Even if they wanted to, the (D) and (R) system is so institutionalized that it'd be impossible to break in to the polls in a lot of states. Ballot access is near impossible in key states like PA

The R graph almost looks like a teabag...

El Chode: Ballot access is near impossible in key states like PA

There are enough states where it can be done where it would eventually be up to Pennsylvania to decide if it wanted to remain/become* relevant.

*-If it wanted to be relevant, it never would have voted Santorum into office.

Yeah, except people identifying themselves as "independent" have very little in common with each other....

I'd wager you'd have libertarians, communists, various and sundry off-brand fringe all mixed up with hard leftys and hard righty's and who knows what else.

never agree to anything, except maybe lower taxes.

jbc: There are enough states where it can be done where it would eventually be up to Pennsylvania to decide if it wanted to remain/become* relevant.

*-If it wanted to be relevant, it never would have voted Santorum into office.

Ballot access is a huge problem in most of the important states because the parties know that they need to defend their ranks. Some of the 3rd parties do have their ins in some states where they usually get easy access. Unfortunately, they're the Constitution Party, Green, and sometimes Libertarian.

Plus any serious attempt would have to try damn hard to not let the nutjobs run it into the ground.

If the LP would ever get an established candidate to flip, they might be able to gain some momentum.

slayer199: If the LP would ever get an established candidate to flip, they might be able to gain some momentum.

Bob Barr wasn't good enough?

\which is why I didn't even vote lib this time around.

El Chode: Even if they wanted to, the (D) and (R) system is so institutionalized that it'd be impossible to break in to the polls in a lot of states. Ballot access is near impossible in key states like PA

I propose a switch to proportional representation.

KaponoFor3: I propose a switch to proportional representation.

You'll get no argument from me. We could do House/Senate by making an open race for the entire state, top two vote winners get Senate seats and then fill out the House seats from 3rd on down depending on the state. I think it would work pretty well. Change Presidential to be straight plurality popular vote.

KaponoFor3: I propose a switch to proportional representation.

Instant runoff does a better job of keeping complete and utter whackjobs out of office.

Proportional representation is what gets ultranationalist, white power groups represented in Europe. Well, that and Italians having a strange love for buffoonish fascist types.

Obdicut: Proportional representation is what gets ultranationalist, white power groups represented in Europe

Hate them or not, their viewpoints are still allowed to be heard -- at least, the government cannot sanction them for thoughts, even if they are ultranationalist and racist ones.

The best way to combat such ideas is to shine a light on them and go "look how stupid this is".

KaponoFor3: Hate them or not, their viewpoints are still allowed to be heard -- at least, the government cannot sanction them for thoughts, even if they are ultranationalist and racist ones.

Sure. But not let them into political office. I'm not sure you're getting my point:

With instant runoff voting, everyone can vote for their "ideal" candidate, and their "safety" candidate, ad infinitum. There's a more mathematically nifty version, actually, that acts the same but with more of a genetic algorithm.

With proportional representation, you'll get more of the fringe elements-- the truly unreasonable fringe-- with actual votes, and actual power. It can balkanize things quite quickly.

I am entirely anti-censorship, because I agree entirely that the best way to combat dumb ideas is to shine a light on them, but that doesn't mean we have to set up the voting system so that it's easy for the dumb ideas to actually gain power and prominence.

You'll just get more of the lunatics like the ones in Texas elected. Our population is kinda especially vulnerable, since we have such radical fringes.

The marketplace of ideas needs all voices heard, and nothing stifled; actual governance takes pragmatism.

Oh, and runoff voting defeats gerrymandering, whereas proportional representation takes advantage of gerrymandering, in one direction or the other.

permanent republican majority
Permanent Republican Majority
PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY

Heh.

Obdicut: The marketplace of ideas needs all voices heard, and nothing stifled; actual governance takes pragmatism.

I am against banning any viewpoints from government, even stupid ones. If they play a role in passing unconstitutional/racist/hate laws, they would be struck down by the Court.

Obdicut: You'll just get more of the lunatics like the ones in Texas elected. Our population is kinda especially vulnerable, since we have such radical fringes.

Use my scenario though. How many seats can they get? If they all band together, they can get one Senate seat, or maybe half a dozen House seats. What can they do with that? Full state at large gives them representation, so they can't biatch, but it's so minimal they have no effect. Harmless.

