Agreed, I find myself out of alignment with major party platforms, their associated manipulation, and their blatant dishonesty and self-interest. If I vote now, it's for individuals, their platform, and not necessarily the party.
Unfortunately any individuals one might vote for at the national level are either marginal in terms of exposure or thoroughly vetted by one of the two parties to represent that party's interests and key backers.
It seems to me that, if you don't like the current situation, work to get rid of first-past-the-post voting in your state. If that happens, the current two parties will have to either transform themselves or become swamped by a new "Center Party".
> Welcome to being a centrist, the largest and most ignored political party in america.
Everyone in the major parties, and everyone off of the axis between them, likes to see themselves as the center of the political spectrum, but that's actually a pretty empty place, not a crowded one.
Looking at a chart of registered voter affiliation by party at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-20... shows the percentage of voters identifying as independent to be roughly similar to the size of the groups identifying as Democrats or Republicans. The chart immediately below that does show leanings among the independent voters as nearly evenly split between the two parties but even accounting for that doesn't really seem to support the idea of there not being a center?
Sure, polls like that categorizing voters in D/R/I and identifying D/R leanings for the I group can’t support (or contradict) the (non) existence of a large center because it doesn't tell you anything about where the I voters views are (between D/R? more extreme than the nearer of D/R? Way off to the side of axis between D and R?)
The thing is that the independent voters are independent of each other, as well as of the two major parties. They don't agree on anything, other than opting out of the national discussion and accepting the decisions of the other two.
This is often mis-represented as a "third party". There is no third party. There are nineteeth, twentieth, twenty-first, etc. parties. Technically some party must be "third" but it's so far behind the two major ones that it doesn't matter.
Elections only have one winner. You can have as many losers as you want, but in the end you must assemble a large enough coalition to be the single largest vote-getter. "None of the above" is not such a coalition.
NZ switched from FPP to MMP for partially this reason. It also neutered the outsized voting power of marginal electorates - entire elections were decided at times by the votes of 5K - 10K people.
I guess our marginal seats were the equivalent of US "swing states"?
> With a 3rd party, cooperation becomes just as important (if not more so) than conflict.
The # of viable parties is a symptom of features of the electoral system that also have effects like that, not the cause.
And electoral systems that support multiple viable parties don't so much force cooperation in most cases (though they may make the need for multiparty coalitions) as promote positive competition (based on advocating policy ideas) over negative competition (based on tearing down the main opponent) because elections aren't zero sum and tearing down your main opponent can instead serve another opponent rather than yourself.
Right, the State laws have different rules for major/minor party, and laws are often (depends on State) designed so mathematically unlikely to be more then three major parties. And if there are three it typically drops back to two in a few years. 'Minor' parties have issues such as reduced donation limits in the law.
Local offices like a city council are often not done by party affiliation. Local voting can have some influence.
> It seems self-evident that the Republican Party — more a celebrity fan club than a political organization at this point — would, if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic.
This does a tremendous dis-service to the Republicans (including Mike Pence!) who refused to go along with Trump's lies and machinations. There were far too few of them, but they were there, and it really mattered that they were there.
Though I guess if you take the party as a whole, the statement may be accurate, or at least may have been so a year ago.
But I thought this was an interesting insight:
> In their zeal to beat back Trumpism, the loudest Democratic groups have transformed into its Bizarro World imitators.
There is some symmetry there that I hadn't noticed.
The moderate Republican is functionally extinct. They've been stripped of party positions like Cheney, died like McCain, or retired to "spend more time with family". Romney might be the only one left?
Who do you think would really win the Republican nomination? Charlie Baker or DeSantis?
Neither Cheney or McCain, both stalwart if, in McCain’s case, quirky on some issues, conservatives. (Both rejected the Trump cult, but that's not inconsistent with being a dedicated conservative.)
Moderate Republicans (and Conservative Dems)[0] have been largely dead since the long post-WWII realignment settled out in the mid-1990s.
[0] Yes, this is asymmetrical; that's how systematic overrepresentation to one side of the spectrum combined with the incentive to nearly-balanced parties under the electoral system we have shakes out.
It's not mandatory, as many people register Independent and have no difficulty voting. The only restriction is in the preliminary elections to pick candidates (called Primaries) as these are functions of parties and can be (rightfully?) closed to non-party members.
This is quite similar to Canada, in that the party members pick candidates and vote for the leader. However, once the slate is tabled for each riding, it's purely a case of confirming you're registered on the list in the riding.
