Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-close
192 comments
> I mean honestly how is it possible that of the 300 million people spread across one of the largest (geographical) countries in the world and one of the most diverse populations on the world, exactly half want one person to represent them, and exactly half want one other person to represent them.
They don't; just like the article says, it's an effect of the first-past-the-post election model. Two strong parties emerge out of that.
Not sure why some people consider the Democratic party "extreme". They most definitely seem like a moderate party. The Republican party, well, they're just incredibly laser focused on cutting taxes on the rich.
They don't; just like the article says, it's an effect of the first-past-the-post election model. Two strong parties emerge out of that.
Not sure why some people consider the Democratic party "extreme". They most definitely seem like a moderate party. The Republican party, well, they're just incredibly laser focused on cutting taxes on the rich.
> Not sure why some people consider the Democratic party "extreme". They most definitely seem like a moderate party. The Republican party, well, they're just incredibly laser focused on cutting taxes on the rich.
And Republicans would say the opposite. This is why we never get anywhere.
And Republicans would say the opposite. This is why we never get anywhere.
I don't think we can so easily simply paint both parties as mirror images of each other. The Republican party seems obviously broken.
As an EX democrat, I'd say the Democrat party is broken too, the amount of election fraud, and corruption in the party makes it look like the Mafia. The whole system is broken and we need to pass the anti-corruption bill asap, if we're to have a chance to take back our country from wall street.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A
EDIT: I say ex loosely.. I voted mostly dem. down the line, but wrote in Bernie Sanders, I'm not fond of Jill Stein something about her doesn't seem right. But I couldn't in good conscience do a protest vote for Trump, and I can never support Clinton, the most corrupt politician of the past 40 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A
EDIT: I say ex loosely.. I voted mostly dem. down the line, but wrote in Bernie Sanders, I'm not fond of Jill Stein something about her doesn't seem right. But I couldn't in good conscience do a protest vote for Trump, and I can never support Clinton, the most corrupt politician of the past 40 years.
I voted for Jill Stein though she is (recently, apparently) anti-nuclear energy, and before that said some silly things about vaccinations and WiFi.
There is no perfect candidate other than perhaps yourself. When it comes to third party, you can safely consider your vote a vote for the party values themselves, rather than the candidate in particular. A vote for Jill Stein is really a vote for the major political parties to work on more green legislation.
There is no perfect candidate other than perhaps yourself. When it comes to third party, you can safely consider your vote a vote for the party values themselves, rather than the candidate in particular. A vote for Jill Stein is really a vote for the major political parties to work on more green legislation.
I feel that Jill's not that intelligent she's lacking in a lot of areas. Bernie is just brilliant all around. I figured I'll at least pick someone that I can feel confident about supporting, in the end I kind of hope Trump gets it for no other reason than to show the DNC they picked the wrong duck.
I actually led the charge on my site PivotAmerica.com to encourage people to go green/vote for Jill, but I don't really think it's possible to break up the two party monopolies anytime soon, and her opinions on vaccines, and nuclear energy are disconcerting.
A nuclear power plant is NOT the same thing as a weapon of mass destruction. And you can't just print money like she wants to do for the education plan - Bernie's plan of raising taxes on speculation makes way more sense. But I did throw my vote to down-candidate dems. But Hillary ran the shadiest campaign I've ever seen, and is one of the most corrupt people in the world. I'd say she's worst than Bush / Cheney imho, or at least not far removed in policy. (THey both supported the Iraq war after all).
I actually led the charge on my site PivotAmerica.com to encourage people to go green/vote for Jill, but I don't really think it's possible to break up the two party monopolies anytime soon, and her opinions on vaccines, and nuclear energy are disconcerting.
A nuclear power plant is NOT the same thing as a weapon of mass destruction. And you can't just print money like she wants to do for the education plan - Bernie's plan of raising taxes on speculation makes way more sense. But I did throw my vote to down-candidate dems. But Hillary ran the shadiest campaign I've ever seen, and is one of the most corrupt people in the world. I'd say she's worst than Bush / Cheney imho, or at least not far removed in policy. (THey both supported the Iraq war after all).
From Trump's plan for his first 100 days in office (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-pledges-to...):
>First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.
>Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.
>Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
>Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
>Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.
>There is another major announcement I am going to make today as part of our pledge to drain the swamp in Washington. If I am elected President, I will push for a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
>Decades of failure in Washington, and decades of special interest dealing, must come to an end. We have to break the cycle of corruption, and we have to give new voices a chance to go into government service. The time for Congressional term limits has arrived.
If you wanted to actually do something about corruption in Washington instead of just talking about it, you should have voted Trump.
>First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.
>Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.
>Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
>Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
>Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.
>There is another major announcement I am going to make today as part of our pledge to drain the swamp in Washington. If I am elected President, I will push for a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
>Decades of failure in Washington, and decades of special interest dealing, must come to an end. We have to break the cycle of corruption, and we have to give new voices a chance to go into government service. The time for Congressional term limits has arrived.
If you wanted to actually do something about corruption in Washington instead of just talking about it, you should have voted Trump.
Even the shallowest dive into Trump's business dealings would show you that he is no stranger to corruption.
I personally do not believe that he would enact a single one of those campaign pledges.
I personally do not believe that he would enact a single one of those campaign pledges.
He can't enact them. The presidency isn't a dictatorship.
I don't know why people keep acting like it is - Trump isn't going to ride into Washington on a white horse and pass a Constitutional amendment or fund a massive immigrant detainment and deportation program or convince Mexico to pay for a wall through sheer willpower.
At best, he'll try, and either have to compromise significantly to get anything passed at all, or else fail entirely.
I don't know why people keep acting like it is - Trump isn't going to ride into Washington on a white horse and pass a Constitutional amendment or fund a massive immigrant detainment and deportation program or convince Mexico to pay for a wall through sheer willpower.
At best, he'll try, and either have to compromise significantly to get anything passed at all, or else fail entirely.
I hope trump wins because he'll be out in 2020 and maybe we get a better Pres. sooner than later. But he won't get any of his promises passed, they won't even make it to the congress floor. He'll be a lame duck president, and nothing more. I don't even see him wanting to run for re-election, as I feel this is a stunt to get more publicity for his reality TV empire.
I've heard that argument before, and it kind of amuses me. It's as if to say, yes, Hillary is awful, but if she's elected she'll probably do a good enough job that she will win re-election in four years time.
Those two things don't seem to go together well to me.
Those two things don't seem to go together well to me.
While reducing the influence of lobbyists is a laudable goal, it's hard to imagine how anyone could honestly see Trump as a fighter against corruption. His own business has been far too riddled with corruption and scams.
notoothpaste(1)
To _you_ the GOP seems broken. To millions of other people the GOP is fine. To millions of others the Democratic party is broken.
If you can't recognize faults in both _you_ are the problem. Nothing in politics--especially subjective issues like this--are black and white.
If you can't recognize faults in both _you_ are the problem. Nothing in politics--especially subjective issues like this--are black and white.
I'm not going to dispute that both parties have their problems, but the GOP's leadership is actively at odds with the people they purport to represent. That seems pretty broken.
The Democrats have, for the most part, at least rallied behind their candidate.
The Democrats have, for the most part, at least rallied behind their candidate.
Both parties have plenty of faults, but lately the Republicans have refused to even do their job in governing the US, and have promised to undermine the Supreme Court with their misguided power games.
It seems like it's you who have painted me in black and white. Who says I can't recognize flaws in the democrats? But it seems obvious that the flaws in the Republican party are much, much worse.
Again, you must recognize that the other side will and does say the exact same thing.
That doesn't make them right, or me wrong.
From what I heard so far, Hillary was helped/favored ovet Sanders in a very obvious but secret way by leaderahip of Democrat. Isn't that a sign of broken Dem?
That depends on your point of view. Clearly the party has a lot of control over who they nominate, unlike the Republicans, who lost complete control over their nomination process.
Perhaps parties shouldn't have such tight control over things; I certainly would have strongly preferred Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Still, it's a party. Technically it is up to the party to decide who they nominate. That they use primaries to make this decision is certainly nice and democratic of them, but it's not a legal requirement, and it wasn't always like that.
The thing that's really broken is the entire political system that only offers these two parties as realistic options. But the Republican party has also become really dysfunctional over the past decade or so, where representatives and senators basically refuse to do their job and work to undermine the country by their political gamesmanship.
Perhaps parties shouldn't have such tight control over things; I certainly would have strongly preferred Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Still, it's a party. Technically it is up to the party to decide who they nominate. That they use primaries to make this decision is certainly nice and democratic of them, but it's not a legal requirement, and it wasn't always like that.
The thing that's really broken is the entire political system that only offers these two parties as realistic options. But the Republican party has also become really dysfunctional over the past decade or so, where representatives and senators basically refuse to do their job and work to undermine the country by their political gamesmanship.
If you're referring to this election specifically I actually envy the Republicans. Trump was able to cut through the party and rally a huge base basically by himself. Even if he loses it's an amazing opportunity for the party to reinvent itself.
Meanwhile the Dems double-down on the status quo year after year.
Meanwhile the Dems double-down on the status quo year after year.
Obama was the status quo? Bill Clinton was the status quo? Carter was the status quo? JFK was the status quo?
How many times were Reagan and Nixon going to run before they got the nod? McCain? Romney? W's singular skill was being the son of a former President.
Yeah, Hillary is running for Obama's third term. But otherwise Dems don't double down year after year. That'd be the Republicans. Trump's bull in a china shop approach doesn't change this.
How many times were Reagan and Nixon going to run before they got the nod? McCain? Romney? W's singular skill was being the son of a former President.
