I have been watching the Coleman/Franken US Senate recount daily and it has raised an issue that I find myself struggling with. The impact of third party candidates – or more correctly, the impact of third party candidates who potentially take votes away from candidates that I support.
This from a post on TPM on that race and recount:
No, the pickin’s weren’t slim. Many of us liked Franken a lot. We were even excited about his candidacy. We chose him to run against Coleman–intentionally and happily. And if it hadn’t been for the pointless vanity campaign of that goddamn ignorant bastard Dean Barkley and the goddamn ignorant bastards who voted for him, Franken would have won easily.
Posted by hrebendorf in reply to a comment from Michael A
November 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember feeling angry with Nader after the 2000 presidentail race (the reality of Gore losing his own home state that year certainly made Nader’s vote in FLA less important when I had time to think it out). Found myself feeling pissed at Dean Barkley without even knowing the specifics of the race.
So has Barkley cost Franken the race and Dems another seat or would Barkley voters simply stayed home? Was Barkley’s vote an anti-Coleman vote that sliced enough votes from Franken’s total to swing the race to the incumbent?
I find myself strugling with this. I believe everyone has the right to run and I have voted for third party candidates (John Anderson in 1980 comes to mind). I support the Working Families Party in Massachusetts and Fusion ballots.
Taking that into consideration, I would have to say that democracy is messy and we take the results as they come. Third parties play a legit role in raising issues and motivating voters to come to the polls.
What says BMG Nation?
Protesting against third parties isn’t that far removed from protesting against a second party, in my opinion. To take your example, Barkley was a legit candidate — he ran for that same party had put a governor into power, Barkley had served (very briefly) as a Senator, he organized a statewide, serious-minded campaign about the issues, and in the end he earned almost 20% of the vote.
<
p>Besides, while Nader is the greatest example of a large-impact third-party candidate, plenty of third-party candidates have hurt Republicans. Take this year — there’s only a run-off in Georgia for Senate because of the Libertarian candidate keeping Republican Saxby Chambliss under 50%; it’s only because of Palin’s Alaska Independence Party that Ted Stevens did not return to the Senate in all his convicted glory. I’m not sure that Perot really cost Bush Sr. the election against Clinton, but I do believe that without Perot, the dynamics of the campaign certainly could have been more to the incumbent’s advantage.
<
p>Franken cost himself that seat, or if you prefer Minnesota voters cost him that seat. It was a tough campaign to run, and I’m not going to blame Barkley for Franken’s loss.
As far as I’m concerned it should stay that way. Any candidate who leans left should seek the Democratic nomination and any who lean right should seek the Republican nomination. The other way to resolve this is to have runoffs, either between the top two vote-getters one week later or via IRV.
So long as we have a “first past the post” voting system, we will remain a two party system (or one party, as the case is here in Massachusetts). If we implement IRV (for single seat races) or proportional representation (for the legislature), then third parties (or just plain independents) will be able to develop a voice. Their ability to participate does not entitle them to my vote, but it would allow the voters to select the representatives that most closely reflect their personal opinions, without being weighed down by the “spoiler” argument.
People should be represented, not parties as such, especially since as the commenter below pointed out, party members are not always in lockstep with each other. I’ve always believed that one of the strengths of our constitutional system is that parties are not institutionalized in our election results.
If our elections were all nonpartisan, i.e., no party affiliation was permitted, just individuals representing a set of viewpoints, and those elections were run by IRV, then your point is a fair one. But to suggest that party affiliation has no effect or role in election results because “parties are not institutionalized in our election results” simply ignores the reality of our election system. For most political races in this state, the only “election” that matters is the Democratic primary, not the general election.
<
p>While the progressives that principally populate this site (of which I consider myself one) might be generally happy about this, the Massachusetts legislature does not come close to representing all of the people of the commonwealth. If we take the percentage of people who voted for John McCain as the baseline of Republicans in the state (appx. 30% – I don’t remember the exact number), that would suggest we should have about 60 Republicans in the General Court and Senate combined. Needless to say, we are not close to that (even if you include the DINOs). IMHO, this is not a good thing.
