Print

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

[mainiac]

But that doesn't change the fact that what's keeping 3rd parties out of the spotlight isn't some monopolistic pressures, it's that there isn't any 3rd party block big enough to win.

So the reason there's no large third parties is because... there's no large third parties. And its not monopolistic pressure, its just the fact that voting for a third party would be a wasted vote, because of monopolistic pressure.

Right.

Okay, let me break this down really slowly.  The reasons why 3rd parties don't exist is because all else being equal, they would lose 1 on 1 elections vs. democrats or republicans.  If I made a party to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans it would not be competitive in as many districts.  This is because of a process called "democracy" where the aggregate of the voters matter.

It's not that 3rd parties can't get off the ground it's that an insufficient number of voters want such and agenda.
Where is the evidence for this?  It's the fact that we have primary elections in both parties.  If people are dissatisfied with the party status quo, they can run from the party's wing and move the party.  This is exactly what we've been seeing in republican primaries lately.

[GlyphGryph]

Then why are third parties so capable of getting off the ground in countries with other systems? After all, they too could just coalesce into two parties, right? They've got primaries too. Why vote to the party that's further to the right? Why doesn't the Pirate Party, for example, just run its candidates under the establishment party?

Oh wait, because the left-right dichotomy is total bullshit and a very large portion of the population couldn't give a damn about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the third party movements in the US, as of late, have been incredibly weak. But you're minimizing the fact that countries that use, say, IRV, have significant third party presence, and ours doesn't, with that being the only significant difference politically. Do you really put that all down to... culture, I guess? Since I don't think "that's democracy" adequately explains it.

Edit: I may be biased by living in a part of the country where satisfaction with both parties is rather low, and we have a good deal of Independents and even some third parties already in government. And I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more if people weren't so focused on stopping the other guy from winning.

[mainiac]

Then why are third parties so capable of getting off the ground in countries with other systems? After all, they too could just coalesce into two parties, right? They've got primaries too. Why vote to the party that's further to the right? Why doesn't the Pirate Party, for example, just run its candidates under the establishment party?

Oh wait, because the left-right dichotomy is total bullshit and a very large portion of the population couldn't give a damn about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the third party movements in the US, as of late, have been incredibly weak. But you're minimizing the fact that countries that use, say, IRV, have significant third party presence, and ours doesn't, with that being the only significant difference politically. Do you really put that all down to... culture, I guess? Since I don't think "that's democracy" adequately explains it.

Edit: I may be biased by living in a part of the country where satisfaction with both parties is rather low, and we have a good deal of Independents and even some third parties already in government. And I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more if people weren't so focused on stopping the other guy from winning.

Countries with different party systems have different parties.  Democrats and Republicans are representative of the largest coalitions possible in the US.  Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

[GlyphGryph]

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

[mainiac]

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

Come on, I never said that things were fine with our system.  We're honestly not that far apart anyway.

[Sowelu]

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

Probably about the same as John McCain calling his wife a cunt.  In front of reporters.  Stay classy, GOP.

[Aqizzar]

Alright, that's it.  Shut up all of you.  I've seen so goddamn many circular arguments about what the "better" voting system is on the Internet, I don't even want to talk about the crap.  New thread if you want it that bad.

And I hadn't heard anything about Romney hacking a hippie's locks.  I really want to believe it, somebody link me.

[Jervill]

Via the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

[penguinofhonor]

It's this year's aqua buddha!

[RedKing]

Y'know...boys will be boys. This is just like Abu Ghraib...a harmless school prank. I believe the term Romney used is "hijinks".


More to the point though, this helps get a handle on who Mitt Romney is. I had thought that possibly he was just the nerd who studied hard and got really rich and was kinda cold because he spent most of his social skill points in levelling up Business.

But now I know the type: rich daddy's boy who thinks he's hot shit and rests at the pinnacle of the high school pecking order. He's the villain in a John Hughes movie. If he had been born a little later, he'd have worn a pastel Izod blazer and driven a Porsche, laughing as his thug buddies torment the outcasts.

He's Draco-fucking-Malfoy, all grown up.

[mainiac]

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

[nenjin]

I did a lot of stuff I'm not proud of as a kid, and I've changed becoming an adult.

But holding someone down and tormenting them isn't something I ever did. So I find it hard to excuse youthful behavior that I never indulged in. I may have broken other people's shit, said some stuff I'm not proud of. But singling people out for torment I think speaks to something deeper than youthful transgressions.

[RedKing]

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

So there's a statute of limitations on being a douchebag?

I'm not saying he should be charged with assault and battery at this stage of the game, but yeah, I do think it's at least noteworthy as an insight into his character. Moreover, if the GOP can make hay out of the fact that the President of the United States attended school in Indonesia for a few years, then I can damn well make hay out of the fact that their candidate was a fucking bully.

I don't think this'll change anything electorally. Republicans will say, "Aww, he was just being a kid." Hell, they'll like him more because he did what they'd have like to have done in that situation. Democrats will continue to dislike him, and this just hardens that dislike. Independents....well, I find it hard to believe at this point that there's many indies that haven't yet formed an opinion. And whatever opinion they already have will determine how they process this.

[Lord Dullard]

Yeah, I don't necessarily know that it will make a huge difference either. The gay community will probably already be behind Obama considering his coming out in support of equal marriage rights.

Also, Bush was a cokehead, a drunk, and a crappy student, and somehow that didn't make much of a difference during his elections.

[mainiac]

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

So there's a statute of limitations on being a douchebag?

Oh we're back to begging the question by false analogy?

So teenagers should be prosecuted as adults?