Yeah, Hillary is running for Obama's third term. But otherwise Dems don't double down year after year. That'd be the Republicans. Trump's bull in a china shop approach doesn't change this.
> Hillary is running for Obama's third term
Yes. And I consider them both neocons as was the George W. administration. That's what I'm referring to as the status quo.
As a lifelong democrat I'm very excited to see what happens to the GOP in the next few years. I don't expect the DNC to change in a significant way.
Yes. And I consider them both neocons as was the George W. administration. That's what I'm referring to as the status quo.
As a lifelong democrat I'm very excited to see what happens to the GOP in the next few years. I don't expect the DNC to change in a significant way.
As a lifelong Republican I'm not. It's going to be a bitter fight as the GOP either decides to shed its alt-right folk or embrace them and the GOP is going to come out rough either way.
There's a definite divide between the moderate GOP and the new, hard right GOP that far surpasses the small, somewhat positive divide when the tea party movement came to be ca 2009.
There's a definite divide between the moderate GOP and the new, hard right GOP that far surpasses the small, somewhat positive divide when the tea party movement came to be ca 2009.
You do realize that the alt-right, the KKK, and the Nazis stand for genocide, right?
I'm not entirely convinced that the alt-right isn't a boogeyman. Not sure what the KKK or the Nazis have to do with anything.
Trump has courted the white supremacist vote.
In fact, he was just officially endorsed by the KKK's official newspaper... his whopping 2nd newspaper endorsement!
In fact, he was just officially endorsed by the KKK's official newspaper... his whopping 2nd newspaper endorsement!
Not really interested in why the KKK supports Trump, very interested in why almost half of voters do.
Why the KKK supports Trump is rather telling about what Trump stands for, as is the fact that he has retweeted numerous white supremacists. It's not exactly that it's a one-way street where he can't help that they vote for him; he likes them, courts, them, retweets them, and has never distanced himself from them.
They might be related...
They are very real. Check out the Daily Stormer if you don't believe me.
Drumpf is supported by David Duke, the KKK and legions of neo-Nazis.
To an outside observer (i.e myself) both thed Democrats and Republicans (moreso) might seem very right wing.
> cops lives matter AND civilian lives matter
This isn't an issue that needs a middle ground. Black Lives Matter never said that cop lives don't. It didn't need to be said that cop lives matter because cops were already treated as though their lives mattered. When a cop gets killed nobody says "Well, he probably had it coming".
This isn't an issue that needs a middle ground. Black Lives Matter never said that cop lives don't. It didn't need to be said that cop lives matter because cops were already treated as though their lives mattered. When a cop gets killed nobody says "Well, he probably had it coming".
>Well he probably had it coming
I've witnessed people saying exactly that. You can't argue that anti-cop violence is any less real of a problem than anti-black violence. What about the shooting in Dallas?
I've witnessed people saying exactly that. You can't argue that anti-cop violence is any less real of a problem than anti-black violence. What about the shooting in Dallas?
BLM should really have been called Black Lives Matter Too
That would certainly have cleared up this confusion where some people seem to read it as "Only Black Lives Matter". Nobody ever said that, but opponents seem to be arguing that that's what BLM means.
" People who watch Fox news don't want to hear about Trump rape allegations, they want to watch news casters talk about Evil Hillary. It's the reverse for CNN."
I think you are falling into your own "black or white" trap here.
Sean Hannity is singular in the way he is a sycophant for Trump. I struggle to think of a similar personality for Hillary on any other news network. I mean, CNN made a point to hire Trump's former campaign manager, and he seems to be on the air around half the time I randomly turn on their channel.
I think you are falling into your own "black or white" trap here.
Sean Hannity is singular in the way he is a sycophant for Trump. I struggle to think of a similar personality for Hillary on any other news network. I mean, CNN made a point to hire Trump's former campaign manager, and he seems to be on the air around half the time I randomly turn on their channel.
notoothpaste(1)
"cops lives matter AND civilian lives matter" Who says otherwise, seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Nobody (credible) says so outright, but by dismissing the concerns of either group who says one or the other, it is said implicitly. I felt that Michael Jordan, of all people, issued one of the more competent statements on the matter. He highlighted both the distrust that black people have of police due to some of the recent violent incidents, as well as the tremendous service that officers provide by literally risking their lives, and spoke about those who do so with integrity in a respectful manner.
Because this is the only real solution. We have to acknowledge the arguments and feelings of both sides, not shout one another down.
Because this is the only real solution. We have to acknowledge the arguments and feelings of both sides, not shout one another down.
Regarding your link:
But the middle ground often is the best solution in politics (not necessarily exactly in the middle, but definitely not on the extremes).
Some examples: The best government is between Authoritarianism and Anarchy, rather than one or the other.
Likewise the best government has an economy that is somewhere between completely free-market and absolutely government controlled and regulated. Both extremes have issues.
The best legal government is somewhere between ultra-capitalist and ultra-communist: We don't want only two classes, super-rich and super-poor, but we don't need to make everyone exactly the same either.
Likewise, private investment is definitely a good thing, and we want incentives, but we also don't want CEOs or boards being completely blameless when things go wrong, and we want good pay and good rights for the employees. Most people are ok with CEOs getting paid more that most employees, but most would prefer they not be paid anywhere near as much as they are.
On and on it goes. Generally, the best position is a moderate one. The extremes are where the failure comes from. (There are always exceptions, so that is why I say generally).
But the middle ground often is the best solution in politics (not necessarily exactly in the middle, but definitely not on the extremes).
Some examples: The best government is between Authoritarianism and Anarchy, rather than one or the other.
Likewise the best government has an economy that is somewhere between completely free-market and absolutely government controlled and regulated. Both extremes have issues.
The best legal government is somewhere between ultra-capitalist and ultra-communist: We don't want only two classes, super-rich and super-poor, but we don't need to make everyone exactly the same either.
Likewise, private investment is definitely a good thing, and we want incentives, but we also don't want CEOs or boards being completely blameless when things go wrong, and we want good pay and good rights for the employees. Most people are ok with CEOs getting paid more that most employees, but most would prefer they not be paid anywhere near as much as they are.
On and on it goes. Generally, the best position is a moderate one. The extremes are where the failure comes from. (There are always exceptions, so that is why I say generally).
Yes, but sometimes the middle ground is pretty bad too. Consider college tuition.
If you take a completely leftist approach then college tuition would be covered by the government. Many people would have college degrees, which would devalue them somewhat, but at least students wouldn't go into a decade of debt for it. It's an okay solution.
If you take a completely rightist approach then the government would have nothing to do with paying for college. Either your family can afford to send you (or have good enough credit to get a private loan), or you just don't get to go. Fewer people would go to college, which would make degrees very valuable. In other words, it's hard to get a degree, but worth it. The people who can't get them shouldn't be forced out of the work force, because most people wouldn't have degrees. This is also an acceptable approach.
The combination of the two is what we have now. We want everyone to go to college, so we make it easy to get huge unsecured loans that are almost impossible to get rid of. The loans are easy to get, so everyone does. Now degrees are expensive, but not worth much, because every other applicant also has one.
There are other examples (like housing and health insurance) where the same thing plays out. Sometimes you just have to pick a side, or you get the worst of both worlds.
If you take a completely leftist approach then college tuition would be covered by the government. Many people would have college degrees, which would devalue them somewhat, but at least students wouldn't go into a decade of debt for it. It's an okay solution.
If you take a completely rightist approach then the government would have nothing to do with paying for college. Either your family can afford to send you (or have good enough credit to get a private loan), or you just don't get to go. Fewer people would go to college, which would make degrees very valuable. In other words, it's hard to get a degree, but worth it. The people who can't get them shouldn't be forced out of the work force, because most people wouldn't have degrees. This is also an acceptable approach.
The combination of the two is what we have now. We want everyone to go to college, so we make it easy to get huge unsecured loans that are almost impossible to get rid of. The loans are easy to get, so everyone does. Now degrees are expensive, but not worth much, because every other applicant also has one.
There are other examples (like housing and health insurance) where the same thing plays out. Sometimes you just have to pick a side, or you get the worst of both worlds.
What if instead we as a society choose to do better than picking sides, and properly investigate what will benefit us in the grand scheme of things.
> We want everyone to go to college?
Do you think college is the only solution to a more educated and fiscally responsible society? Is there no other solutions to the situation than College? What about education prior to College, is there room for improvement there so we can specialize College and reduce costs in some fashion? Could we streamline education for those who know what they want to be and provide the proper framework for those who do not?
Sometimes it's not about sides, but about asking the proper questions, and questioning the system that exists.
> We want everyone to go to college?
Do you think college is the only solution to a more educated and fiscally responsible society? Is there no other solutions to the situation than College? What about education prior to College, is there room for improvement there so we can specialize College and reduce costs in some fashion? Could we streamline education for those who know what they want to be and provide the proper framework for those who do not?
Sometimes it's not about sides, but about asking the proper questions, and questioning the system that exists.
I am not so sure that what we have right now for tuition is as bad as it seems.
Because people are paying for it, we are getting much higher quality than we would if it was completely government funded. Also, it's still being paid by people who want it rather than it just being a tax.
Because it's expected a lot of people are getting an education that wouldn't be educated otherwise. This is improving our overall productivity.
The rising cost of an education right now is an issue, and we can do a combination of letting it self-correct (many businesses and students are realizing they really don't need a BS to do a good job) as well as adding public schools so more people can get the AS to get a good education.
I don't see any reason to expect that this solution is less optimal than any of the other ones you have mentioned, and it seems much cheaper than revamping the entire system.