<
p>The key question about proportional representation really comes down to geography. The General Court breaks the state down into 160 separate jurisdictions. There is nothing objectionable about this, but this necessarily requires our representatives to focus principally on issues at the “micro” (community) level rather than the “macro” (statewide) level. That’s how our system works now. However, I believe we would be better off with a hybrid system that had a certain number of representatives (let’s say 120 for the fun of it) who are still elected from their (slightly larger) communities, with the remaining 40 elected through PR, who represent a certain set of political views (yes, as institutionalized through their parties) that can be vetted at the statewide level. Yes, we would end up with more Republicans, but there would hopefully also be a couple of Green-Rainbows, Libertarians and what-have-you thrown in as well. Again, in my opinion, this would be a really good thing.
House districts are small, Senate districts are somewhat larger. The Constitutional Officers are for the entire state with Governor’s Councilors for larger regions. I think this is an appropriate balance. You make some good points above, but your ideas would require constitutionalizing political parties which I still would rather not do.
While I may agree that in the absence of a runoff (or instant runoff) system, it’s best to have just two candidates, I can’t accept this notion of “leans left = Democrat” and “leans right = Republican”. It’s just too one-dimensional.
<
p>How does a pro-choice, fiscally conservative person fit into this scenario? What about a classic Republican who actually believes in the separation of church and state? What about a Democrat who supported the Iraq War? We can all come up with plenty of examples of political aberrations.
<
p>With the choices narrowed to just two, there’s an ever-present danger that anyone who deviates from the party orthodoxy will be treated as an outcast.
<
p>I’m reminded of when in little old Cambridge, MA it was once impossible for a candidate who was “progressive” in all ways except one to get an endorsement from the Cambridge Civic Association unless they preached the gospel of rent control.
<
p>Without the threat of 3rd parties or the splitting of an existing party into factions, I’m not so sure that there would be much political freedom.
I don’t agree with Democrats on everything, but the preponderence of agreement is with them and thus I am one. The examples you cite should contest their respective primaries. I have also come to believe this year that primaries should only be open to registrants of the party. This would encourage centrists to pick a side, participate in primaries and possibly balance the extremes of each who currently decide primaries.
… but anyone also has the right to call such a person stupid or immoral or foolish for doing so. The running is legit, and so is the criticism.
While I agree that criticism is legit, it doesn’t strike me as productive. Unless anyone’s proposing we make it illegal for third party candidates to run, then they will continue to run. The only productive response, in my opinion, is to work for a voting system like Instant Runoff Voting that allows them to run without spoiling the election. I think every ounce of energy spent complaining about third party candidates would be better spent advocating to IRV. The voting system is the problem, not the candidates.
… can expect criticism. Justified, unjustified, productive, unproductive, whatever. Expecting anything else isn’t reality based. The criticisms for running in the first place a legitimate and can absolutely be productive if the goal of those giving criticism is to protect their candidate’s flank from the third party candidate.
<
p>In a contest, almost all ‘productivity’ is relative. If you’re talking productivity relative toward making any hypothetical third party candidacy viable, well that is of course going to be contrary to the ‘productivity’ of getting one of the two main party candidates elected.
<
p>Point taken about the voting system, of course, though.
and so I always have more interest in third-party candidates who are truly party building. That’s one of my frustrations with Nader. Sure, we have a two party system if we insist on looking only at state-wide or nation-wide races. A good party with a meaningful platform can make a lot of inroads if the focus is on local races and building the ol’ grassroots. That being said, I happen to be focusing my energies on the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
One question I’ve had about the Minnesota Senate race concerns the approach to running a campaign. In Massachusetts, we’ve seen Patrick and Obama each winning based on a campaign that avoided being negative, focused on “solving problems” and “hope”, and eschewed clarion calls to the liberal banner. By contrast, Al Franken certainly made clarion calls to the liberal banner. In Minnesota, one might have expected that to win — if it’s going to win anywhere.