KaponoFor3: I am against banning any viewpoints from government, even stupid ones. If they play a role in passing unconstitutional/racist/hate laws, they would be struck down by the Court.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I've said nothing about banning anyone from government, for god's sake. I'm talking about not setting up the voting system in a way that makes it easy for extremists to be elected. Proportional representation is along the path to pure democracy, which is universally derided as shiatty.

Proportional representation also cannot extend, in general, to the executive branch, so it doesn't solve any of the problems there. And, like I said, proportional representation is very good for gerrymandering.


The Condorcet method, with the Smith/Minimax resolution for circular ties, is the one I was thinking of.

Take a look at it; it's designed to choose the candidate that the voters prefer in a matchup to any other candidate; it would be the best system for allowing pragmatic, non-ideolouges to get elected.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

GAT_00: Use my scenario though. How many seats can they get? If they all band together, they can get one Senate seat, or maybe half a dozen House seats. What can they do with that? Full state at large gives them representation, so they can't biatch, but it's so minimal they have no effect. Harmless.

First of all, see my post below-- this doesn't solve any problems with electing executives.

Second of all, it means that whoever controls gerrymander power can basically control the election even of proportional representatives; you'd have to get rid of districts at the same time, and those actually serve a specific (and, for "states rights!" people, a useufl) function.

Third of all, it increases the imprint of ideologues in government, and makes it harder for pragmatic types to be elected. I prefer a system that allows people to be elected less on ideology and more on pragmatic concerns, but you could call that my own ideology if you wanted.

Obdicut: Second of all, it means that whoever controls gerrymander power can basically control the election even of proportional representatives; you'd have to get rid of districts at the same time, and those actually serve a specific (and, for "states rights!" people, a useufl) function.

I'm actually suggesting tossing the districts. I don't see how that would be a states rights issue, the state would keep the same number of Representatives as they do now. All the Reps would just be At Large.

As for the rest, I think that's just differences in opinion.

A socially liberal / tolerant / neutral party with a core platform of fiscal responsibility and an emphasis on better governance. Never gonna happen, I know, but that's my ideal.

GAT_00: I'm actually suggesting tossing the districts. I don't see how that would be a states rights issue, the state would keep the same number of Representatives as they do now. All the Reps would just be At Large.

If someone argues for states rights, they generally argue that the more local your representation, the better it is; otherwise there's not much use in arguing for states rights. So you're bumping the reps up one level of remove from the voters, and, to anyone who supports states rights because local government is more responsive and better, it removes that benefit.

I'm neutral on that aspect of it. I'm just pointing out if you're pro-states rights from a 'local governance is superior' position, that's inconsistent with wanting proportional representation.

I think proportion representation might be marginally better than what we have now, at the cost of letting more fringe in on the national level (and god knows we've got enough already.) However, I think that the Condorcet method I specified above is superior.

Basicaly the condorcet method says that if you want Candidate A a lot, and Kapono3 wants candidate B a lot, and I want candidate C a lot, but we all think that candidate D is a guy who won't screw us over and we can trust, then candidate D is elected and we're all equally disappointed, and we get a more moderate, pragmatic representative who knows that's why he was elected.

With proportional representation, you can have Balkanization ad infinitum, or you can have basically the republicans and the democrats with subsidiary parties, or it can work well. It's much more of a crapshoot to me.

The likelihood of election systems changing in our lifetimes is desperately low, in my opinion, though, making this deeply academic.

Libertarianism is the way to go... But the problem is too many people hear the word and think it means liberal... when in reality its kinda mixture of the two... Socially liberal, but conservative economics... and less government all around! I love it!

Anarcho-Capitalist sounds like it would be fun for a little while... cuz it'd be like every man for himself and the everyday streets would be a bloody lawless warzone!
/used to subscribe to anarcho-capitalism, until I starting working for the gov't... I know, what a traitor I am.

Obdicut: I think proportion representation might be marginally better than what we have now, at the cost of letting more fringe in on the national level (and god knows we've got enough already.) However, I think that the Condorcet method I specified above is superior.

I'll have to read that tomorrow.

greenz: Libertarianism is the way to go

No, no, no, no, no. Libertarian economic policies are the absolute worst of the worst, nothing more than a police state where the people controlling the cops are the CEOs. It would take the current system's problems and magnify them five and ten fold while doing nothing positive. We'd be back at working conditions of the early Industrial Revolution, but with a modern police state to back up the companies. Fark that. Communism is more likely to work than Libertarianism.

greenz: Libertarianism is the way to go... But the problem is too many people hear the word and think it means liberal... when in reality its kinda mixture of the two... Socially liberal, but conservative economics... and less government all around! I love it!