To me the root cause of rising health insurance costs is the rising cost of all the lawsuits that doctors and hospitals deal with. When we were just paying for the doctor's education it was a little expensive, but nothing like what we are paying now. You're really just padding the budget to deal with legal fees. A more moderate court system (that awards smaller payouts) would knock this out easily.
I am not familiar with the housing issue, I would have to learn more about it to make a comment.
But I really do think the issues you bring up are best solved with a moderate solution.
Because people are paying for it, we are getting much higher quality than we would if it was completely government funded. Also, it's still being paid by people who want it rather than it just being a tax.
Because it's expected a lot of people are getting an education that wouldn't be educated otherwise. This is improving our overall productivity.
The rising cost of an education right now is an issue, and we can do a combination of letting it self-correct (many businesses and students are realizing they really don't need a BS to do a good job) as well as adding public schools so more people can get the AS to get a good education.
I don't see any reason to expect that this solution is less optimal than any of the other ones you have mentioned, and it seems much cheaper than revamping the entire system.
To me the root cause of rising health insurance costs is the rising cost of all the lawsuits that doctors and hospitals deal with. When we were just paying for the doctor's education it was a little expensive, but nothing like what we are paying now. You're really just padding the budget to deal with legal fees. A more moderate court system (that awards smaller payouts) would knock this out easily.
I am not familiar with the housing issue, I would have to learn more about it to make a comment.
But I really do think the issues you bring up are best solved with a moderate solution.
It's bad. College loan payments are a stone around the neck of far, far too many people in an entire generation, and it leaves far too many of them crippled financially for a decade after they graduate. When you're already paying 40-60% of your income on housing, tacking on another 20% to service student loans for a degree that doesn't earn you any more money than if you didn't fall for the scam doesn't leave much left over for anything but survival. Far too many people are in that boat, because student loans are too easy to get, and they've had it pounded into them relentlessly that the only way to get ahead and live a good life is to go to college. The people telling them this, by the way, are usually Boomers that went to school when public universities were fully funded, and costs hadn't spiraled out of control by an order of magnitude or worse.
Assuming you stuck to federal loans, the minimum payment on the standard repayment plan is $50/month, with a 6 month grace period after graduating before you have to start making payments, and the monthly payments can go lower on an income-based plan if your finances are such that that would be necessary. Even if you couldn't get any job but fast food after graduating, this should be manageable.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
I really don't get all the hyperbole around this. As long as you didn't make arrangements with private loan sharks, you should be fine after college.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
I really don't get all the hyperbole around this. As long as you didn't make arrangements with private loan sharks, you should be fine after college.
I agree that generally the best position is a moderate one, but I think we achieve that by having two extremes scream at eachother until they're hoarse and fall exhausted into the middle of the aisle.
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"
"What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"
"What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"
Here are sources for both of these quotes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xet3BnwLtek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xet3BnwLtek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8
I've always been under the impression that the two party system exists in an equilibrium and it naturally goes to about a 50/50 split. Both parties are fighting for support so if one party gets more than 50% of the vote there is a huge incentive to shift your positions to get back to equilibrium. Imagine if there were policies that would get Republicans reliably 70% of the vote, in this situation Democrats would want to adopt very similar policies and restore the balance. I think you'll see this happen with gay marriage in the next decade or so where both parties are for it.
I came up with a voting strategy that I call single issue tactical voting. The idea is that you pick what you think is the single most underrated issue, and announce you will either vote for your major candidate, or third party, depending on whether the major candidate agrees to support your issue. This works around Arrow's impossibility theorem and doesn't require any changes to the voting system. The goal is not to change the outcome of the election (if everyone is rational the outcome will be the same), but to influence the candidate's specific policies.
I was partly inspired by this application of game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWgbmlvRTU
I've been meaning to do a full writeup but hesitant in the current election climate... :)
I was partly inspired by this application of game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWgbmlvRTU
I've been meaning to do a full writeup but hesitant in the current election climate... :)
That's basically what Sanders did with Clinton. He supports her in exchange for her embracing many of his issues.
If you're going to do a writeup, you might as well just add your research to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-issue_politics
AFAIK Wikipedia only approves of third-hand or more distant accounts being used in its articles. Something has to be done, then talked about, then Wiki talks about the talking about it.
> I mean honestly how is it possible that of the 300 million people spread across one of the largest (geographical) countries in the world and one of the most diverse populations on the world, exactly half want one person to represent them, and exactly half want one other person to represent them. It doesn't make sense.
You're confusing how someone votes with what their ranked preferences are. I suspect that many people vote for someone who is not their most preferred candidate (particularly in this election, where the two major party candidates are extremely unpopular). And that makes sense, given that only one person can be President at a time and the USA uses first-past-the-post voting for presidential elections. This tends to lead to only two dominant parties (Duverger's law).
You're confusing how someone votes with what their ranked preferences are. I suspect that many people vote for someone who is not their most preferred candidate (particularly in this election, where the two major party candidates are extremely unpopular). And that makes sense, given that only one person can be President at a time and the USA uses first-past-the-post voting for presidential elections. This tends to lead to only two dominant parties (Duverger's law).
I really wish that a party that gets a certain amount of votes would get representation in Congress without having to win districts. That's an incredibly high bar for a new party.
One or two more parties in Congress would make the current obstruction tactics much more difficult.
One or two more parties in Congress would make the current obstruction tactics much more difficult.
Changing to a parliamentary system would require a huge constitutional amendment. Remember that the innocuous Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed: the chance of a sweeping reform on that scale is probably very similar to the chance of having a successful revolt.
So, in short, if you really want a parliamentary democracy, you'll need to move to one.
So, in short, if you really want a parliamentary democracy, you'll need to move to one.
I have no illusions that the US system will change any time soon. But I think it's important to throw out ideas from time to time.
In a pluralistic, democratic society you don't get to have everything go your way. You have to compromise with your fellow citizens to adopt the policies least-objectionable to the most people.
A fifth or sixth major candidate in the election with exactly your political views is almost exactly as superfluous as three hundred million candidates, so each of us gets a candidate with exactly our views and we don't have to compromise at all when voting.
Figure out which of your beliefs and views are most important and which you're willing to compromise on. Or get used to being a very bitter member of a pluralistic democratic society.
A fifth or sixth major candidate in the election with exactly your political views is almost exactly as superfluous as three hundred million candidates, so each of us gets a candidate with exactly our views and we don't have to compromise at all when voting.
Figure out which of your beliefs and views are most important and which you're willing to compromise on. Or get used to being a very bitter member of a pluralistic democratic society.
It's very well established that the U.S. federal electoral system is game-theoretically "rigged", to use Trump's words.
I want proportional representation, not this phoney pluralism. I'm talking about something beyond "ranked choice". I want serious mathematical, scientific rigor to be applied in developing a new voting system that is humane and practically secure from gaming in the 21st century.
To be perfectly frank, my internal reaction to your comment was infuriation. Don't take it personally, just know that I'm "triggered" by this kind of patronizing political attitude that has marginalized me out of the conversation since before I even became eligible to vote. I know I'm not alone in that.
There are thousands of representatives local and federal levels. It's not unreasonable for people like me to be asking for a less "compromising" process.
I'm from Minnesota, and I remember when I was 17 and Paul Wellstone was killed, very possibly assassinated, before the Iraq war vote. Meanwhile, many of my classmates, children of politically established Minnesotans, told me that a vote for Ralph Nader was just short of treason. I'm writing this comment right now to say that I reject these kinds of attitudes entirely.
On the contrary, people falling in behind these busted-ass mainstream parties should be grateful that, given the state of U.S. politics, we even have political participation from marginalized positions at all. This election is an indictment on this split populism of the establishment 2-party.
The U.S. political process needs to evolve in a serious way or it's going to result in social/political/spiritual upheaval... for better or worse.
I know it might sound irrational to you, but I'm getting ready to vote for Jill Stein right now. I am not "a liberal". I see no good reason, at this point, to vote for either of the "two choices". Seeing as how I'm not in a swing state, it strikes almost me as duty to vote against the two parties. Maybe if I lived in Florida, I'd vote for Clinton.
But right now my "strategic vote" is to send a strong warning to the DFL establishment that they need to take voting reform very seriously.
I want proportional representation, not this phoney pluralism. I'm talking about something beyond "ranked choice". I want serious mathematical, scientific rigor to be applied in developing a new voting system that is humane and practically secure from gaming in the 21st century.
To be perfectly frank, my internal reaction to your comment was infuriation. Don't take it personally, just know that I'm "triggered" by this kind of patronizing political attitude that has marginalized me out of the conversation since before I even became eligible to vote. I know I'm not alone in that.
There are thousands of representatives local and federal levels. It's not unreasonable for people like me to be asking for a less "compromising" process.
I'm from Minnesota, and I remember when I was 17 and Paul Wellstone was killed, very possibly assassinated, before the Iraq war vote. Meanwhile, many of my classmates, children of politically established Minnesotans, told me that a vote for Ralph Nader was just short of treason. I'm writing this comment right now to say that I reject these kinds of attitudes entirely.
On the contrary, people falling in behind these busted-ass mainstream parties should be grateful that, given the state of U.S. politics, we even have political participation from marginalized positions at all. This election is an indictment on this split populism of the establishment 2-party.
The U.S. political process needs to evolve in a serious way or it's going to result in social/political/spiritual upheaval... for better or worse.
I know it might sound irrational to you, but I'm getting ready to vote for Jill Stein right now. I am not "a liberal". I see no good reason, at this point, to vote for either of the "two choices". Seeing as how I'm not in a swing state, it strikes almost me as duty to vote against the two parties. Maybe if I lived in Florida, I'd vote for Clinton.
But right now my "strategic vote" is to send a strong warning to the DFL establishment that they need to take voting reform very seriously.