<
p>Now I find Al Franken to be an appealing figure, but this is no way universal. Did he rub enough voters the wrong way? Or are clarion calls ineffective?
There are a lot of other variables in this race. That’s true of any race, but perhaps this one a bit more than average, given Franken’s job background, Barkley’s strength, the negativity of some of the campaigning, etc. Some people may have voted against Franken, despite supporting his politics, because they were turned off by some of his old comedy routines (remember, some of his stuff was far edgier than Stuart Smalley). Others may have voted Barkley because Franken and Coleman sniped at each other so much.
<
p>With so many factors in the mix, I’m not sure that you could isolate the role of what you clarion calls to the liberal banner. There’s too much of what statisticians call omitted variable bias pointing in too many different directions.
<
p>(And have I just been doing my statistics homework? Yes. A grad student’s work continues over Thanksgiving break.)
Well, yes, there are a lot of other variables. I suppose that means collecting and comparing more races. Possibly polling (that I haven’t read) might cast some light.
<
p>Certainly everything you mention is a factor. Question is, how much of a factor?
I pick irrelevant.
Do you wish to make it illegal for third party candidates to run? No? Then we have no reasonable choice but to use a voting system like Instant Runoff Voting to accommodates their presence. Complaining about third party candidates strikes me as a complete waste of time. Every ounce of energy complaining that so-and-so is a spoiler and shouldn’t be in the race would be better spent advocating for a voting system like IRV that prevents spoiling to begin with.
<
p>Also, a technical note on the Minnesota race. I used to think Franken would have definitely won a head-to-head race with Coleman, but now I’m not so sure. Franken had a 5 percent edge over Coleman in terms of who Barkley supporters preferred second, meaning if Barkely wasn’t in the race, then Franken would have at least an addition 20,000 votes. Then I learned that the Conservative and Libertarian Party candidates earned about 23,000 votes themselves. Taking the latter into account, it’s not as clear what would happen in a runoff.
IRV or making third party candidacies illegal? That’s a false choice. The question isn’t illegality, it’s viability.
<
p>I also thought Barkley would tip it for Franken, but watching the Franken race several months ago, it seemed that local media have always been unsure as to which way the Barkley campaign would push the two main parties.
There are other options, including the “don’t change anything, just complain” option. I think Greg’s point was that we should turn this complaining about third parties into support for IRV, rather than oppose third parties.
<
p>As to alternatives, I like the idea of a month long period of voting, with the latest daily tallies made public, and being able to change your vote if you don’t like what effect your vote is having on the election, up until a cut-off on election day when you can’t change it anymore. But IRV accomplishes the same thing, I suppose, though it perhaps would favor third party candidates, since people might vote for them out of novelty and not expect the to win.
Third party candidates have not been and never will be illegal. That’s the wrong word. The point I make says nothing about IRV. I didn’t make any point about IRV. I’m guessing that your ‘4’ is some kind of defense of IRV, which I didn’t attack. Your ‘4’ presents a profound misunderstanding. You need to work on your reading comprehension, or take more than 2 seconds to understand what you’re reading before you shoot back. You do a very good job at arguing against a point that I didn’t make. I’m sure Greg understands the point I made, even if you don’t.
Greg was making a rhetorical point, knowing (as we all do) that we aren’t going to make third parties illegal, they’ll always be there, so instead of complaining about them, let’s support IRV. That went over your head, and is still going over your head, apparently.
You go and have a great time debating points nobody’s making.
You said Greg was giving us a “false choice”, as if he was literally claiming that the choice was IRV or making third parties illegal, and you dismissed his point with your “viablity” comment, which was very pointless and vague (are you talking about viability of candidates or of new voting systems, and, so what?).
<
p>So I asked you (note the question mark) “what are the other options?” (also note that Greg originally said “like IRV”, not only IRV). I then tried to help explain Greg’s point, and then I suggested another alternative to IRV. I gave your comment a 3 because it was just a negative unhelpful response to a good point and served only to obfuscate and blunt his efforts.