Big L Libertarianism? Because that's a fail-on-fail sandwich with a side of good ideas and a nice, cold glass of pure insanity to drink.

Occam's Chainsaw: Big L Libertarianism? Because that's a fail-on-fail sandwich with a side of good ideas and a nice, cold glass of pure insanity to drink.

Social libertarianism is nice, but it doesn't really provide any sort of economic theory.

Georgism is something I'm very fond of, but transitioning to it would be incredibly hard, and it's not something you can do halfway.

Obdicut: Social libertarianism is nice, but it doesn't really provide any sort of economic theory.

And economic libertarianism is that fail-on-fail sandwich I was talking about. It's corporatist feudalism with money taking the place of heredity.

Georgism is something I'm very fond of, but transitioning to it would be incredibly hard, and it's not something you can do halfway.

It seems like one of those really great ideas on paper that would be utterly impractical in the real world.

We should form anarcho-syndicalist commune. Then take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

There is no real need for a third party, we just need two parties, one of which represents an intelligent and thoughful application of true conservative principles (small government, strong defense, fiscal responsibility) and another which represents an intelligent application of liberalism. That's all.

Unfortunately, the GOP seems to have become basically the conservative version of the G20 protestors, all of whom hated something(s), they're just not sure exactly what, but they hate it. Cross a Spanish Inquisition holy prosecutor with banjo boy from Deliverance, add some robber baron, and you have the current GOP base.

I don't see, even now, that there is sufficient inertia to create a third party which can take over the role of intelligent conservatism. At the same time, I also don't see how the GOP can regain some degree of control over itself, it has sold itself to the fundamentalists to such a degree that criticizing the party now equates in the minds of many people who have no idea what the word "equate" means to criticism of God himself, who despite having a 15 billion light year universe to manage, is focused only on one planet, one country on that planet, and then only certain (largely white, of course) people in that country that ascribe to very specific political ideologies.

What I see in the near term is the GOP continuing to wander as it flagellates itself in its own predictable but entirely stupid version of Mao's Cultural Revolution, and with largely the same results. And as much entertainment as I get out of that in one way, as many people here do, because of the flatly evil hubris and damage caused by the Bush administration, it will be a bad thing for all of us if the centrists of the GOP do not find a way to gain control and marginalize the extremists. There always must be intelligent and capable opposition; if such does not exist, either party is perfectly capable of starting to believe that in fact its shiat does not stink, and they do indeed have all the answers, and we end up with a left version of the turdpile created by Bush and friends.

slayer199: If the LP would ever get an established candidate to flip, they might be able to gain some momentum.

The LP is going to need to make some...erm...minor adjustments before it becomes anything but a romantic ideal that disaffected two-party refugees sometimes fantasize about. Especially after it's been demonstrated that the absence of oversight can bring this nation collectively to its knees. I've heard LP talking heads run the gamut from health care to lasseiz fare , but the persistent association with anarchy lite is gonna turn off a lot of people.
Also, what prevents the libertarians from absorbing the fundies in the same power grab as before? That group is going to want to align with someone, as forming their own party of whackjobs will be a non-starter. Someone has to absorb them, right?

As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

I want to be the Keg Party candidate!

I think the body politic is too trained to the two Party system for there to be a meaningful third party. That doesn't mean that the Republicans have to continue to be one of the two, though. They could become the fringe depository of all the cranks and reactionaries.

The problem is that Independents seem to be united in nothing more than party independence, they range all over the place in beliefs. A new opposition party will need to coalesce around an actual platform, and attract some heavyweight political talent.

I_Love_Verdi: As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians Greens to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical actual liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

FTFY

The Libertarian Party doesn't have a chance. They are big L libertarians, which is far too scary to most people. If they would lighten up and go with a little L platform, they might be able to get a decent following. It might also help if they would run a presidential candidate who doesn't act like he's off his medication.

The TEA Party is way too new and the only thing clear about them is taxes and fiscal responsibility (I support them on these items). A political party is much more than those two platform planks, however. I'm taking a wait an see attitude with them.

The Greens are mostly idiots who don't care that their entire platform of environment over everything would hurt the environment more than help it. To put it very simply, a guy who can't buy food won't have a second thought about shooting an endangered animal to feed his family.

All other third parties are too insignificant to even consider.