Not American so I'm curious: couldn't anyone just register as one party and vote in the primaries but then vote the other party at the actual election?
Yes, you can also register with a party and vote in the other party's primary if it's an open primary state. However, you are usually barred from voting twice in a primary, which means you need high confidence in the outcome of your preferred party's candidate to do this. Otherwise, you're throwing away your vote on that party's pick.
EDIT: I had to double check this before commenting, but in some states you don't even register with a party as far as the state is concerned (Georgia, for example, it's been 12 years and I'd forgotten). Though they still have the party primaries.
You don't register your party unless you want to vote in that parties primary election. This is where a political party decides which of their candidates should actually run in the real election.
Most people just vote in the general election where this isn't necessary. The reason the Democrats or Republican might want voters to register for their party primary is to avoid the other party getting their weakest primary candidate the win so that they can beat them in the actual election.
Also keep in mind that there is no federal election, so when you hear people talk about "the popular vote" it's a misnomer. There isn't actually a national popular vote. All elections are run by individual states, and in fact even national offices like President can have different candidates on the ballot in different states, depending on what happened earlier in the election season during the party primaries.
Keep in mind one can vote because you believe in the candidate's position, or you have concerns for one or more parties's positions and so vote defensively. Remember, if you don't vote you voted for the winner.
Anybody who could not tell what the effect of picking or not picking Trump in 2016 would be should question their moral compass or mental acuity. It was pathetically obvious how social/moral matters would be handled with each option.
I really wish we could divorce economic policy from purely social issues. There's no reason my stance on guns or religion or whatever should force me to also align with the party line on how high I think taxes should be. Where are the socialists who believe the government should tax the rich to give every citizen a gun & a bible, or the laissez-faire folks who want to eliminate war, violence, and bigotry because it's not as profitable?
Lucky for you, the Democratic Party and Republican Party have nearly identical priorities on economic politics: corporations and the rich.
Both parties share sweeping agreement on nearly every single economic bill that passes. If you ever start thinking they might disagree about something, don’t worry because it will never pass, because they don’t disagree.
The record is painfully clear. You only have one choice on economic policy.
Seems a bit silly that the author dedicates an inch of column space to the perils he sees would "destroy the foundation of the republic," then dedicates the remaining article equating this existential danger to relatively low-stakes[1] cancel culture panic.
He didn't equate those things. His argument is not that both parties are equally bad. It's that neither party is one he feels he can support. He writes:
"This is about the point where some (most likely some in my own business) will scream: 'Both sidesism!' That’s the now-cliche argument that any criticism of Democrats whatsoever must be some kind of journalistic reflex to equate the parties, when clearly one is worse than the other."
"One is worse than the other. But that doesn’t mean we have to feel jazzed about supporting a party that would grade our worthiness as people on a sliding scale of identity. It doesn’t change the fact that the broad center of the American electorate — traditional conservatives and liberals both — no longer has a political home."
The problem is that he is just factually wrong; aside from his characterization of the parties being based on the fallacy that you can paint a coherent stable anthropomorphism of a broad coalition and have it approach meaningfulness, the idea of a “broad center of American politics” is bullshit. Political views are strongly bimodal, and differences from those modal points are more in areas outward from the axis between them than along it and between the modes.
The era where bipartisanship was more common during the last three or so decades of the long post-WWII (through mid-1990s) realignment wasn't because of a stronger center, it was because a very similar distribution of viewpoints as today was distributed between parties who weren't clearly aligned against each other on the main axis between the major factions; so you had the same recognizable liberal and conservative factions, with “liberal Republicans” and “conservative Democrats” being substantial factions. Historically and structurally this is an aberrant situation, the parties tend to align against each other on the major ideological axis of divisions in the countries. But things got shook up by the New Deal (and later public welfare programs) and then a series of Civil Rights measures that didn't quite fit the existing partisan alignment, and they came hard and fast enough that it took an unusually long time for the new alignment to shake out...
Now, there is a broad disenfranchised group, but it's not mainly the “center”, it's a diverse group of people whose views fall in a variety of places not near the axis between the major parties; in a system which supported more viable parties having a meaningful role in the political systems, they’d be served by their own parties; as it is now they are either protest voting or voting with whichever major party seems least bad at the moment and not liking it much, and in many cases being hyper-targeted by propaganda from the other major parties side not aiming to engage their interest, but to alienate them from the major party closer to their interests (or electoral politics generally) as part of the zero-sum nature of the two-party system.
