IMstoned420, actually (surprisingly,) hit the nail on the head

(no duke, EVERYONE does not fall into that pattern, but it is the OVERWHELMING trend)

I've seen it hundreds of times, in fact, nearly every democrat or republican I know is a one or two issue voter

that doesn't mean that they only care about one or two issues, it means that those issues are SO important,

that they can't allow themselves to vote against a candidate or party that supports them, that's all


the problem with 420's thinking, (as well as MANY, MANY others that oppose the 2-party system,) is the electoral college

it has almost nothing to do with the 2-party system, as many believe (even I made this mistake in the past)

it is simply there because the president is the president of the country and of the states, not of the people

individual people have mayors and governors, and that's plenty; they don't need a federal leader

the president is for foreign, federal, and state-federal issues, not individual people

until recently, the federal government has had little involvement in the lives of individuals; (now that's changed, and is a problem)

we DON'T need to encourage the idea that the federal government should have anything to do with individuals

a national popular vote is thus a stupid idea; and it completely negates the entire purpose of having two legislative bodies

unless you think we should scrap the entire senate, and just have the house (sorry small states)

then opposing the electoral college doesn't make any sense

imagine this with three or more parties

Quote :

"The number of electoral college members is set by the number of US House Representatives (set at 435 seats since 1911), the number of US Senators (2 per state = 100), plus 3 votes for Washington DC. The total size of the electoral college is thus 538. To achieve victory in the presidential election, a candidate must win half of the electoral college (269) plus one vote, (or 270,) else the election is decided by the incoming House of Representatives. In this case, each state is allotted one vote, and the House must then choose the president among the top three candidates recipients of electoral votes."

three??

I thought it was all about two! -- you see? things aren't as they seem

it's no big deal if any candidate doesn't receive 270 electoral votes, because the house will then vote -- problem solved

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS; STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AND THEIR PREROGATIVES MATTER

Quote :

"It's easy to group those you disagree with into 1 or 2 ideological groups, but that doesn't make it true."

but we're not the ones grouping them that way; they're doing themselves -- that's the whole point

4/9/2008 9:21:06 AM

^"PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS; STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AND THEIR PREROGATIVES MATTER"

I agree with you in principle, but I'm a deeply idealogical kinda guy. Pragmatically its all about individuals these days. Its about "what can the government give me this year".

Breaking from the comment above,

I wonder if part of the political stability in the US stems from having a 2 party system. Is part of the reason other countries have violent election times because these smaller factions get their hopes inflated. Here in the US they pretty much know there is no chance to beat the dems and reps.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 10:54:56 AM

^
right, well, silencing dissent and debilitating democracy has always been socially and politically stabilizing

that's the whole idea behind a one-party state; (our 2-party state being only one party away from that)

4/9/2008 11:25:29 AM

bump


based on a few posts in the Copenhagen thread:

Quote :

"I do not understand why this along with other issues always falls in party lines. You would think there would be some statistical variation among the many difference issues of today's society. Not to often do you hear about a congressman being pro-life, climate change believing, anti-war, health care reform opponent. Or a congressman being stricter gun regulations, big business friendly, relaxed drug law, climate change believer, anti-welfare. "

12/12/2009 1:10:34 AM

Meh people want to belong more than they want to understand. Generally people I've met who think extensively about the world will surprise you with some of their positions. On the other hand, the loudest cheerleaders tend to be emotionally attached to the issues and lacking in logical consistency.


WRT politics, the question probably is, "does politics mirror life, or does life mirror politics, or are they simply hideous caricatures of one another?

Quote :

"I've seen it hundreds of times, in fact, nearly every democrat or republican I know is a one or two issue voter"

At first I didnt' like this, but it may have some validity. I consider myself relatively independent in my thinking but when I step back and look at it, my primary reason for rejecting both parties is that each one of them wants a portion of my economic liberty or my freedom to pursue my life as I see fit so long as I respect the rights of others. These are the two issues that define my voting.

The criteria of personal liberty is a relatively broad brush with many sub-components, but that is still my single biggest issue. For a staunch abortion opponent to whom abortion is a firm moral evil which must be abolished, they're not going to bend on that issue. A farmer is going to vote for the man who subsidizes his livelihood even if that balloons the deficit for his children. A gun enthusiast will elect a politician who wants to tell his neighbors with whom to have sex and what substances they may or may not ingest. A Catholic union worker in the northeast might vote for an atheist pro-gay rights candidate so long as the union endorses them.

Each one of these dichotomies is only partly valid anyway because they're based on what I would perceive as intellectually incongruous positions, but they may not be. The parties reflect this because the single issue defining them is power through the ballot box. They'll adopt positions many of the members find less than ideal or possibly flat out wrong because they appeal to a key demographic.

The average voter who only half-heatedly pays attention but rabidly supports "his guy" will tend to adopt the views which don't directly conflict with his or replace vacancies where no opinion was held at all.


It shouldn't be surprising though. The entire professional sports economy is based on people pouring massive amounts of time and emotional energy into a group of people they've never met for no other reason than geographic affiliation.

12/12/2009 10:17:48 AM

Quote :

"That is more an issue of who should make such a decision: individuals or government. "

Choice becomes more complicated when the individuals are the government.

12/12/2009 10:29:24 AM

I'm very liberal on social positions and very conservative on economic and international issues.

