromising with people who say the sky is red to say the sky is yellow.

When that's not the case it's people who say the sky is blue versus people who believe the sky is red (who do you believe, me, or your lying eyes?) who end up compromising that the sky is purple.

I like this analogy. It's like politicians insisting that the world is black, white or gray while I insist on it being colored. Yet I'm called a racist for using the word colored.