OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

Our two party system really blows. Folks like to vote for a winner, or vote for one of the two big parties.

In a plurality voting system like ours -- one vote per person, winner takes all -- it makes sense to vote for the most moderate (popular) candidate who's more-or-less aligned with your interests. If you vote for a Socialist, you're "throwing away" your vote, when you'd prefer the left-leaning Democrat over the fiscally conservative Republican. You may "send a message", but you'll help elect the "wrong" candidate in that particular election.

Other voting schemes help avoid this trap. Please see the Election Selection article I mentioned earlier (from Science News).

Unfortunately, change is not going to come about from either of those parties at this point.

Change clearly has come about over the years though, just not revolutionary change. The Republicans of the 1970s would look like left-wing Socialists to their 1930's predecessors.

But there are many well qualified 3rd party candidates out there. If the public would take the time to educate themselves about them, and vote for them instead - even IF one of the two parties won - the amount of votes the 3rd party got - if increased - would show a certain amount of gaining support for the 3rd parties and waning support for our two big parties. THIS is the key.

Again, you have to throw away your vote to send a message that way. Further, if the third parties are just more extreme versions of the two existing parties (extreme left and extreme right), they'll have negligible effect on the political scene as a whole. The only "valid" alternatives are third parties that aren't along the current left-right continuum.

 

[Pielorinho]

The problem with the electoral college (well, one of them) is that presidential candidates DON'T pay much attention to New York. Everyone knows that New York is gonna vote Democrat; why should they campaign there? In fact, there's no real reason to campaign in any state in which a solid majority of people vote for one party or the other.

Instead, candidates campaign in states with many "swing" voters, in which a chunk of electoral college votes are up for grabs.

This means that if, for example, Delaware might go Republican or Democrat based on the votes of 10,000 people, those 10,000 will find their issues addressed a lot more heavily than the 10,000,000 people (or however many) that live in New York. And those people will be focus-grouped to death.

It doesn't really encourage a presidential candidate to get broad support from a disparate geographic area (which seems irrelevant to me anyway -- prairies and mountains don't vote, people do). Instead, it encourages them to focus on a narrow smattering of voters.

As for mandatory voting, I'm all in favor of a $100 driver's license surcharge for anyone who doesn't vote. I figure that'd be fair. Sorry, Doc.

Daniel

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

About a year ago. Until Jim Jeffords (an Independant Sentator from Vermont, I belive) decided to vote with the Democrats, the Republican party held the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate.

Come on guys, I was asking about politically relevant periods of control.

Thank goodness for AskJeeves:

With the election of George W. Bush, Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency for the first time since Eisenhower's first two years in office (1953-55).

The last time Republicans controlled both Congress and the Presidency for three or more election years was 1924, 1926 and 1928.

The last time the Republicans controlled all three branches of government -- for if they have the legislative and executive, the judicial will surely follow -- was 1931.

Perhaps the most salient characteristic of dealignment has been the persistence of divided government, where the party that controlled the presidency did not control at least one branch of Congress. . . . There were two periods in American history when divided government was more common than party government, 1840-1858 and 1876-1894. But since 1968 divided government has more frequent for a longer period of time than ever before in American history. In last 32 years, there have only been 6 years of party government, and in the past 20 years, party government has only occurred in the first two years of the Clinton administration.

For most of American history, the dynamics of the party system can be captured by the theory of realignment via critical elections. (Key, Burnham, Sundquist 1983) The theory of realignment argues that one party tends to dominate the American political system for several generations. However, roughly once every 30-40 years during a massive political crisis there is a rapid shift in the fortunes of the parties. At these key moments a "critical election" "realigns" the system and establishes a new electoral configuration that then sets the pattern that then endures for several decades.

Have the events of 9/11 triggered such a pattern? I suppose we won't know for 2 years, at least...

EDIT: My suspicion is that we Americans like our checks and balances. The President has been handed 2 years and political control of Congress to get our national security under control, but I would expect a turnaround in Congress in 2 years. Not major-- I predict that Bush will be re-elected and the Democrats will win back the Senate by a slim margin. Republicans will continue to hold the House.

Wulf

 

[Piratecat]

This thread isn't going to start discussing specific political ideologies and politicians, right?

Right.

 

[Default Name Player]

This election is important, people. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

Actually, I follow George Carlin's line of thinking when it comes to voting (to paraphrase): It's the people who DO vote who have no right to complain because it's those people that voted the politician into power.

I'm with Wolfen Priest (on page 1) on all of this

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This thread isn't going to start discussing specific political ideologies and politicians, right?

Are you specifically worried about me, or are you just throwing your weight behind Henry's prior warning?

 

[EricNoah]

I'd say Pkitty's was just a general warning, Wulf.

I think the mods are all probably feeling like "Hey, they're doing a great job" but also "Hmm, I'd sure like this to end on a good note and not on a sour note." Is there a way we can wrap this up before it goes south? Normally a thread like this wouldn't be around long at all but with elections yesterday it was understandable. A day later and it's to me it seems like we should probably go back to "no political discussion."

Eh, we'll see what happens.

 

[apsuman]

Does anybody know the last time:

a) the President's party controlled both houses and,

b) Republicans controlled both the Presidency and the Congress?


Wulf

The answer to A: is 2000, but if you are talking about real control, then it is 1992 when Clinton and the Dems controlled both houses. The result: i 1994 the Democrats lost 52 seats propelling the republicans into the house majority for the first time in 4 decades.

The answer to B: Has already been pointed out. Eisenhower, 1952-ish.

g!

 

[Storm Raven]

Since the number of electors a state gets is based on its population, the electoral college solves nothing. If you had a state with a high enough population to have over half of the electors, that state would choose the president every time.

Not entirely true. Every State has a number of electors equal to the number of representatives it has in the overall Congress. Therefore, every State has two electoral votes for its Senators (regardless of population), and a number of additional electoral votes equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives it is entitled to.

 

[apsuman]

26 of the states have such laws. However, nothing can be done to recast the vote. Once it's done, it's done. Most of the states impose a fine, with a few considering it a misdemeanor, and fewer still classifying it as a 4th degree felony.

Well, in the past, state legislatures have sent a slate of electoral votes. Sometimes in place of the electors's votes, sometimes along with the electors' votes.

g!