I don't really understand how anyone could disagree with me.

12/12/2009 10:58:09 AM

^ b.c people are retarded and think they can push their morals onto you or take your money to support lazy fat welfare queens.

Quote :

"-i think the GOP is a much bigger tent that the Democratic party...not the other way around."

I would agree from a platform and ideology perspective but definitly not a demographic perspecive.

12/12/2009 11:24:52 AM

Quote :

"WRT politics, the question probably is, "does politics mirror life, or does life mirror politics, or are they simply hideous caricatures of one another? "

I’m going to go with hideous caricature.

Just look at lonesnark for example… he talks about economic issues all the time but he is really broke in real life, the free market has screwed him. I have a friend who calls himself a conservative and whines about government spending every now and then, but as a grad student, relies on welfare programs to help get himself some food (not that there’s anything wrong with using welfare).

I think it comes down to people growing up associating certain ideas with certain labels. LIke perhaps the latter friend there grew up associating gays and blacks with “liberals” or “democrats” and despite what his positions actually mean, he wouldn’t identify with those labels.

Not to mention though that the whole liberal/conservative perceptions in America kind-of force people into molds. For someone like Solinari who claims to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, there’s no good “home” for him to help foster his kind of thinking, when it comes to the labels.


^ there’s no way they GOP is a bigger tent ideologically. Their positions have been anti-gay and anti-immigrant and anti-non-Christian, which is a pretty large group of people not to want in your tent.

[Edited on December 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2009 12:05:35 PM

Quote :

"Just look at lonesnark for example… he talks about economic issues all the time but he is really broke in real life, the free market has screwed him."

Without knowing his personal situation, this doesn't logically follow. The free market says nothing about guaranteeing wealth to those who understand it. There are plenty of wealthy leftists who would like to see the market abolished and plenty of Austrian School economists who predicted the current conditions but who are considered fringe theorists in many university economics departments.

Quote :

"I have a friend who calls himself a conservative and whines about government spending every now and then, but as a grad student, relies on welfare programs to help get himself some food (not that there’s anything wrong with using welfare)."

I think there is, in fact, a great moral and societal hazard in expecting that others will support you.

12/12/2009 12:15:43 PM

Quote :

"The free market says nothing about guaranteeing wealth to those who understand it."

I’m not saying it does, or that’s what he says.

But i’d think someone in that situation would have a more balanced perspective that he seems to have (although now that I think about it, he is a big fan of the EITC).

Quote :

"I think there is, in fact, a great moral and societal hazard in expecting that others will support you. "

It depends on what you mean by “expect” here, but it’s likely he would agree with you, but that doesn’t stop him from using said programs.

12/12/2009 12:19:26 PM

Which makes him a hypocrite, which we all are to certain degrees. I think the most we can do is recognize and attempt to minimize it.

Man, at his core, is an animal interested in his own survival. All the talk about ideology is a luxury of civilization.

12/12/2009 12:53:49 PM

You would be shocked (OK maybe many of you wouldn't) just how much religion affects the way people vote. I mean, I think it is a safe assumption that most conservative Protestant religions are pro Rebublican. But until you have been to some of these churches you might not realize just how much they can influence their membership.

I used to go to a very very strict Southern Baptist church. The kind that forbids watching TV or women wearing pants. I remember the preacher continuously talking about how great George Bush was, and how everyone needed to go out and vote for him (this was when he was facing off against Jon Kerry). He even said that if you weren't voting for Bush that you needed to go out and get "right with God" and pray about the bad decision you were making.

That was a huge factor in me leaving the church, because a big chunk of what he said just did not make any sense to me. Not just about politics of course, but about religion in general. I didn't particularly despise gays like the church wanted me to. I didn't think alcohol was so bad. I thought women in leadership positions was OK. I dunno, I guess what they were telling me just didn't jive.

Oh, I recommend watching that movie Jesus Camp. I know 99% of churches are nothing like the ones depicted, but wow. It's crazy to think places like that exist.

12/12/2009 1:18:08 PM

^^ i should also point out that he has a 1yr old son (and wife) and in that situation, you’re always going to do what’s best for your family, even if it means being a “hypocrite.” At some point in his life though, when he hears a politician rail against welfare, i would hope his experiences would give him pause to think about what’s being said to him.

12/12/2009 1:31:23 PM

that's so typical for a liberal to assume that a person should always put his individual self-interest above the interests of his nation.

12/12/2009 3:21:33 PM

Quote :

"Which makes him a hypocrite"

I disagree. Such a discussion is merely the act of interacting with the political process in hopes of setting the rules to match the ones desired. It does not actually change them.

It is not hypocritical for an anarcho-capitalist living in Soviet Russia to seek party membership, nor is it hypocritical for a communist living in British Hong Kong to start a private company. The rules are the rules and we all must live with them. To expect people's behavior to be dependent upon their internal rule preferences instead of the actual rules is childish, 'I refuse to go to school until you privatize my skateboard!'

Now, what would be hypocritical would be to believe all government schools should close, until they try to close the one you attend, then you protest like the dickens. If you believe in private roads, then don't run to the Mayor when the road cooperative raises the fee for connecting your driveway. I'm sure lots of other examples exist. To argue taxes should be high only to be under-reporting your income to avoid paying them (see numerous Administration officials).

[Edited on December 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

[Edited on December 12, 2009 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/12/2009 5:14:45 PM