Voting for the third party candidate when it doesn't matter, (since you are not in a swing state), is not a strong message at all. Come back when you have some skin in the game.
Everyone looks at the president as some kind of be-all, end-all, but it isn't. Informed voting on candidates in lower level of government who has opinions that are more in line of your own, can then go on to shape the political landscape further on in their career.
Everyone looks at the president as some kind of be-all, end-all, but it isn't. Informed voting on candidates in lower level of government who has opinions that are more in line of your own, can then go on to shape the political landscape further on in their career.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
For people wondering, Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. No evidence of it being anything other than an accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death
I'm not using pluralism does not refer to the voting system but to the population. The United States has a population with a diverse range of beliefs, with no strong homogeneous majority. Some people like thin crust pizza, some people like thick crust pizza. Some people think the sauce goes on top of the cheese, some people think you can make a pizza without any cheese or sauce, some people think pineapple is an acceptable pizza topping.
The problem isn't the voting system, the problem is naively thinking that a significant number of your countrymen agree with you in every significant way, regardless of whether you fall on the left, right or middle.
The problem isn't the voting system, the problem is naively thinking that a significant number of your countrymen agree with you in every significant way, regardless of whether you fall on the left, right or middle.
So the political system should reflect that diversity and leverage it as a strength, not as a way to divide people against one another.
Right now, the voting system is mechanically dividing the country against itself into two groups that don't really exist. Meanwhile, various corporate, media and political interests are capitalizing on this machinery in less than honorable ways.
This is enabled by the voting system on a foundational level. The other stuff, campaign finance law, media cultivation of ignorance, lobbying, etc... it's all very important, but it's all underpinned by the voting system itself.
Right now, the voting system is mechanically dividing the country against itself into two groups that don't really exist. Meanwhile, various corporate, media and political interests are capitalizing on this machinery in less than honorable ways.
This is enabled by the voting system on a foundational level. The other stuff, campaign finance law, media cultivation of ignorance, lobbying, etc... it's all very important, but it's all underpinned by the voting system itself.
Pining for a new voting system is just pushing the hard work of coalition-building to after an election instead of before, and pretending that the coalition building isn't important to boot.
You could certainly rework the voting system so that a wider mix of parties are elected to Congress (and every other level of government), but then what? At the end of the day, parties aren't important, policy is important, and enacting policy still requires some sort of majority. A majority, when you don't have a homogeneous population with largely similar views on everything, still requires some sort of coalition. And the coalitions you build affect the policies you can enact.
So how will changing the voting system, either to your current favorite or to some hypothetical, not-yet-invented voting system affect coalition building and the sort of policy that will be enacted?
You could certainly rework the voting system so that a wider mix of parties are elected to Congress (and every other level of government), but then what? At the end of the day, parties aren't important, policy is important, and enacting policy still requires some sort of majority. A majority, when you don't have a homogeneous population with largely similar views on everything, still requires some sort of coalition. And the coalitions you build affect the policies you can enact.
So how will changing the voting system, either to your current favorite or to some hypothetical, not-yet-invented voting system affect coalition building and the sort of policy that will be enacted?
What you're calling "coalition building", I think of as "consensus building". And not only do I think of it as important, I think that it is literally the job of elected officials, especially after they've been elected.
Right now I don't even see coalitions being built by major political parties. I see political organization being transmogrified into factions and enemies.
I recognize that there are millions of dedicated activists and organizers who are building coalitions, building consensus, reworking political narratives.
For all that human effort to be channeled through the grimey distorting lens of left and right... Its wasteful at best.
I absolutely agree that issues are what's important. Unhooking the issues from the gridlock of corrupt political establishments would give elected officials the freedom to build consensus beyond the coersion of corrupted political parties.
Right now I don't even see coalitions being built by major political parties. I see political organization being transmogrified into factions and enemies.
I recognize that there are millions of dedicated activists and organizers who are building coalitions, building consensus, reworking political narratives.
For all that human effort to be channeled through the grimey distorting lens of left and right... Its wasteful at best.
I absolutely agree that issues are what's important. Unhooking the issues from the gridlock of corrupt political establishments would give elected officials the freedom to build consensus beyond the coersion of corrupted political parties.
> pro-life atheist, or a pro-gun liberal,
I am both. And understand the pain of being a square peg.
I am both. And understand the pain of being a square peg.
You sound like a fun person to have drinks with and discuss ideas :)
Not sure about it...
I'm all for America having multiple parties. But remember, for any execution to happen, for the Government to function, pass laws and stay adaptable, the multiple parties will have to align and agree. To not go to war, the anti-war economic conservative and the Code Pink socialists would have to agree to come together on the issue. The way America is divided, I don't see how this happens easily.
It is difficult even in politically stable countries (see: Liberals and NDP in Canada). However, it is by and large the primary mode of operation for most democratic countries. The largest democracy, India, has 10's (100's?) of federal parties that organically align and dis-align to gain power on wedge issues.
It is difficult even in politically stable countries (see: Liberals and NDP in Canada). However, it is by and large the primary mode of operation for most democratic countries. The largest democracy, India, has 10's (100's?) of federal parties that organically align and dis-align to gain power on wedge issues.
I don't get why we don't just have a moderate party that represents the majority. Despite what the news would seem to have us believe most people are moderate, rather than one extreme or the other.
First, the two major parties are so incredibly established that third parties barely exist. So, starting a third party that can compete with the other two is near impossible.
Second, since radio and television (media) started catering towards individual interests (echo chamber) people get so wrapped up in "Hillary/Trump/Somebody is so evil!" that they _don't_ want to experiment because it could cause the person they dislike to win.
Third, nobody cares about politics. We get ~40% turnout in midterm elections, ~60% for presidential. That's pitiful. Those who vote are those who _really_ like voting--those who are engaged.
To break the stranglehold you'd need:
- people to stop consuming sound bite media (Now This, Twitter) and tailored media (talk radio, some major news stations)
- better civic engagement at the local level (this is _the_ most important bit)
- better civic knowledge (the previous bullet point is predicated on this one)
- people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo
Second, since radio and television (media) started catering towards individual interests (echo chamber) people get so wrapped up in "Hillary/Trump/Somebody is so evil!" that they _don't_ want to experiment because it could cause the person they dislike to win.
Third, nobody cares about politics. We get ~40% turnout in midterm elections, ~60% for presidential. That's pitiful. Those who vote are those who _really_ like voting--those who are engaged.
To break the stranglehold you'd need:
- people to stop consuming sound bite media (Now This, Twitter) and tailored media (talk radio, some major news stations)
- better civic engagement at the local level (this is _the_ most important bit)
- better civic knowledge (the previous bullet point is predicated on this one)
- people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo
It would probably also help a lot if we split up voting issues over multiple much smaller elections so that people could actually discuss the issues without it all being overshadowed.
In California, for example, I'm supposed to cast votes for over 40 positions and issues this election between choices for the president, federal and state representatives of various sorts, local positions, and dozens upon dozens of propositions and measures. There are over 500 total pages in the official voter guides, and the mail-in ballot is supposedly so heavy this election that regular postage isn't enough! It's crazy!
During the primary, we had the first senatorial election without an incumbent in decades and damned near no one was talking about it! (Barbara Boxer is not running for re-election.) It was completely overshadowed by the presidential election. I don't know if it was because the voter guide was so over-packed with propositions or what, but they didn't even print the senatorial candidates' statements during the primary and I had to go online instead to see them!
And people wonder why this country is so fucked up...
In California, for example, I'm supposed to cast votes for over 40 positions and issues this election between choices for the president, federal and state representatives of various sorts, local positions, and dozens upon dozens of propositions and measures. There are over 500 total pages in the official voter guides, and the mail-in ballot is supposedly so heavy this election that regular postage isn't enough! It's crazy!
During the primary, we had the first senatorial election without an incumbent in decades and damned near no one was talking about it! (Barbara Boxer is not running for re-election.) It was completely overshadowed by the presidential election. I don't know if it was because the voter guide was so over-packed with propositions or what, but they didn't even print the senatorial candidates' statements during the primary and I had to go online instead to see them!
And people wonder why this country is so fucked up...
people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo
I voted for Bernie, but how could he win independent if he couldn't win the Democratic primary?
Because the primary/caucus process disenfranchises the majority of the electorate.
I believe this is why the GOP produces such poor candidates in the last 20 years or so; they must pander to the hard core of the party to become a candidate, and the people that pass that test are almost always too far removed from the electorate to win the general.
This is also why we're devolving to a system of ruling families. Clinton was never the best candidate. She was the presumed candidate and the candidate preferred by the party core, so nobody was willing to challenge - except Sanders who could seriously run on ideology.
I believe this is why the GOP produces such poor candidates in the last 20 years or so; they must pander to the hard core of the party to become a candidate, and the people that pass that test are almost always too far removed from the electorate to win the general.
This is also why we're devolving to a system of ruling families. Clinton was never the best candidate. She was the presumed candidate and the candidate preferred by the party core, so nobody was willing to challenge - except Sanders who could seriously run on ideology.
In theory they can choose whoever they want, however in practice if the small percentage of the electorate who actually vote pick e.g. Trump, the party is stuck with them
I have a feeling this is slowly changing.
Because the moderate party would lose every election in a landslide. What would its policies even be? People tend to be extreme on individual issues that they care about and apathetic on the rest. The more extreme parties could, for example, just come out for or against abortion and steal a huge percentage of your voters. Same with many other issues.
Abortion and other black and white issues would definitely be a weakness for a moderate party.
I would think their strengths for better economic policies, better military policies, better domestic policies and on and on would outweigh the black-and-white single issues but I am afraid you might be right.