<
p>Then you said I was missing the point, and that third parties never will be illegal, again seeming to think that Greg was seriously saying that was the choice, and that I believed that to be a choice. You correctly pointed out that you hadn’t mentioned IRV, but I had never implied you had mentioned IRV. You then said I had a “profound misunderstanding” and insulted my reading comprehension which is quite ironic considering I was trying to help you understand Greg, and being respectful and helpful up until that point (unless you consider the 3 to be an insult).
<
p>So, after you insulted me, I replied “duh” because you seemed to think I was an idiot who didn’t know third parties won’t be made illegal. I still don’t know what point you are making. Feel free to try to explain your point to us again, if you have one. And if you still need help understanding Greg or my points, or would like to comment on them in a non-vague, meaningful way, feel free to do that too.
… that illegal was the wrong term. You turned it into the inquisition. Your bad.
It was the correct word for the rhetorical point Greg is making, which is that since we aren’t about to make third parties illegal, we’d better find a better way to deal with them so they don’t screw up elections. You missed and obfuscated his point with your comment, and then insulted me when I tried to rescue his point and help you understand it. There’s no inquisition, I’m just being thorough because you seem to need help understanding what we’ve been talking about.
… are so far apart that the any act of making them rhetorically equivalent is misguided at best. I’m opposed to the GOP but I’m hardly going to make the illegal am I? Besides, this ‘Mr. Lynne you just misunderstand that he was just being rhetorical’ stance isn’t the stance you started with and hardly merits a 3. Get over yourself.
Dude, maybe Greg didn’t need to use such a heavy-handed device to make his point about complaining versus making a productive change, but you must be the only person in the world who thought he was serious. I didn’t think you’d continue to think that when I made my reply to you, I thought you’d move on to the issue of alternatives. But right from the start I was trying to tell you that Greg was making a point.
<
p>I gave it a three because I am sensitive to people dismissing valid points and suggestions with negativity that doesn’t address the point. You do it all the time. You must be a paid employee of the status quo, or just bitter and fearful of ideas in general. Stop that.
The rhetoric isn’t productive if it isn’t applicable.
when someone says something like “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you say “If you took two seconds to look you’d see it’s neither raining cats nor dogs! That’s a false choice, you moron!”
<
p>OK, so you aren’t going to apologize to me, but what do you think of the point that we shouldn’t just complain about third party candidates, we should change our voting system so that third party candidates can be viable and not just be spoilers? What do you think of IRV, and what do you think of my changeable vote idea?
… was to defend IRV and third party candidates. You’ll note that I never assert anything in this thread about either. That’s why you miss the point. Reading comprehension again.
because you seemed to miss (and curtly dismiss) Greg’s point, so I (politely, I intended) said what I thought Greg’s point was, which was (surprise!) about IRV and third party candidates.
You politely did nothing.
so that’s what caused this rage? Well, it was worthless as it stood. I replied to you to help you make a worthwhile comment. Were you or were you not taking Greg literally? I couldn’t really tell. On the one hand, I thought you must know that he didn’t really think that was the choice, and so what you were doing was your typical dismissive negative comment designed to crush any spirit of hope that Greg had for constructive change, and I was trying to draw a respectful response out of you. On the other hand, there was a very slight chance maybe you really did think Greg was under the impression that was the only choice, and i wanted to gently prod you to understanding. Either way, it was a worthless comment and so I asked you a specific question to try and get something of value out of you. Ha.
… what you’ve been saying (not from the beginning) is that you basically agree with what I said about illegality but consider it not important because ‘it was just rhetoric’. Pointing this out could have been ‘polite’. Handing out a 3 while doing it was the act of an asshole.
with worthless literalistic nitpicking is the act of an asshole, or maybe someone who just misunderstood the metaphor and just needed some explanation about what Greg’s point was. But now we know which. Rating a worthless comment worthless is a matter of duty, and when it’s true, then suck it up and redeem yourself.
I didn’t dismiss his point. Jesus H Christ. Do you see there is nothing in anything I’ve said that indicates that I’m against IRV? Get a F&^*ing clue.
