Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[mainiac]

When Ross Perot ran, he very nearly won the election

Ross Perot was about as close to winning the 1992 election as I was (and my name is not William Jefferson Clinton.)  Polling surges due to novelty frequently happen when the election is far off.  Mondale lead Reagan in the polls after he added Ferraro to the ticket.  Cases of novelty translating to success at the voting booth is more rare (although Jesse Ventura did pull it off).

In other news Maryland had it's primaries today and I managed to vote for losing candidates in all three contested elections (governor, AG, house).  Go me!

[Flarp]

Well yeah, everybody's gonna have a different "favorite algorithm" and different preferences for those socioeconomic markers, is the point.

Anyway, I dunno, yeah I guess I could agree that it's probably a good idea sight-unseen. Still worth discussing slightly more particulars though if anybody is actually interested. After all, why improve the situation 20% with a shoddy algorithm (that's still better than now), while you could improve it 60% with a damn good algorithm?

Okay well. I mean, Flarps suggestion is specifically tailored to be biased in certain ways, which isn't precisely wrong, but not really what I was thinking of. I was thinking more like say, The shortest-splitline method, which I believe is something that I originally found though these forums, and although you're right, I'm not a programer or a mathematician or a political 'scientist', but it well impressed me.

I should note that I designed that algorithm to be a general-approach solution applicable to the agenda of whichever flavor of party is in power during its implementation - as opposed to an ideal solution that the Secret Council of Rational Political Scientist Putschists. In my mind, a consistent but biased system is better than an inconsistent one. However, it wouldn't be /that/ hard to democratize, if you're set on the notion - you could offer a few systems of apportionment agreed upon (most or less) by both parties and put them up for referendum.

Unrelated, kind of, I'm going to go against the current and say that, broadly speaking, the two-party system is not the major problem affecting our ability to produce legislation. I think, instead, the fault rests with the fact that the election perceived as the "main" election in American culture, i.e., the Presidential election, usually determines the legislative agenda for its term - but doesn't guarantee legislative support at all. In Parliamentary democracies, the general election more or less elects the head of government /by/ their legislative majority, so outside the event of a hung parliament (which if I understand that system correctly results mostly from third parties, ironically) a functional government/administration is guaranteed to be formed.

[Descan]

Well the main reason I want the Prime Minister to be an elected role in Canada is *because* it's become a powerful role. It didn't used to be, but various Prime Ministers have accrued power to the role and now it's an unelected president, basically.

[smjjames]

I didn't know that the US actually went into a brief one party phase, though that was early in it's history and only lasted one election cycle, maybe less. Though probably one party in name only since it didn't take long for it to differentate.

Not shown on there are later splits in the republican party like Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose party and the current Tea Party. The Tea Party has yet to nominate a Tea Party candidate separate from the usual republican nomination though.

It'll just end up splitting the republican vote if they do go and put their own separate nomination up. Or it might just go and make it so that nobody gets the electoral votes needed.

[Descan]

Isn't... "electoral votes needed" just "more than the other guy"? I thought 270 was the threshold because that's an absolute majority and with only two candidates, ONE of them is going to get that majority.

I guess without that absolute majority it goes to the House but that still means somebody is getting elected :v

[GavJ]

The UK/GB/English parliament has been operating under a FPTP system for hundreds of years, though.  It's not a recent change.

Standard dynamic system behavior - it takes awhile initially to get into an attractor state (in this case, two parties). And there is a force working to keep you there. But it's still not the only force. The system can be perturbed even after it initially settles, even if it has settled long term, and temporarily leave the attractor state and swirl around a bit before settling back.

Think of it like a marble in a very shallow bowl. When everything else is calm, it will settle in the middle. If other forces are jostling it, the marble will tend around-ish the middle-ish area, but will only be flirting with it.  This could happen for lots of reasons that could be introduced at any point. Major scandals that rock one party and weaken it, or major immigration of new demographics, etc.

(The "split causes the other side to win" issue, however, I would argue is NOT an "external factor" because that is actually just the main logic behind why FPTP leading to a two party system... That IS the shallow bowl itself, for the most part.)

[smjjames]

Isn't... "electoral votes needed" just "more than the other guy"? I thought 270 was the threshold because that's an absolute majority and with only two candidates, ONE of them is going to get that majority.