People would rather have simple dogma on single issues. It's just easier to understand a single point of view on a binary issue.
Personally, on a related tangent: I find that the weakest part of most discussions is the tendency to try to make every discussion into 2 opposing viewpoints, rather than seeing the billions of permutations possible on nearly any issue. But it happens all the time.
It's so common that I believe it must be something somewhat hardwired into the way our brains work.
I would think their strengths for better economic policies, better military policies, better domestic policies and on and on would outweigh the black-and-white single issues but I am afraid you might be right.
People would rather have simple dogma on single issues. It's just easier to understand a single point of view on a binary issue.
Personally, on a related tangent: I find that the weakest part of most discussions is the tendency to try to make every discussion into 2 opposing viewpoints, rather than seeing the billions of permutations possible on nearly any issue. But it happens all the time.
It's so common that I believe it must be something somewhat hardwired into the way our brains work.
How about the moderate party being a democratically governed one, where it's members have an app that identifies them so they can only get one vote. Then whenever the candidate they choose votes on issues, the people decide via the app, how that senator will vote.
If he doesn't go w/ the people he is banned from the party. in this way the moderate party would cater to the demographic of the area... where one member might vote for gay marriage in NY, another in Alabama would not, but still be part of the same party, but only answer to their local constituents.
If he doesn't go w/ the people he is banned from the party. in this way the moderate party would cater to the demographic of the area... where one member might vote for gay marriage in NY, another in Alabama would not, but still be part of the same party, but only answer to their local constituents.
Now I'm wondering if there are any good existing examples of that sort of Democratic Populism finding support. (Not sure what else to call it)
I'd call it a new TYPE of party altogether one built on top of technology... even the Technology party would be a cool name.
Start it and then convince sama to run as a presidential candidate circa 2020.
That's happened before (look at articles on the "era of good feelings").
What happens is that factions develop along a new politically-important axis which have different answers for a new pressing problem, and the moderate party bifurcates into two.
What happens is that factions develop along a new politically-important axis which have different answers for a new pressing problem, and the moderate party bifurcates into two.
Because artificially making the 'other side' look evil is an effective way to win elections. If you can find some way to make the other side look bad (no matter how artificial, see Hillary on the Cubs/Yankees issue), then you win.
Huge incentive to find any division.
Huge incentive to find any division.
Read up about "wedge issues".
What do you find extreme about the parties we have now?
The Democratic Party and the pre-Trump GOP were, once you looked past the social signals each sent to pander to certain vocal minorities, practically identical. It's no coincidence that the Bushes endorsed Hillary after Jeb! dropped out.
I don't expect anyone here to believe it, but ironically Trump's GOP is pretty close to being a real moderate party. Dispensing with the astroturfed tribal warfare by supporting gays, not making abortion into a big-ticket issue, reaching out to minorities, and so on, he has drawn in record numbers of supporters from across the line. "We're all Americans" and "America first" are the creeds of him and his supporters. An openly gay man spoke at the RNC to genuine applause, as did Trump holding a rainbow "LGBTQs for Trump" flag at a rally. The barriers once thought concrete are rapidly deteriorating for the ordinary citizens that have successfully pried their eyes away from the propaganda machine.
I don't expect anyone here to believe it, but ironically Trump's GOP is pretty close to being a real moderate party. Dispensing with the astroturfed tribal warfare by supporting gays, not making abortion into a big-ticket issue, reaching out to minorities, and so on, he has drawn in record numbers of supporters from across the line. "We're all Americans" and "America first" are the creeds of him and his supporters. An openly gay man spoke at the RNC to genuine applause, as did Trump holding a rainbow "LGBTQs for Trump" flag at a rally. The barriers once thought concrete are rapidly deteriorating for the ordinary citizens that have successfully pried their eyes away from the propaganda machine.
The problem is people are taught from an early age that it's good to be an activist which means to focus on convincing people of a certain policy or viewpoint, instead of stating one's own reasoning. You'll often see "10 reasons to support X" which is unlikely to be intellectually honest since usually people will support X for 1 or 2 reasons, and might agree with certain arguments against X.
E.g. I support something like basic income, but I notice two contradictory arguments are used. The first says that basic income increases the incentive to work for the poor. The second says that basic income releases the poor from being forced into low pay work, and allows them to use their free time on positive things. These are contradictory, but you never see basic income advocates arguing this point among themselves.
Instead of encouraging people to be activists, we should be encouraging them to be intellectually honest. Very few issues are so important that they justify using marketing techniques that ultimately corrode the effectiveness of public debate.
E.g. I support something like basic income, but I notice two contradictory arguments are used. The first says that basic income increases the incentive to work for the poor. The second says that basic income releases the poor from being forced into low pay work, and allows them to use their free time on positive things. These are contradictory, but you never see basic income advocates arguing this point among themselves.
Instead of encouraging people to be activists, we should be encouraging them to be intellectually honest. Very few issues are so important that they justify using marketing techniques that ultimately corrode the effectiveness of public debate.
Hey, apparently now you can fire them both! Saw this earlier today on HN, don't have a link to the post handy. The site is easy to remember though: http://www.youarefired.com The guy/gal who posted was trying to figure out what to do after the elections.
To your point, Maybe allow for more than two points of view? :)
To your point, Maybe allow for more than two points of view? :)
In my experience (including my experience on HN), people who are in the middle get slashed from both sides. Qui non nobiscum, adversus nos est.
The first part of your post is the answer to the part after "ninjaedit".
If the political spectrum had more than one-bit resolution, you'd see all sorts of colours. Here, is only black or white. From afar, it looks grey, hence the apparent 50-50 split. Everyone falls into one of two buckets, and chances are roughly equal.
If the political spectrum had more than one-bit resolution, you'd see all sorts of colours. Here, is only black or white. From afar, it looks grey, hence the apparent 50-50 split. Everyone falls into one of two buckets, and chances are roughly equal.
I don't like the current system because it has lots of side issues where parties claim to differentiate yet none of these effect the ruling classes.
Where is the choice on land value tax, on money creation as debt? Nowhere, because they only want us to have a choice on issues that might actually challenge the roots of the system.
Where is the choice on land value tax, on money creation as debt? Nowhere, because they only want us to have a choice on issues that might actually challenge the roots of the system.
Call me crazy, but I feel like there has to be a full blown conspiracy between the two parties (not necessarily the individual candidates), to keep us fighting over petty social issues which have no bearing on the social order.
We fight over issues like gay marriage and abortion which make no difference to the establishment, while the cable companies strategically raise rates while reducing service and avoiding competition. The medical industry extorts us so the insurers' can get a 20% cut off a larger pie. Police departments around the nation use civil forfeiture to pay their bills and buy margarita machines.
As long as elections can be won on bullshit tired issues like abortion, we'll never see any political progress - and that's just how the robber barons want it.
We fight over issues like gay marriage and abortion which make no difference to the establishment, while the cable companies strategically raise rates while reducing service and avoiding competition. The medical industry extorts us so the insurers' can get a 20% cut off a larger pie. Police departments around the nation use civil forfeiture to pay their bills and buy margarita machines.
As long as elections can be won on bullshit tired issues like abortion, we'll never see any political progress - and that's just how the robber barons want it.
Call me crazy, but the ability to chose who to marry or whether or not its permissible to end a life seems slightly more important than Comcast raising their prices again.
Your other issues are quite valid, but I thought that was a very poor lead example.
Your other issues are quite valid, but I thought that was a very poor lead example.
It's an example of something the establishment can concede having pretended they care, that has no effect on them. If you care they love it as you will fight harder and longer which keeps you away from things they know will destroy them, like land value tax and questioning how money works.
So it's the ideal example.
So it's the ideal example.
I completely agree with you dude. I don't mean to imply that these issues are irrelevant. What I'm getting at is these issues are so aggrivatingly clear cut from a personal liberties perspective that they should have been resolved decades ago. Allowing people to marry who they want to, and giving people full autonomy over their bodies doesn't hurt anyone.
Yet we let these issues continue to decide our elections. For the top hat wearing monopolist, it's great because politicians/pundits are so busy campaigning for/against abortion that nobody points a finger at the soul sucking corporations who run this country.
Yet we let these issues continue to decide our elections. For the top hat wearing monopolist, it's great because politicians/pundits are so busy campaigning for/against abortion that nobody points a finger at the soul sucking corporations who run this country.
100% agreed. The establishment use liberal issues like a sand pit at the bottom of a hill. Slows true reform to a halt.
This is one reason why
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
> pro-life atheist, or a pro-gun liberal, or an anti-war economic conservative
You just described Libertarianism
You just described Libertarianism
anti-war economic conservative : Gary Johnson
I always enjoy a leppo after a good workout!
You are watching too much TV. read the article, first reason : media !!!!
I agree completely with this. The spoiler effect has never been so real.
A similar take on the issue in this old Slate article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_sp...
Choice quote:
"But why should we expect the deadlock to be broken at all? Think of it in ... well, cheap Darwinian terms. Imagine that we have a two party system, and each party is a collection of status-seeking individuals looking for power by winning a greater "market share" of the vote. Imagine that they each have their ideological principles --one is more to the left, one more to the right -- but these principles are quite flexible in the face of imminent or repeated failure at the polls. Over time, as each party crafts its message to maximize its appeal -- and adjusts its message after each election to regain any lost share of the votes -- wouldn't one expect the system to reach a roughly 50-50 equilibrium, in which every election was a cliffhanger?"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_sp...