<
p>”I agree with you, but you’re being to literal… here’s a ‘3’”. Asshole.
and saying “that’s a false choice” sure sounded dismissive, but I’m no linguistics professor. And just because you didn’t address his point, doesn’t mean you didn’t dismiss his point. In fact, I’d say responding without addressing the point, with many negatives, is dismissing his point.
<
p>I gave you a chance to contribute something, in fact many chances now to move on past your original curtness, but you still haven’t. Stuck inside today, or something?
… reading what I actually wrote, you’d see that there wasn’t any negativity there at all. Idiot.
And considering that you didn’t even address his main point (or any of my many direct questions to you about IRV and other alternatives, for that matter), but only dismissed it with a “does not follow”, it is indeed negative. Your second paragraph in response to his second paragraph might have been more constructive, but considering that was just speculation about the past anyhow, it can’t really be positive or negative.
… please point to what I actually ‘dismissed’? Ugh!
You regularly dismiss and belittle a comment in a confoundingly obtuse way that leaves the original poster scratching his head about what it is you’re objecting to. Worthless, that is. That’s why I asked you to elaborate about what the other choices were. Still asking, in fact.
<
p>I said something very specific. Easily comprehended actually, with little effort.
<
p>You are willfully ignoring what was actually said and substituting a point you wish to belabor from your own head.
<
p>And for the record… you didn’t ask anything when you started handing out 3s.
<
p>Your starting to engage in revisionist history now.
“what are the alternatives”, because I was interested in a constructive conversation. I don’t know which I did first, I probably rated, then replied immediately.
<
p>You dismissed his entire comment by invoking “Does Not Follow” and “That is a False Choice” as if it was Logic 101. Yes, the fact that there were additional choices was indeed comprehended, as evidenced by my asking you to suggest some, and providing one of my own, and then trying to clarify Greg’s use of the “do you want to make it illegal” argumentative device in case you weren’t familiar with it.
<
p>I’m glad to enlighten you about the effect of replying “Does not follow!” and “False choice!” and ignoring the point of people you intend to be supportive of. It doesn’t have that effect, surprisingly.
… there you go… comprehension again. Read the F*(#$ words I wrote. They do not dismiss the whole thing. You’re a moron if you read that and read it as dismissing everything Greg had to say. Ugh!
You responded to his second paragraph, true. But his main point, the one that addressed the question of the diary, was about the need to change to a system that deals with third party candidates better (like IRV). You dismissed his whole comment by replying with a subject line that indicates total disagreement (‘Does not follow.’ with your signature use of a gratuitous period) and pretending (I don’t think you really believed) as though he literally thought the only choice was IRV or making 3rd parties illegal, and adding that the question isn’t illegality, it is about viability (whatever that means, it’s still unclear, but that’s all the better to dismiss something with].
<
p>If you didn’t dismiss Greg’s first paragraph entirely, what part of it were you supporting? Oh, right, none – you didn’t say anything about IRV or any alternatives or agree with him about anything, did you? All you did was get hung up on the metaphorical use of illegality, and damn, I tried to get you back on track earnestly, because I wanted to talk about what other choices there were. I thought you’d be too.
… it’s English for chrissake. What I ‘dismissed’ was the term illegal. Anyone with a 5th grade education can read that. That’s all I did.
<
p>Wow. Just… wow.
OK, so you took his metaphor literally, that’s forgivable (and rather unbelievable, but OK). That’s why I commented to clarify Greg’s point and ask you what the alternatives were, what were the other choices you must have had in mind when pointing out that IRV or illegality was a “false choice.” So I asked you what you had in mind, and provided one of my own. That was constructive, I was hoping to discuss voting systems, not metaphors. Because pointing out that the metaphor he used is not literally true is, by itself, worthless.
<
p>Two points I want to make now:
1) Replying to a comment with a subject line like “does not follow” and a comment like “that is false” has the effect of being against the entire comment, unless steps are taken to note parts of the comment that you do in fact agree with. In this medium, we read responses for general agreement or disagreement, as if there were two sides to everything. Of course, there are as many sides as people and we can argue with like-minded people, but still, replies are read for approval or disapproval, friend or foe. This is a shortcoming of blogs, and why it is often necessary to be clear about what portion you are commenting on and follow up when people ask for more info.