I guess without that absolute majority it goes to the House but that still means somebody is getting elected :v

With two candidates, yeah, but with three, it's possible for the electoral college votes to get split up, but not neccesarily guaranteed. In the diagram, the whigs tried doing four candidates in an attempt to split the electoral votes and send it to the house, didn't work.

As has been said before, it's more likely for a third candidate to just end up splitting the votes of one party or the other.

Though, does the diagram above resemble the UK parliament parties in history? I mean like the way they sort of split up and rejoined a number of times.

[Descan]

What I meant was that I thought 270 was just used as short-hand for "Okay yah there's no way the other guy is going to win now" instead of a hard and fast rule of "You need 270+ of the EC or else things ain't dandy"

I realized (with Wiki help) halfway through that that was not the case, but I didn't change my post to reflect that.

[GavJ]

Though, does the diagram above resemble the UK parliament parties in history? I mean like the way they sort of split up and rejoined a number of times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#mediaviewer/File:UK_popular_vote.svg

Looks like it was 2 party for the 90 years at the start of this chart, then meaningful 3 party for like 10-15, then basically 2 party for another 40 years, then 3 party again up till now starting around 1970.

Prior to 1832 (start of this chart, the reform act), the system was really messed up and crazy and aristocrat-driven, etc. So it appears this is really the first valid date to consider such things from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

[Sheb]

I think parts of the difference is also that political parties (at least the two main ones) in the US is very different from what we have in Europe. Seen from here, they look more like labels than like real organizations, without a clear leadership.

This means that it's much easier for new political currents, like the Tea Party, to sneak in one of the big two rather than form their own party.

[GavJ]

I think parts of the difference is also that political parties (at least the two main ones) in the US is very different from what we have in Europe. Seen from here, they look more like labels than like real organizations, without a clear leadership.

This means that it's much easier for new political currents, like the Tea Party, to sneak in one of the big two rather than form their own party.

Other way around -- the TEA PARTY is the one with almost no leadership or coherence or platform. Certainly far less than mainstream republican party folks. Often some of them brag about that, in fact. Why I have no idea. Nothing they do makes any sense to me.

[Leafsnail]

The UK very nearly is a two-party system, to be honest. Conservative and Labour are pretty predominant (and if my history serves me, replace a similar arrangement by the Tories and Liberals in the past), and the Liberal Democrats just seem to be dying more and more all the time. The other parties are still barely around even though they can win a few seats*.

*Applies only to UK national Parliament.

The Liberal Democrats are currently in government, which is better than they've managed since WWII.  There's also UKIP, which won the Euro elections and which may end up forcing the Conservatives into a no-contest pact (something you can't do very well under a presidential system).

[10ebbor10]

UKIP only exists because of those European elections though, which use proportional voting. They'll disappear in the general elections.

But yeah, the reason that the UK doesn't have a two party system (yet) is because it isn't a pure FPTP system, whereas the American system arguably is.

In the UK, it's perfectly possible that several smaller parties cooperate to get a majority in parliament.

[palsch]

UK three party system is more a quirk of history, with party infighting, war, the rise of the labour movement and universal suffrage all playing their part. But you can basically summarise it as the national collapse of the Liberal party and rise of Labour, with the Liberals refusing to die entirely. Most constituencies in the UK remained two-party, but they pick two of the three big parties based on local ideology. Lab/Lib or Lib/Con seats are common enough to be the norm in some regions, despite the national split still being Lab/Con.

I'd be interested to see a FPTP system where one party completely collapsed and was replaced entirely by a new party, without any remnants of a third party in the mix.

But yeah, the reason that the UK doesn't have a two party system (yet) is because it isn't a pure FPTP system, whereas the American system arguably is.

In the UK, it's perfectly possible that several smaller parties cooperate to get a majority in parliament.

There is no inherent reason there can't be Congressional coalitions as I understand it. The 110th Congress was Democratic lead in the Senate only because two independents caucused with them.

I'd say there are higher structural and financial barriers to entry to Congress than to Parliament at work as well. Not least the population and area differences in running for the House of Representatives compared to the House of Parliament.

[10ebbor10]

I was referring to the presidency though, which has no real equivalent in Britain.