Choice quote:
"But why should we expect the deadlock to be broken at all? Think of it in ... well, cheap Darwinian terms. Imagine that we have a two party system, and each party is a collection of status-seeking individuals looking for power by winning a greater "market share" of the vote. Imagine that they each have their ideological principles --one is more to the left, one more to the right -- but these principles are quite flexible in the face of imminent or repeated failure at the polls. Over time, as each party crafts its message to maximize its appeal -- and adjusts its message after each election to regain any lost share of the votes -- wouldn't one expect the system to reach a roughly 50-50 equilibrium, in which every election was a cliffhanger?"
There is no position that either party holds so strongly that they wouldn't switch immediately if it became expedient.
Which party is the 'pro-war' party? Which party is the 'pro-public healthcare' party? Which party is the 'small-government' party? Both parties have been on both sides of these lines in the last two decades.
Yes, and you can see it happening after every election. For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, both parties switched position, saying they favored it to some degree. Democrats switched faster (because of their local politics), but Republicans had a gay speaker at their convention.
One of the toughest issues used to be abortion, until democrats softened on it somewhat, and they let anti-abortion candidates into the party (which is why Bart Stupak, a democrat, held up Obamacare based on opposition to abortion).
Democrats were anti-war under Bush (but they voted for his wars anyway), and Republicans were anti-war under Clinton (but they voted for his wars anyway).
If any view on an issue is clearly a loser, no candidate will espouse that view.
Which party is the 'pro-war' party? Which party is the 'pro-public healthcare' party? Which party is the 'small-government' party? Both parties have been on both sides of these lines in the last two decades.
Yes, and you can see it happening after every election. For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, both parties switched position, saying they favored it to some degree. Democrats switched faster (because of their local politics), but Republicans had a gay speaker at their convention.
One of the toughest issues used to be abortion, until democrats softened on it somewhat, and they let anti-abortion candidates into the party (which is why Bart Stupak, a democrat, held up Obamacare based on opposition to abortion).
Democrats were anti-war under Bush (but they voted for his wars anyway), and Republicans were anti-war under Clinton (but they voted for his wars anyway).
If any view on an issue is clearly a loser, no candidate will espouse that view.
> For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, both parties switched position, saying they favored it to some degree.
Where are you getting that from? The Republican party platform explicitly condemns gay marriage and wants to ban it federally. [0]
The fact that they're willing to accept millions from a gay Republican is hardly evidence of a changing worldview.
[0] http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriag...
Where are you getting that from? The Republican party platform explicitly condemns gay marriage and wants to ban it federally. [0]
The fact that they're willing to accept millions from a gay Republican is hardly evidence of a changing worldview.
[0] http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriag...
Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it. Some Republicans oppose gay marriage, but so did most Democrats a few years ago, including the president and the current Democratic candidate. Any movement is a change in position.
On the other hand, there are Republicans who've fought for gay rights for a while, see for example: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the-untold-sto...
The libertarian wing of the Republican party has favored gay rights for a long time, even if they didn't openly fight in favor of them.
If you want to see a switch like this happen again, watch marijuana legalization. Right now, most politicians oppose it, but as soon as enough polls come out showing you can win an election based on that issue, both parties will come out in favor of it more-or-less, almost immediately.
On the other hand, there are Republicans who've fought for gay rights for a while, see for example: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the-untold-sto...
The libertarian wing of the Republican party has favored gay rights for a long time, even if they didn't openly fight in favor of them.
If you want to see a switch like this happen again, watch marijuana legalization. Right now, most politicians oppose it, but as soon as enough polls come out showing you can win an election based on that issue, both parties will come out in favor of it more-or-less, almost immediately.
> Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it.
I don't disagree with you saying the Democrats switched position, but I 100% disagree with the notion that the Republican party is "somewhat" in favor of gay marriage. The party platform explicitly condemns the idea and calls for a complete ban on gay marriages.
I don't dispute that some Republicans support gay rights, but that no more proves that the Republican party supports it than the fact that some Republicans believe the moon landing was faked means the Republican party "somewhat" believes the moon landing was faked.
In practice, what happens when a contentious issue like this gains majority support is that one major party adopts it into their platform and the other party mostly tries to stop talking about it in the general election (thereby avoiding making it an issue while still holding on to the voters who oppose it). That's what you're seeing with gay marriage now and, historically, racism.
I don't disagree with you saying the Democrats switched position, but I 100% disagree with the notion that the Republican party is "somewhat" in favor of gay marriage. The party platform explicitly condemns the idea and calls for a complete ban on gay marriages.
I don't dispute that some Republicans support gay rights, but that no more proves that the Republican party supports it than the fact that some Republicans believe the moon landing was faked means the Republican party "somewhat" believes the moon landing was faked.
In practice, what happens when a contentious issue like this gains majority support is that one major party adopts it into their platform and the other party mostly tries to stop talking about it in the general election (thereby avoiding making it an issue while still holding on to the voters who oppose it). That's what you're seeing with gay marriage now and, historically, racism.
And this is part of why voters are so angry at establishment politicians. They've figured out that politicians have positions, not convictions. Many of the voters, on the other hand, actually have convictions, and want to vote for people that share those convictions.
This is what the Tea Party was about - people got tired of Republicans who were happy to vote for large government spending. Many Republicans quit voting for candidates who wore the "R" label but didn't have any actual convictions (at least, they voted against them in the primaries).
But I think in this election cycle, the anger is higher than it's been in my memory, partly because neither presidential candidate's convictions are what anybody wants.
Hillary doesn't have any convictions, except that she should be elected by any means necessary.
Trump has convictions, though they change from day to day, and many of them are convictions that an honorable man would be ashamed of having ever thought, let alone spoken aloud.
This is what the Tea Party was about - people got tired of Republicans who were happy to vote for large government spending. Many Republicans quit voting for candidates who wore the "R" label but didn't have any actual convictions (at least, they voted against them in the primaries).
But I think in this election cycle, the anger is higher than it's been in my memory, partly because neither presidential candidate's convictions are what anybody wants.
Hillary doesn't have any convictions, except that she should be elected by any means necessary.
Trump has convictions, though they change from day to day, and many of them are convictions that an honorable man would be ashamed of having ever thought, let alone spoken aloud.
The counter-argument to your point, that politicians would say if they were honest, is that most voter positions have no basis in reality, and make no sense.
So they would say, as politicians, that they have no choice but to pretend they believe the nonsense.
So they would say, as politicians, that they have no choice but to pretend they believe the nonsense.
> Also, Trump is not acting like a rational ice cream seller. He has not appeared to move his policy portfolio, to the extent he has one, toward the center. “Rational candidates end up pivoting, and trying to move as much as they can back toward the center. But of course right now there’s one presidential candidate who’s not doing that at all,” Tom Vogl, a Princeton economist, told me.
Because the "rational" policy depends on politics being 1-dimensional. Trump has refused to deal with politics that way.
The ice cream theory is how things work normally, the same way that Newtonian mechanics works normally, but when you find yourself in a situation with extreme gravity wells or high velocities, using Newtonian mechanics to solve problems can get you killed.
Everyone knows politics isn't really one-dimensional. It just ends up being treated that way in plurality voting races because mathematics enforces it, unless you want to take a big risk and upset the apple cart. When you get an opponent who can triangulate an extreme non-centrist position in multi-dimensional politics, moving to the 1-dimensional center might be fatal because of negative traits that centrism implies on certain dimensions that the other candidate has made the campaign about.
Because the "rational" policy depends on politics being 1-dimensional. Trump has refused to deal with politics that way.
The ice cream theory is how things work normally, the same way that Newtonian mechanics works normally, but when you find yourself in a situation with extreme gravity wells or high velocities, using Newtonian mechanics to solve problems can get you killed.
Everyone knows politics isn't really one-dimensional. It just ends up being treated that way in plurality voting races because mathematics enforces it, unless you want to take a big risk and upset the apple cart. When you get an opponent who can triangulate an extreme non-centrist position in multi-dimensional politics, moving to the 1-dimensional center might be fatal because of negative traits that centrism implies on certain dimensions that the other candidate has made the campaign about.
9% of American voters was all it took for Clinton and Trump to win the primaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...
The "public" debates are sponsored by a partisan non-profit that is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Ogliarchs do not like competition. Their tax-exempt status is being challenged in court but other lawsuits have been unsuccessful.
http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Memor...
Polling requirements for other political parties are arbitrary 15%, but the media companies write the polls to exclude minor party candidates, and the major parties control the media.
Billions $USD are spent on political advertising and propaganda. The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending for political activities.
Congress does not have term limits, further consolidating power within the major parties.
Most Americans don't know or don't care that there are other options. In WA there are 7 candidates on the ballot. But in the left/right paradigm that the powers insure is the only public dialogue, there will always be a race to the middle. This explains why: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Ignoring biased media accounts of him, he's one of the few honest candidates and his platform mostly aligns with my own. Being public about this has cost me some relationships this year. I've never seen the amount of negativity and belligerance on social media. The only good thing to come of it, is I finally deleted my Facebook account.
This election has brought out the worst in us, and we will get who we deserve on November 8th.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...
The "public" debates are sponsored by a partisan non-profit that is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Ogliarchs do not like competition. Their tax-exempt status is being challenged in court but other lawsuits have been unsuccessful.
http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Memor...
Polling requirements for other political parties are arbitrary 15%, but the media companies write the polls to exclude minor party candidates, and the major parties control the media.
Billions $USD are spent on political advertising and propaganda. The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending for political activities.
Congress does not have term limits, further consolidating power within the major parties.
Most Americans don't know or don't care that there are other options. In WA there are 7 candidates on the ballot. But in the left/right paradigm that the powers insure is the only public dialogue, there will always be a race to the middle. This explains why: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Ignoring biased media accounts of him, he's one of the few honest candidates and his platform mostly aligns with my own. Being public about this has cost me some relationships this year. I've never seen the amount of negativity and belligerance on social media. The only good thing to come of it, is I finally deleted my Facebook account.