<
p>2) Rating something worthless is not violating the rules, it is not something to take offense at. Calling someone moron and idiot is violating the rules.
It is strange that people seem reluctant to agree that we should go to IRV, as if it was just completely crazy to even think about changing anything. So all that’s left is complaining about third party candidates. I get your point about the other choice (besides complaining) being making third party candidates illegal, and agree that we should choose Instant Runoff Voting. Let me know how I can help bring it about.
…your best chance of helping an idea is to argue against it.
<
p>Hint: Despite your repeated assertions, everyone that disagrees with you isn’t stupid or afraid of change.
well, to be charitable, it’s mainly ignorance and brainwashing.
How NOBLE of you. How many people have you helped?
huh?
Read this and this before snarking.
and i’m no sure your point is any more clear than Mr. Lynne’s.
Here’s another example
<
p>Back to the topic at hand, I’ve yet to see a cogent example of IRV working. Do you have one?
… you can find one you should define ‘working’. The frequent complaint I see about the current system is that it is profoundly good and making a minority of people profoundly upset by the election of the winner. There never seems to be a person that can get elected where the vast majority ‘can live with him/her’. But by definition, a system that tends not to elect the candidate I want but the candidate I can ‘live with’ is not working on some level. At least its not working for me. But it’s just this kind of a system that might work better for everyone anyway. I don’t know if that makes change easier or harder to sell.
As a Cambridge resident I have mixed feelings about proportional voting, for example. It does mean we have a very representative city council. At the same time, the real power here is the city manager, so it’s hard to say we’re more (or less) democratic than any place else.
… and maybe should have shut up. It just really gets my goat when people put words in my mouth. Actually,… anyone’s mouth. Pet peeve I guess. Trying to correct him was pointless I guess. Frustration grew from there. I really should have taken as self evident that he’s going to ‘read in to’ whatever he wants, given his ‘reading in to’ marriage a set of ‘conception rights’.
… on a fundamental level, you’re not worth talking to.
was for you to answer his question.
<
p>with regards to your comment “I could have…”: hindsight’s 20/20 isn’t it?
<
p>and to huh, call me stupid, but I’m still missing your point. I do believe though, that I’m not going to jump aboard any bandwagon to ostracize someone. So please don’t try to. I’m capable of forming my own opinions, thank you very much. And I will respect yours, they’s, Mr. Lynne’s or anyone else’s. I might think some of them are worthless, and when I think this so strongly, I will let you know.
… wasn’t his question. It was his putting words into my mouth. As many will attest to on this blog I’m all for good conversation. But if such a conversation is to be productive on any level, I’ve got to know that we’re talking on a common playing field. That means I don’t put words in your mouth and you don’t in mine. I wanted that fixed first. It turned into the labors of Sisyphus. It was a simple enough matter, but it got me overly angry. If anyone else want’s to know my opinions on the matters that they brought up, I’d be happy to converse with them.
<
p>All he wanted was to continue to contort whatever logic he could to willfully rationalize that he didn’t read into my words content that wasn’t asserted. He demonstrated this with every response. Wanting to hear answers to his original questions was a smokescreen, which is one he as often employed in the past.
but can’t find that anywhere. If you’re saying that “you dismissed his point” is putting words in your mouth, I am merely describing the effect that making vague, curt blanket non-supportive comments like “Does not follow” and “That is a false choice” have on someone’s point. In my first reply to you, I did not say that you said anything, I just asked a question, clarified Greg’s point, and suggested an alternative system (what do you think of it?).
<
p>Maybe you just got embarrassed about not immediately realizing Greg was using legality as a metaphor, a rhetorical device to make a point? I thought I deftly moved us past that right away by agreeing that there were indeed more choices, and wondering what you had in mind. Forgive me for trying to converse with you. I guess any comment from me has to be swatted away.
<
p>Thanks Midge for the open mind.
