Dumb USA politics question

Actually the major parties in the USA have gone through several changes over the years.

Both of the current major parties reach back to figures in US history-but there are aspects of what the figure supported that are different from the current figure.

I'm glad we haven't turned into a dictatorship but we have struggled to make the US more democratic over time.

When my nation started it was illegal for anyone but a white property owning male in some places.

Over time slaves were freed, women given the vote, and property requirements removed.

Many republics didn't start off perfect and took time to evolve-same here.

I would argue 2 of the challenges my nation faces is the amount of money (bribes by another word or at least manipulation of the government by those with means) in politics and-to a much lesser extent but still there in some states) the manner in which political districting is done.

There 3rd parties in US politics but they sometimes give their ideas to major party figures and fade into the background.

The current 2 parties have changed in a few ways but are sort of what was left after the US Civil War.

In the presidential election just before the war the major party at the time (Democratic) was so divided it ran 2 different candidates for president (with different regions as a their base). Plus you had the Republicans as a growing regional party then and a 3rd part that attracted a sizable number of votes compared to now.

As things change there are sometimes chunks of a major party that break off from a major party and either return or join the other party after deciding they don't want to be a 3rd party (such as the Dixiecrats).

 

That's really only true of the presidency. In other election cycles, it's much shorter. Basically, here's the Cliffs Notes version. The first step is you hold a primary to see which candidates will run in the general eleciton. Republicans pick from Republican candidates, and Democrats pick from Democratic candidates. The person who wins the primary appears on the ballot in the fall election. While it's true that in presidential election cycles the primary process starts in January - with Iowa typically - and ends the first week of November, there is usually a much shorter length of time between the primary and general election in non-presidential elections.

To use my own state as an example, we have our primary in May, and our general election in November, so it's a six month process here. It's not so much that the elections take so long, it's that each election is TWO elections, the primary and the general. The biggest difference between the primary and general elections (apart from the obvious bit about there being fewer candidates on the ballot) is that you aren't required to vote for someone in your party. So in the primary in 2008, if you were registered as a Democrat you had to pick from Obama, Clinton, Edwards, etc. John McCain isn't even a choice. In the general election, you aren't required to vote for a Democrat.

The last time an independent made any serious challenge to the presidency was Ross Perot in the 90s. Clinton won both of his elections with less than 50% of the vote, because Perot siphoned away about 20% of the vote. The previous person who attempted to win the presidency from a 3rd party and had any realistic shot of doing so is Teddy Roosevelt. After serving two terms as president, he didn't run again. But he did create the Bull Moose Party - which was a Progressive Party, and he ran for what would then have been an unprecedented 3rd term, but only managed about 30% of the vote. Unlike Perot, Roosevelt did win several states, and thus received a fair amount of electoral votes. He also finished ahead of the Republican on the ticket that year. So unlike Perot, he finished 2nd.

The exclusive two party system is in many ways a fairly modern concept. Four different candidates received electoral votes in the election of 1860 that won Lincoln the presidency. In addition to Democrat and Republican, there was also a Southern Democrat Party, and a Constituional Union Party, and each nominee managed to carry at least three states.

In 1824, there really was only one political party in the US, and all four candidates were part of the Democratic Republican Party (I **** you not - that was the name). All four candidates won electoral votes, and it is noteworthy in that because no candidate received a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives decided the election. Also noteworthy, was even though Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular vote, he lost.

There are many other presidential elections (some fairly recent) where a 3rd party candidate ran and won some states, but in every case other than the ones I already highlighted, the only thing the 3rd party candidate effectively did was prevent the eventual elected president from gaining a majority of the popular vote.