This election has brought out the worst in us, and we will get who we deserve on November 8th.
This would have been the perfect election to have a third alternative. But unfortunately, the american political system is not made for this. Time for change?
There's a "law" that describes this: Duverger's Law [1]
Pedantry follows:
First past the post is [more or less] the election system we have - you select one candidate. Candidate with plurality [that's a generalization of a majority, ie the person with the most votes even if they don't have > 50%] wins.
There are lots of alternatives, and even a ballot initiative in Maine [2] to switch to a different type of voting system known as Ranked Choice Voting.
New types of voting systems are exciting, but complexity lends itself to a poor user interface. So more sophisticated forms of voting actually depress poll #s [I'll just cite Harry talking about this ballot initiative in this podcast [3]].
If you're looking to ever have a real alternative to the big two, the path to that is convincing your local government to switch voting systems.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ... [3]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast-countd...
[Edit: put scare quotes around law]
Pedantry follows:
First past the post is [more or less] the election system we have - you select one candidate. Candidate with plurality [that's a generalization of a majority, ie the person with the most votes even if they don't have > 50%] wins.
There are lots of alternatives, and even a ballot initiative in Maine [2] to switch to a different type of voting system known as Ranked Choice Voting.
New types of voting systems are exciting, but complexity lends itself to a poor user interface. So more sophisticated forms of voting actually depress poll #s [I'll just cite Harry talking about this ballot initiative in this podcast [3]].
If you're looking to ever have a real alternative to the big two, the path to that is convincing your local government to switch voting systems.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ... [3]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast-countd...
[Edit: put scare quotes around law]
The issue of complexity is why I'd push for approval voting (i.e. you can upvote multiple candidates). http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ shows some of the weirdness that comes up with ranked choice voting (what I'd always heard of before as instant runoff voting). It looks even more surprising than what we have!
I've been wondering recently if California would go for a ballot initiative to change their primaries to approval voting or score voting or some other reasonable improvement. Since recently the state has open primaries, meaning you might end up with a general election between two Democrats, or two Republicans, and other weirdness. I can imagine less resistance to a change here, than for the mechanism of the general election.
I've been wondering recently if California would go for a ballot initiative to change their primaries to approval voting or score voting or some other reasonable improvement. Since recently the state has open primaries, meaning you might end up with a general election between two Democrats, or two Republicans, and other weirdness. I can imagine less resistance to a change here, than for the mechanism of the general election.
Majority judgment or judgment voting is interesting / more general than merely up vote + down vote.
I think the most important thing is for voters to want to experiment. And to be engaged.
I think the most important thing is for voters to want to experiment. And to be engaged.
In Australia we use Preferential or Optional Preferential voting (aka Instant Runoff) for pretty much all elections (federal, state and local), and it works reasonably well.
First-past-the-post voting seems like a completely backward way to vote, and perfectly designed to make voting for a third party candidate a difficult choice.
I don't disagree but I do wonder what that would even look like.
Do we need to change the system? The players/politicians? Groups exerting influence onto the system (the media, big business, big unions)? Push more decisions to the State level?
Good luck untangling that mess... we can't even agree to end crap like gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Do we need to change the system? The players/politicians? Groups exerting influence onto the system (the media, big business, big unions)? Push more decisions to the State level?
Good luck untangling that mess... we can't even agree to end crap like gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Currently we have two candidates, who are each more or less reviled by at least 50% of the population.
Would it really be better to have three candidates, each of which was more or less reviled by 66% of the population?
The truth is that Americans don't agree on many major issues, and that the major parties are a personification of this unhappy fact. Adding more parties doesn't help that. In fact, splitting the vote among more parties makes it likely that the elected official will represent the views of fewer of the total electorate!
Would it really be better to have three candidates, each of which was more or less reviled by 66% of the population?
The truth is that Americans don't agree on many major issues, and that the major parties are a personification of this unhappy fact. Adding more parties doesn't help that. In fact, splitting the vote among more parties makes it likely that the elected official will represent the views of fewer of the total electorate!
> In fact, splitting the vote among more parties makes it likely that the elected official will represent the views of fewer of the total electorate!
The obvious answer to this is to dismantle the Federal system, devolve as much power as possible to the states, and perhaps abolish the office of President altogether.
It would probably be a terrible idea on the one hand, but on the other hand, no more Presidential elections.
The obvious answer to this is to dismantle the Federal system, devolve as much power as possible to the states, and perhaps abolish the office of President altogether.
It would probably be a terrible idea on the one hand, but on the other hand, no more Presidential elections.
I've often wished to be on the other side of the fence with a proportionally representing parliament. You can take a look at other parliamentary systems in the world and it's not markedly better or worse. There are other structural changes I'd make first (direct Presidential election, ...).
But which party is going to spearhead allowing for more party choice?
>The competition for votes between the Republican and Democratic parties does not lead to a clear drawing of issues, an adoption of two strongly contrasted positions between which the voter may choose. Instead, each party strives to make its platform as much like the other’s as possible
Problem with that theory is, the two parties aren't close in the slightest. Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net, minority rights, etc. Republicans prefer... the opposite.
Problem with that theory is, the two parties aren't close in the slightest. Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net, minority rights, etc. Republicans prefer... the opposite.
The chart at the top of this article directly opposes their own premise that presidential elections for the last 100 years have been close to 50/50.
I'd at least want some idea of what to compare it to. That's certainly closer than if we assigned percentages at random. On the other hand, my intuition is they're less close than if every voter was picking at random, though I'm not sure if either of those counterworlds is relevant to the argument.
Each voter picking at random will get you almost exactly 50/50 every time, because the sample size is so large. The expected variance goes with the square root of the sample size, so with 100 million voters, you'd expect the outcome of each voter choosing randomly to be about 10,000 off from exactly 50/50.
Here's a quick Python snippet to test it empirically:
With 8 runs, I got these results:
Here's a quick Python snippet to test it empirically:
print sum(random.randint(0, 1) for x in xrange(0, 100000000))
With 8 runs, I got these results:
49995906
50003341
50009287
49996048
49996424
49993962
49989590
50002171
Pretty amazing. If the outcome is determined by 100 million independent coin flips, the probability of a margin greater than one tenth of a percent is 1.5e-23. In R
n <- 100000000
diff <- 0.1/100
a_wins <- n*(1-diff)/2
b_wins <- n*(1+diff)/2
p1 <- pbinom(a_wins, size = n, prob = 0.5)
p2 <- pbinom(b_wins, size = n, prob = 0.5, lower.tail = F)
p1 + p2 # = 1.523959e-23Parent is saying if we randomly chose the outcome, not the votes.
Sure. But why should we expect random percentages to have any relationship to reality?
(I would argue that random votes isn't related to reality either...)
(I would argue that random votes isn't related to reality either...)
Huh? "than if every voter was picking at random" Sounds like what I showed to me.
Indeed. Apart from Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, the two really close elections of the 20th Century involved third parties: Wallace in 1968, Nader in 2000.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. In my eyes, even the blowout of 1984 was fairly close. Mondale got over 40% of the vote, which is enough to win with a wide margin in most countries where there are more than two viable parties.
True. But if there were more than two viable parties, Mondale wouldn't have gotten 40% of the vote...
Reagan getting almost 50% more votes than Mondale is close to you?
..and the '92 election had a third party (Perot) who got much more of the popular vote than Nader did in 2000 (I think it was 24%)
[deleted]
The median voter theorem isn't the whole story, not even close. In particular, it assumes that most of voters are driven by what parties say about themselves in terms of policy, which is manifestly not true. When Trump says he won't cut social security, people from deep republican states say "yeah he cares about the american people, he's with the little guy", whereas when a democrat says the same thing they go "boo he wants to social medicine, commie".
There was this study that showed when remove parties from policies, something like 90% of the population wants free health care for all, free education for all, richer people to be taxed more, not less. 90% isn't really split down the middle.
There was this study that showed when remove parties from policies, something like 90% of the population wants free health care for all, free education for all, richer people to be taxed more, not less. 90% isn't really split down the middle.
Here's an analysis of the problems with First Past the Post which nearly always generates a two party system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
USA gets some slack for being more or less the first (still existing) democracy in the world. But in the modern world, First-Past-the-Post should not be considered full democracy anymore, but only some level of proto-democracy, since proportional representation systems are so much better.
It's like, democracy-wise, Americans are all still driving around in Ford T-Models.
It's like, democracy-wise, Americans are all still driving around in Ford T-Models.
Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person elected office? I understand how it works in parliament or multiple person offices, but isn't there still a necessity for a direct voting mechanism when you are electing a single person?
> Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person elected office?
No. (Well maybe runoff voting would be a slight improvement.)
My point was that with proportional voting, you get more than two viable parties in the parliament, and thus the whole political landscape will be different. And more than two parties will be putting forward their presidential candidates, too.
No. (Well maybe runoff voting would be a slight improvement.)
My point was that with proportional voting, you get more than two viable parties in the parliament, and thus the whole political landscape will be different. And more than two parties will be putting forward their presidential candidates, too.
You may not be able to have a proportional representation, but you can at least offer something like instant runoff or approval voting to ensure that you can vote for candidates you actually like rather than have to vote strategically for a major party candidate exclusively.
The US used to take second place as Vice President, if I understand it correctly.
The other dimension is turnout. With the ridiculously low turnout in US elections, the people not voting could probably elect a third candidate if they all suddenly decided to.
It seems that elections are won and lost at least as much by whose supporters bother to show up as by people switching allegiances.