… you your opinions in this matter, in that I did come off too angry (I was) and your perceptions of the encounter are (regrettably for me) understandable. Huh’s point was that, within the context of they’s debate style and debate conduct over the last several years,… frustration and anger can be entirely predictable events. He hasn’t gotten me that angry in the past, but he’s made others far more so. Not that it isn’t his prerogative to do so, but if any of this is meant to be productive it has to come back to substance and not mere debate technique. That’s why I kept coming back to the dispute over the substance of what I wrote and the extra-material meaning he ascribed.
In encounter after encounter, “they/john howard” insults people when he can’t convince them of his arguments. I asked John why he felt this was an effective technique. His reply was more of the same. End of story.
<
p>My question for you is why you felt the need to interject yourself? No one asked you to jump on a bandwagon to ostracize john, or even to defend him. You’re free to do so, of course, but have yet to provide any kind of counter argument besides snark.
<
p>Do you think my question was inappropriate? How about “they” calling people stupid and brain washed? How about this from him: “Did you study worthlessness in college? you’re excellent at it, perhaps the most worthless hole of useless nothing there never was.” Appropriate?
<
p>Why do you feel so strongly he’s been wronged?
<
p>
I’m not trying to be insulting when I say people are ignorant and brainwashed. It’s just the sad fact. I do my best to remedy it wherever I can. Zingers like the “worthlessness in college” are meant to be taken in good humor, in the spirit of spirited reparte. Did you count the number of times Mr Lynne called me an idiot or moron in this thread? That’s not even creative.
I like your signature quote. Can you tell me more about this Thomas Pynchon that I can’t read about on Wikipedia? I shall put one of your recommended books on my wishlist.
“Gravity’s Rainbow” is the classic, but it’s pretty darn dense. My first was “Vineland” which is fun for the Star Trek references.
<
p>This fan site is an excellent place to start.
<
p>The quote is from “Gravity’s Rainbow”
Proverbs for Paranoids:
1. You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.
2. The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master.
3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.
4. You hide, they seek.
5. Paranoids are not paranoid because they’re paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.
that they dont have a right to run. In reality 3rd party candidates usually play a spoiler role. Jessie Ventura was an exception. Nader is the rule. Conservatives will take over in England because the to center and left parties cant get together. The Conservative in Canada Steve Harper has power largely because left leaning voters split. The Governor of Vermont is a Republican whose job is safe because of a strong Green Party in Vermont (he solidly won this time with a better than 50% majority). Democrats are knee-capped in Vermont when a strong Green candidate emerges.
<
p>Anti-2 party system sentiment is popular. It has become cool to diss the 2 party system — It is almost getting contrarian to say one is OK with the 2 party system.
<
p>Instant run off voting and Parlimentary style elections are alternatives that may make 3rd or 4th parties more reasonable, but I am a little skeptical of systemic solutions. Any system can be corrupted by bad people
<
p>I am OK with primary battles —> general election between 2 parties.
<
p>Ps: I am on a temporary hiatus from being able to do much online conversation — so probably will not be able to defend any assertions I made here.
Who can doubt the impact of several candidates running is a primary who have similar views causing the vote to be divided and the “odd” man wins the primary. How would Obama have done if Edwards (and/or Richardson) wasn’t running this past year. My guess is Hillary would have won easily. How would Romney have faired without Huchabee splitting that vote, probably ahead of McCain.
<
p>What does this mean? Should we have a primary for the primaries and then a 2 person runoff to allow the people in each party to really chose the 1 person the majority and not just the plurality want? Sounds messy to me but logical.
You put your finger on the problem with winner-take-all elections: they just break down in the presence of more than two candidates.
<
p>Speaking a bit loosely, I think the Democrats got the nominee they wanted this year, but the Republicans did not. The key reason seems to be the Republicans heavy use of winner-take-all primaries and the Democrats reliance on proportionally allocated delegates. If the Republicans used proportional representation too, Romney would have won a lot more delegates, putting him in a likely position of ultimately winning the nomination.
<
p>A top-two primary would be a lot of effort and money when the proportional solution is already used in some states and could be immediately implemented.