What I want: Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Not everything needs government involvement. Even good social things don't necessarily need government involvement. Stop taxing me to control my behavior. If I choose to drink booze, eat cheeseburgers, and smoke like a chimney, that's my business. It's not the government's business to decide how I should live my life. This also means the government doesn't get involved in the bedroom of consenting adults. Those of you who support taxes to control behavior are inviting the government into their bedrooms since you've opened up the door to government interference in personal decisions. Take a stand on all things personal and tell the government, "it's none of your farking business!"

Unfortunately, I expect the next election to be nothing more than the usual cast of preselected clowns.

Never going to happen. Any third party would cause the Perot/Nader effect to occur.

What we need is a preferential voting system. That way, I can give my vote to the centralist purple candidate, but still make sure that the blue candidate has priority over the lunatic red candidate (or vice-versa).

I'd especially like to see the Single transferable vote system implemented. However, since it was pioneered in Tasmania, I'm sure that the extreme right would call it a tool of the devil, given for what animal Tasmania is famous for.

lajimi: I want to be the Keg Party candidate!

You know the rules. You have to drink the entire keg in one sitting to be considered qualified for office.

From what I remember from the last attempt to nominate a candidate, one person claimed to have drunk an entire keg. Unfortunately, no one was conscious enough to verify his claim.

Dinjiin: Never going to happen. Any third party would cause the Perot/Nader effect to occur.

What we need is a preferential voting system. That way, I can give my vote to the centralist purple candidate, but still make sure that the blue candidate has priority over the lunatic red candidate (or vice-versa).

I'd especially like to see the Single transferable vote system implemented. However, since it was pioneered in Tasmania, I'm sure that the extreme right would call it a tool of the devil, given for what animal Tasmania is famous for.

Never going to happen. The Republicans and the Democrats would unite in force to defeat any attempt to implement such a system.

OgreMagi: If they would lighten up and go with a little L platform, they might be able to get a decent following. It might also help if they would run a presidential candidate who doesn't act like he's off his medication.

I know the perfect candidate. He doesn't even need meds anymore. I'll grab the shovel if you carry the just-in-case chainsaw.

onebadgungan: I_Love_Verdi: As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians Greens to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical actual liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

FTFY

"Classical liberal" actually means more of a libertarian philosophy on politics. We've usurped the term "liberal" to mean progressive. But I don't understand your logic regarding the green party... care to explain?

I'm all for third parties (as well as fourth and fifth parties), but I don't see it happening anytime because of the way the US constitution is set up. The powers given to the Senate are much greater than most other bicameral systems, and access to the senate is much more difficult than to the house. The third party problem, afterall, is a catch-22, people won't vote for them unless they look like they can do something, and they won't be able to do anything until they get votes. With the powers of the senate set up as is, third parties are going to have a hard time breaking through.

Another funny problem is the complete circus that is the American political lexicon. The meanings of such terms as 'liberal', 'conservative', and 'socialist' have been so confused that parties will have a hard time selling themselves to skeptic voters. What would a centrist party call itself? The progressives?

onebadgungan: I_Love_Verdi: As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians Greens to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical actual liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

FTFY

From a practical sense I mean I don't see this leading to massive gains for the green party any time soon. I know a lot of people who I think would vote Green but decided (as I did) to vote with the Democrats to make more incremental gains towards a similar end. It may be misguided in your opinion but my main concern was pragmatism in approaching a more permanent progressive policy. If we get to the point where the ideals of the Democratic party are seen as conservative (in American eyes, anyway) then I'm on board.

OgreMagi: Never going to happen. The Republicans and the Democrats would unite in force to defeat any attempt to implement such a system.

Depends on the state. In battleground states with a high number of independents that still have a somewhat accessible referendum system, I could see it having a chance.

Only problem is that several states have made passing referendums nearly impossible. States that are deeply red or blue have gone the opposite direction, passing top-two voting systems that completely lock out third parties (and sometimes, the #2 party as well).

Seth'n'Spectrum: What would a centrist party call itself? The progressives?

The Aristocrats.

RIPublicans.

Stay Cool Babylon: Also, what prevents the libertarians from absorbing the fundies in the same power grab as before? That group is going to want to align with someone, as forming their own party of whackjobs will be a non-starter. Someone has to absorb them, right?

I think it's likely were' going to see the Republican coalition shatter into 3 pieces - the Religious Faction (I call them Dominionists because, well, they're Christian Domininonists), the big business faction, and everyone else. Everyone else is weak willed, they are sickened by the big business faction and scared of the Domninionists.