 

The real reason we have a largely bi-partisan system is our lack of proportional representation. Since the coalition that gets a plurality of the votes gets all the marbles, the parties are given an incentive to build as big a tent as humanly possible. In theory, this "big tent" system has a moderating effect on party platforms, but recent years have shown that it doesn't always work out that way. It works over the long haul, but a lot of damage can be done in the short term. A party that grows too extreme or ideologically pure will ultimately marginalize itself into extinction as its "tent" grows smaller and smaller. It's happened before, too -- the Whigs did it in the mid-1850's. Whether a party pulls itself from the brink and moderates itself or continues along a path to extinction is largely irrelevant, since the extremism is corrected and we are left yet again with two largely moderate political parties either way.

Third parties are weak in the USA because supporting them actually siphons votes from the party most likely to support a voter's views, strengthening the opposition -- young Nader supporters learned the hard way during the 2000 elections, and the both Nader and the Green Party lost a great deal of their popular support as a result. Since supporting a third party in a system like ours works to the benefit of the party least likely to represent a voter's interests, both republican and democratic activists are often found lobbying to put opposition third parties on the ballot. If one of the parties begins to implode, a third party will rise up to fill the void but it would be forced to moderate itself in the process.

 

True. I've often wondered if Bill Clinton sends Ross Perot X-Mas presents or at least a card.

 

He probably does, although very eloquent arguments have been made that Perot siphoned votes more or less equally. He had no real social platform to speak of and he never went in to any detail about where exactly he would make cuts. Many of his ideas were downright unpopular with your typical Republican, too. For example, Perot's solution to the social security dilemma was a means test to receiving benefits. The wealthy, he said, had no need of Social Security payments. Perot also proposed raising taxes -- on the wealthy -- and the spending cuts he proposed were primarily efficiency measures aimed at the elimination of waste, the tightening of expansion, and the identification of spurious entitlement claims. His plans also relied heavily on increasing both the efficiency and capacity of the tax-gathering agencies in government. [United We Stand, Perot, 1992]

He also proposed disallowing mortgage and health deductions for the rich. The voters he attracted were largely non-partisan types who were turned off by politics as usual. These types, when they even vote at all, tend to vote for the incumbent regardless of his/her political orientation. When Clinton ran against Bush, Perot's presence almost certainly cut against Bush. When Clinton ran against Dole as an incumbent, Perot's presence would have cut against Clinton.

 

From the wikipedia article:
"However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties...
To that end, the platform called for

• Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
• Registration of lobbyists.
  [*]Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings."

That made me chuckle. Seems things were the same in Teddy's time.

 

Yep. Money talks. And now it is a constitutional "right" to be able to bribe a politican, at least according to the Supreme Court.

 

As a life long conservative, I do not think I will ever vote republican again after this year's ********.

I would vote Bull Moose in a hot second if they were still around. For a very long time my feelings on the Rep v. Dem argument was that they were both corporate shills, and that the republicans were just more honest about it, but the incredible cold-blooded dismantling of the middle class under the Republican controlled House of Representatives over the last two years is completely unconscionable.

 

No offense to you, but I never believe people who post things like this. A blogger I used to read (since retired) used to post that the two parties should be titled "The Stupid Party" and "The Evil Party". Now your mileage may vary on which party is which, but at the end of the day nobody is going to leave "Stupid" to vote for "Evil".

 

Some bloggers are morons and better off unread.

You really believe one party is "stupid" and the other is "evil?" Why are you framing Nykidemus' post with a false choice, a choice that has no test in reality?

It's always better to have choice, in that one can choose between two parties, both of which have a degree of intelligence, competence and some sort of set of moral principles. These things tend to be relative, depending on the set of issues and the desired outcome. More to Nykidemus' point, the Republican party used to care strongly about issues that affected the middle-class. However, judging by the change in the party in more recent years, that no longer seems to be the case. Does it? So his point is well-taken, IMO.

 

Why? What if he is right? You shouldn't dismiss that out of hand. I certainly tend to think he has a point.