… the viability problem is, I think, a natural byproduct of ‘winner take all’ and ‘one man one vote’. One or the other would have to be addressed to make inroads to the viability problem. Messing with the first moves us more toward a parliamentary type of system, with candidates being the deciding factor rather than parties (of course this would probably still have the effect of a party-centered election, but certainly less so than in European models). Messing with the second often strikes people as some kind of third rail. I know you advocate IRV. I suppose I advocate doing something, but am still unsure what specifically. I also know of the other voting models that people advocated.
<
p>Do you have a study or piece of literature that can point to reasoned points as to why IRV is preferable to other proposed systems? Given the chance to choose between IRV and the status quo, I’d choose IRV. But I’d still like to know specifics on why it is superior to other options and not merely one of many options that are better than the status quo.
For eight years of George Bush.
<
p>For the Iraq War and all the death and carnage that has resulted.
<
p>For Guantanomo and the torture that resulted.
<
p>For the anti-environmental policies of the last 8 years.
<
p>For the enriching of the already rich and the collapse of the economy.
<
p>Does anyone doubt that Al Gore would have won without Nader in the race? Does anyone doubt that a Gore administration would have behaved in a significantly different way than the Bush administration in the areas of the environment, energy, health care, tax policy, regulation of markets? Does anyone doubt that a Gore administration would not have, for the first time in our history, started a war that was none of our damned business?
Gore lost that election. Due to his too centrist views (don’t forget Tipper’s censorship efforts!), hawkish choice of Lieberman for VP, and overall badly managed campaign. He managed to win the popular vote – largely based on Clinton’s popularity, but he lost the election. You can blame his loss on Nader, Bush, or Karl Rove, but it was his loss.
I agree with your assessment of Gore and his campaign so, of course, the ultimate responsibility is his. But Nader did repeatedly state that he would drop out of the race if it looked like he would endanger Gore’s chances and — guess what — his monumental ego prevented him from doing so.
to answer the question of whether third parties are “good or bad” in the American two-party system.
<
p>If the third party candidate is a lefty, it’s great for the Republican. If the third party candidate is a right-winger, it’s great for the Democrat.
<
p>The main role third parties play in our system is essentially giving votes to the ideological position most opposed of the third-party’s ideals. That’s why there’s a history of right-wingers contributing to (for example) Nader’s campaigns. You can think what you will of the supporters of these third parties. Some might call them suckers.
Seems to me, the debate around third party candidates is always about whether they benefit Democrats or Republicans, rather then whether they benefit the Democracy as a whole. There are many examples of third party candidates bringing issues or ideas to an election that would never have been part of the public discourse without their candidacies. In these cases, these candidates play an important role. One good example is Grace Ross in the 2006 campaign.
<
p>Whether or not they benefit a certain party or candidate in a specific election, I think we all benefit when more people decide to throw their hat into the ring and run serious, issue-based campaigns for public office. I think we should be working hard to encourage more people to run at all levels of government.
<
p>
… often issue-based third-party campaigns are self-defeating. They wind up contributing to the defeat of the half-a-loaf two-party candidate.
<
p>I’ve been coming around to IRV as a way to raise issues, provide multi-dimensional competition, and yet achieve a representative result. It’s also a way to kill off a party that won’t change enough to have a future.
<
p>A few Southern states accomplish this with an open primary yielding the top two or with a post-general runoff (GA, LA) when no one gets 50%. I think IRV in both primary and general is more democratic, and it’s also cheaper and less exhausting for the lazy voters in the persuadable middle.
You can sign-up on my Somerville for IRV site if you want to help out with a local effort, even if you don’t live in Somerville. We participate in some local IRV activities that are not Somerville specific as well.
Barkley is a libertarian. He probably took many more votes from Coleman than from Franken, the guy on TPM notwithstanding.
I want Greens, Libertarians, Fascists, whoever to run and raise real issues. Otherwise, as others have said, all of Mass politics get decided at the Dem primaries.
I can only repeat what I said two years ago – We need more ideas to choose from