I think the most likely thing is a large number of them breaking off and joining the Democrats. Indeed, large numbers of them have all ready in the last election. Democrats will curb spending somewhat to draw them in, while putting the spending where they want. That will be all the invitation a large number of them need. Without the social constriction of the Dominionists (who will be a regional party at best), I think the third wheels - the gay marriage, the gun issue, ect will be unimportant except to small slivers.

That said, a lot of this is going to be due to the personal charisma of leaders like President Obama. After 100 days, I don't know a whole lot of people who are displeased with Barack, so I'm not planning on seeing him get surprised by 2012. If the democrats want to be successful in '16, though, I would start a very intensive search for very talented young Obama-ish politicians right now. Don't ride the horse until you need to put a bullet in it - develop your next pile of talent now before you need it.

Now there's a few x-factors. One, terrorism - the media will crucify Barack if there's a terrorist attack. Two, Big Business. They don't like their reliable powerbase being soaked away, so they might do some big time funding of other people to undermine the President.

Those not withstanding, I think the Democrats, if they keep their wits about them, can enjoy a very healthy majority for a significant length of time. No jokes about permanent majorities, just a solid run if they don't fark it up or something completely unexpected happens.

saintstryfe: Those not withstanding, I think the Democrats, if they keep their wits about them, can enjoy a very healthy majority for a significant length of time. No jokes about permanent majorities, just a solid run if they don't fark it up or something completely unexpected happens.

This worries me. I much prefer it when the party that controls Congress is not the same party as the president (or when the House and Senate are split). This forces negotiation for just about everything instead of craptastic bills getting rushed through with little or no discussion.

I_Love_Verdi: onebadgungan: I_Love_Verdi: As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians Greens to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical actual liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

FTFY

"Classical liberal" actually means more of a libertarian philosophy on politics. We've usurped the term "liberal" to mean progressive. But I don't understand your logic regarding the green party... care to explain?

Well, I'm registered Green, and for a while there I was pretty up on their platform. But then I got focused on the last couple of presidential races and lost touch with it. I do know, though, that the Dems are not near left enough for me. They are more middle-right.

I support the Obama health care plans, and the bailout, and the release of the torture memos. And I know he has a lot to do before he can rally get to things I'd like to see, such as making welfare a more workable program, decriminalizing pot (even though I don't touch the stuff), regulating the power industries and other utilities, etc. I would like to see religion relegated back to the personal choice with no hand in government. I'd like to return to the free state colleges for a four year degree. A doctorate, etc would cost, but everyone could get a bachelors. (I have an associates.)

I guess I meant to remove the "I don't agree with them" part of your statement, but it is late. I will say that I don't think the greens, at least as far as I remember, are a "environment over everything" party. I know that was their initial focus, but there has to be more to a platform to be a national party. I would have to familiarize myself again with the platform, but from what I recall it appealed to me quite a bit when I joined. (I guess that's stupid to say. Of course it did, or I would not have registered green. I'm tired.)

I'd like to see a mixed ticket - i.e.: a Dem pres and Green vp. That would be cool. I think if that were allowed to happen, there would be much less kvetching. Well, from the left.

I_Love_Verdi: onebadgungan: I_Love_Verdi: As much as I disagree with them, I'm waiting for the libertarians Greens to step up and deliver the knockout punch. I think with a strong, organized body of classical actual liberals we can finally have the constructive policy debate this country is in desperate need of.

FTFY

From a practical sense I mean I don't see this leading to massive gains for the green party any time soon. I know a lot of people who I think would vote Green but decided (as I did) to vote with the Democrats to make more incremental gains towards a similar end. It may be misguided in your opinion but my main concern was pragmatism in approaching a more permanent progressive policy. If we get to the point where the ideals of the Democratic party are seen as conservative (in American eyes, anyway) then I'm on board.

Actually, I'm right there with you. I did the same thing. Violent agreement, here.

OgreMagi: This worries me. I much prefer it when the party that controls Congress is not the same party as the president (or when the House and Senate are split). This forces negotiation for just about everything instead of craptastic bills getting rushed through with little or no discussion.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. The only reason they have such broad control now is because they're soaking up moderates in order to build majorities. American representative are ridiculously independent and one-party control means next to nothing. In countries with a parliamentary system, its a similar story. You wonder why in a system like Britian's, where the same party controls both the legislature and the executive, they stil have some balance. Its because prior to forming a winning coalition, the party leader has to broker promises across the board and is therefore trapped by these promises, lest he/she be subject to a backbench revolt. The two systems have basically the same effect, except the horse-dealing comes either before or after people are in office.

Those graphs with the story are really something.