It seems that elections are won and lost at least as much by whose supporters bother to show up as by people switching allegiances.
While the article nicely deploys undergrad political science, I don't really think that the median voter theorem can possibly be true as described. The thing is, the nominal "center" around which the two-party system orbits moves, on timescales of decades. If we assume both parties gravitate towards a genuinely "privileged" (in the sense that the origin point of a coordinate system is privileged) center, it shouldn't do that: the center should remain exactly where it allows the two parties to split the country down the middle and never shift.
Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s. Prior to that, during the fifth party system, the political center rested with a coalition of urban and Southern working-class Democrats.
Now in our current election, the center seems to be moving into wealthy suburbs and Silicon Valley, libertarian-lite.
The interesting question is what sort of forces move the center and alter the composition of the party-system at any given time.
Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s. Prior to that, during the fifth party system, the political center rested with a coalition of urban and Southern working-class Democrats.
Now in our current election, the center seems to be moving into wealthy suburbs and Silicon Valley, libertarian-lite.
The interesting question is what sort of forces move the center and alter the composition of the party-system at any given time.
> Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s.
Perhaps in an economic sense, but hardly in a cultural sense (other than guns, is there a single Republican cultural issue which has been winning against its Democratic inverse?).
Perhaps in an economic sense, but hardly in a cultural sense (other than guns, is there a single Republican cultural issue which has been winning against its Democratic inverse?).
You're right: the cultural center has shifted glacially to the left over time, with erratic jumps back to the right when the Republicans actually hold supermajority power, followed by further gradual leftward drift when they lose it.
Though in an economic sense, yeah, my original point stands. And actually, it's strengthened in a way: how can we talk about the median voter theorem pushing the parties to the center if they spent the whole most recent party system both moving strongly to the right on economic issues while moving erratically but consistently to the left on social issues? That would mean there isn't even one center!
Though in an economic sense, yeah, my original point stands. And actually, it's strengthened in a way: how can we talk about the median voter theorem pushing the parties to the center if they spent the whole most recent party system both moving strongly to the right on economic issues while moving erratically but consistently to the left on social issues? That would mean there isn't even one center!
[deleted]
The Republican party isn't an ideological center, it is a coalition (same with the Democratic party).
For example, Republicans in congress strongly supported the 1965 Voting Rights act, 111-20 in the house and 30-1 in the Senate (Democrats 217-54, 49-17).
I think this is an important point because there is a good chance that the existing Republican coalition will break down in the next 4 or 8 years.
For example, Republicans in congress strongly supported the 1965 Voting Rights act, 111-20 in the house and 30-1 in the Senate (Democrats 217-54, 49-17).
I think this is an important point because there is a good chance that the existing Republican coalition will break down in the next 4 or 8 years.
Think tanks, reframing issues? I'm thinking of Lakoff's work.
The Median Voter Theorem is too specific. Both sides don't have become as much like each as possible to compete. They can compete by taking positions on new issues progressively over a campaign to seek advantage or by reframing earlier positions.
Dissonance, basically. Dissonance manifests as diametrically opposed views in society. It's also what makes reality, reality. See "this video will make you angry" on Youtube for the meme context.
tldr: Article claims elections are close because the two major parties are intentionally ideologically similar.
I am not impressed by the article, which does not delve into actual party positions, reasons voters give for voting, or well-known blocks of voters, and instead gives an analogy about ice cream vendors.
I am not impressed by the article, which does not delve into actual party positions, reasons voters give for voting, or well-known blocks of voters, and instead gives an analogy about ice cream vendors.
Then you missed the point of the article, which is about why the parties in a system like the US's can be expected to be ideologically similar, based on game-theoretic considerations.
I mean, you may have the opinion that it's a trivial or incorrect point that wasn't worth expressing, but you seem not to be aware that it's there at all.
(tl;dr: you didn't like the article because it had the temerity not to be the article you were expecting. Who knows, if one read such articles one might learn something one didn't already know!)
I mean, you may have the opinion that it's a trivial or incorrect point that wasn't worth expressing, but you seem not to be aware that it's there at all.
(tl;dr: you didn't like the article because it had the temerity not to be the article you were expecting. Who knows, if one read such articles one might learn something one didn't already know!)
Well no, it's more that I thought it was completely insane to state that the Republican and Democratic parties are ideologically similar. They diverge radically on a large number of issues that voters care about. So talking about "why they become similar" is inane.
Polling data is lagging, but the state department just released >300 emails.
Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect.
538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone from 80/20 to 60/40. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify their candidate. Going to be very close
Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect.
538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone from 80/20 to 60/40. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify their candidate. Going to be very close
There is no blackout.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...
0 mention of wikileaks. NYT hasn't weighed in, had to fire a staff member for feeding HRC intel. In fact, there is virtually no mention that wikileaks is actively disclosing emails. One article indicating "voters already made up their minds". I think they are both scumbags, it's just that it is absurd that NYT isn't even trying to spin, just pretending it didn't happen.
I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am very cynical.
I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am very cynical.
Wait, what are you saying they are blacking out?
NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails:
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks
Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.
NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails:
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks
Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.
Sorry, yes am getting them confused. Trying to figure out what is going on with little sleep and email data. I am embarassed I made those mistakes but it is also telling.
I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page.
Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T.
The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well.
Comcerned.
I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page.
Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T.
The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well.
Comcerned.
The story you linked is only on the politics sub-page, and it's under 3 anti-Trump spotlight stories and buried in the middle of other anti-Trump stories.
There is a blackout, it's just not a 100% blackout.
There is a blackout, it's just not a 100% blackout.
It's actually just not an interesting story. It was basically scheduled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
If they don't give good placement to something scandalous from the released messages, then you have an argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
If they don't give good placement to something scandalous from the released messages, then you have an argument.
And the FBI Twitter account is also leaking information about the Clintons. If you ask me the FBI and other government agencies want to bring HRC down, probably for her reckless handling of classified information.
Either this or these agencies are secretly controlled by Putin.
Either this or these agencies are secretly controlled by Putin.
Or, not-secretly controlled by Republicans, in the case of the FBI.
That's weak sauce argument. If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information instead of giving a press conference letting her off the hook. And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him.
FBI was a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans a couple months ago and now it flipped. So the FBI probably isn't controlled by either party.
FBI was a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans a couple months ago and now it flipped. So the FBI probably isn't controlled by either party.
> If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton
No, they wouldn't have, because the FBI can't indict anyone; indictments are sought by Justice Department prosecutors (who don'the work for the FBI) and issued by grand juries (who also don't work for the FBI.) All the FBI can do is investigate, conduct lawful arrests, and provide information to prosecutors who decide whether and when to prosecute (including seeking indictments.)
Well, and conduct politically motivated information releases, though that isn't a legal option, as it violates the Hatch Act.
And the FBI is, in fact, controlled by a Republican. This is a matter of simple, undisputable fact.
And that's a Republican whose naked political manipulation has been criticized not only by Democrats, but by numerous Republicans, including, among other notables, former Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, and by others with no love of Democrats, like conservative icon, Fox News legal anlayst, and Libertarian Party member Judge Andrew Napolitano.
> And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him
Again, that's Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI. Plus, that kind of blatant political manipulation that is likely to get you fired or forced to resign is a one-time-only thing that only works well if you do it right before the election. If a partisan Republican -- especially working in a Democratic Administration -- was going to do it, they do just what Comey did, do it close enough to the general election that it would have an effect, but not so close that it wouldn't have time to get plenty of play in the media and magnification through partisan propaganda outlets.
No, they wouldn't have, because the FBI can't indict anyone; indictments are sought by Justice Department prosecutors (who don'the work for the FBI) and issued by grand juries (who also don't work for the FBI.) All the FBI can do is investigate, conduct lawful arrests, and provide information to prosecutors who decide whether and when to prosecute (including seeking indictments.)
Well, and conduct politically motivated information releases, though that isn't a legal option, as it violates the Hatch Act.
And the FBI is, in fact, controlled by a Republican. This is a matter of simple, undisputable fact.
And that's a Republican whose naked political manipulation has been criticized not only by Democrats, but by numerous Republicans, including, among other notables, former Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, and by others with no love of Democrats, like conservative icon, Fox News legal anlayst, and Libertarian Party member Judge Andrew Napolitano.
> And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him
Again, that's Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI. Plus, that kind of blatant political manipulation that is likely to get you fired or forced to resign is a one-time-only thing that only works well if you do it right before the election. If a partisan Republican -- especially working in a Democratic Administration -- was going to do it, they do just what Comey did, do it close enough to the general election that it would have an effect, but not so close that it wouldn't have time to get plenty of play in the media and magnification through partisan propaganda outlets.
Hm, so it's a Russian-Republican FBI-CIA conspiracy against Hillary? Even though 2 weeks ago Comey was praised by the Democrats for not indicting HRC.
They sure are all out to get her it seems.
They sure are all out to get her it seems.
[deleted]
Reasons for this I believe include upvote/downvote trains on the internet, clickbait headlines, and networks streamlining content to cater to certain audiences. People who watch Fox news don't want to hear about Trump rape allegations, they want to watch news casters talk about Evil Hillary. It's the reverse for CNN. Remember in the Bush era how blatantly Fox news was a Republican news-horn, and how the case is the same now for CNN and Clinton?
Euck. Can't stand it. No room for moderates, your voice won't get heard if you aren't making someone stamp their feet.
Ninjaedit: I mean honestly how is it possible that of the 300 million people spread across one of the largest (geographical) countries in the world and one of the most diverse populations on the world, exactly half want one person to represent them, and exactly half want one other person to represent them. It doesn't make sense.