 

I'll put it to you this way. When the day comes and Ragusa posts that he is humbled and realizes that Neocon ideology is the world's only salvation and will refocus his efforts to supporting it or when Chandos comes to the realization that it is he that isn't paying enough in taxes and he was wrong to villify corporate America, fat cats, and rich people and dedicates himself to conservative principles, or the day I post that it just isn't fair for me to keep all of my hard earned income when there are people less fortunate than I am and I will henceforce vote the straight Democrat party line; then we will see how quick people are willing to take at face value a statement like Nykidemus's.

 

There's nothing wrong with what Nykidemas said. It's an increasingly common sentiment these days. Plenty of lifelong Democrats claim they can't bear to vote Democrat anymore because of the Heathcare Law, for example. I was a Republican until the claim of WMD turned out to be bullsh*t and no one seemed to think it was important to account for such an error. That was what did it for me - but everyone has their tipping point, and for moderates like myself (and I imagine Nykidemas) that point is much easier to reach than it is for hardcore partisans like yourself and Chandos, since we're much closer to it to begin with.

I happen to know several lifelong Republicans who abandoned the party after one last straw or another. WMD's not being found in Iraq, legalizing torture, the fiscal recklessness of the last administration and the ascension and hero worship of Sarah Palin were all reasons I've heard the last few years from acquaintances of mine who've sworn off voting R until they see some major changes in the current GOP. They see the Democrats as, at least for now, the far more serious option, even if they don't always agree with them on policy or even like them at all.

 

Snook,
I'd have an easier time taking you serious had you pointed out why he is wrong, maybe even listing some major Republican achievements of the last, say, six years.

I can easily build on DR's list: WMD's not being found in Iraq, legalizing torture, pressing a greatly expansive view on executive power, pressing a greatly limited view on civil rights and privacy, the discovery of non-intervention only under Obama (suggesting expediency; they like a good war just as Democrats do), the fiscal recklessness of the last administration, the fiscal recklessness of state government hollowing out their budgets by measure of tax break, the unbroken belief in the inerrancy of the free market, the dogma that taxes must always be cut as an end in itself, the ascension and hero worship of Sarah Palin - that are some pretty strong negatives to list, and I am far from finished.

Nykidemus has reason to be pissed off.

And never mind the neo-cons. If one listens to them these days, they are jubilant over Obama's war in Libya (mind you, Kristol is the same guy who pushed Palin in the GOP). You give me the strong feeling that you know very little about them. Why should I take your dismissive comments about the topic serious? It's in all likelihood just talk.

 

I'm not, but neither is the rich. Even Warren Buffet has said as much. So what? So now the Tea Party guy is complaining that people aren't paying ENOUGH in taxes, rather than the government spending too much? Go figure.

BTW, for some of you: I'm an independent and in the past have voted for Repulicans [including Ronnie Reagan], voted for Democrats and the Green Party. However, these days I only vote Democratic. Why? For the same reason Nykidemus doesn't vote Republican any longer. As I commented, I LIKE having a choice. I want the parties to compete for my vote. But now it's more like, "here's what you get, take it or leave it." Great choice.

 

It has been a pretty crappy decade for politicians on both sides, hasn't it?

Then again, I'm not sure things were THAT much better before either. I remember thinking about the Monica scandals "how can the people in charge of the strongest country in the world be so dumb and shallow?" - and I wouldn't be surprised if the 80s were no better .

I have to say, though - I think a fair amount of people at some point exclaim that they'd NEVER, EVER support party X again after the crap they just pulled - and yet for some reason do so in the next election.

 

IMO, the 80s and 90s were much better. Having shared power between the parties seems to work much better than when one side has it all. At least that has been my experience.

 

You said it better than I did.

 

I understand that is what the blogger said, but it's a far cry from what Nykidemus said -- he basically equated both parties; he didn't claim either was evil or stupid.

I'll admit to a great deal of disenchantment with the Republicans and with the Political Right in general over the past 5 years, but overall they still most closely represent my moral and ethical outlook.