Despite his protestations, he was definitely engaging in false equivalence. Kendi's work is not the platform of the Democratic party (especially not the cherry-picked version he was talking about).
Democrats have their own far out wing, but unlike Republicans, they do not own the party. That comes at a substantial price: a significant chunk of their loss in 2016 came from being unable to engage their own far-left wing with a candidate they felt was too far to the right.
He would love a party that represents exactly his views, without having to compromise on any issue or work with people who disagree with him on any point. Congratulations. Welcome to the group called "everybody". Meantime, those who would like to actually work at governing the country try to find positions that people can tolerate, even though practically nobody loves them.
As an european I always found it astounding how easily the US voters let themselves be split into voting just two parties.
I know this is a systemic issue of the chosen representative models — but the outrage it would produce in Europe if the person with a fewer number of absolute votes would win would be absolutely of the charts. In the US it is more like a "unfortunate, but what can you do" type of reaction.
Looking at the current state of the US democracy worrying about the parties visions of "americanism" seems downright naive given that one of the parties seems to be in the process of trying to get rid of the democratic vote altogether.
As an Austrian living in Germany I can't help but thinking of the Weimar Republic before the Nazis came to power. Stories about people bashing the social democrats back then, with the Nazis rising on the horizon. Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag and blaming it on the communists. I said that Trump was a fascist back when he was elected and most US commenters would tell me I was paranoid, delusional etc. I told them that I was not sure if this guy would go peacefully if he lost the next election and I was right on the money. The problem right now is that Trump is not the only fascist in the republican party. Of course there is also true believers in democratic principles in the GOP, but they seem to be in the minority.
Given those thoughts I wonder whether the US has the freedom right now to complain about the vision of the one party that still stands for democratic principles not aligning a 100% with their own ideas. Personally I'd rather vote for a 1000 regulations I absolutely hate, implemented by people I absolutely despise than voting for someone who could potentially get rid of me being able to vote in the future.
Once you lose the right to vote, you won't have the possibility to alter that choice anymore. I always perceived US citizens as people who valued democracy above petty party politics, bit I am not sure about that now.
46 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadEveryone in the major parties, and everyone off of the axis between them, likes to see themselves as the center of the political spectrum, but that's actually a pretty empty place, not a crowded one.
It's completely irrelevant to the question.
This is often mis-represented as a "third party". There is no third party. There are nineteeth, twentieth, twenty-first, etc. parties. Technically some party must be "third" but it's so far behind the two major ones that it doesn't matter.
Elections only have one winner. You can have as many losers as you want, but in the end you must assemble a large enough coalition to be the single largest vote-getter. "None of the above" is not such a coalition.
With a 3rd party, cooperation becomes just as important (if not more so) than conflict.
I guess our marginal seats were the equivalent of US "swing states"?
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00P...
Except for Epsom, Tauranga, and Coromandel which have continued their outsized influence most elections since.
The # of viable parties is a symptom of features of the electoral system that also have effects like that, not the cause.
And electoral systems that support multiple viable parties don't so much force cooperation in most cases (though they may make the need for multiparty coalitions) as promote positive competition (based on advocating policy ideas) over negative competition (based on tearing down the main opponent) because elections aren't zero sum and tearing down your main opponent can instead serve another opponent rather than yourself.
Local offices like a city council are often not done by party affiliation. Local voting can have some influence.
> It seems self-evident that the Republican Party — more a celebrity fan club than a political organization at this point — would, if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic.
This does a tremendous dis-service to the Republicans (including Mike Pence!) who refused to go along with Trump's lies and machinations. There were far too few of them, but they were there, and it really mattered that they were there.
Though I guess if you take the party as a whole, the statement may be accurate, or at least may have been so a year ago.
But I thought this was an interesting insight:
> In their zeal to beat back Trumpism, the loudest Democratic groups have transformed into its Bizarro World imitators.
There is some symmetry there that I hadn't noticed.
Who do you think would really win the Republican nomination? Charlie Baker or DeSantis?
Moderate Republicans (and Conservative Dems)[0] have been largely dead since the long post-WWII realignment settled out in the mid-1990s.
[0] Yes, this is asymmetrical; that's how systematic overrepresentation to one side of the spectrum combined with the incentive to nearly-balanced parties under the electoral system we have shakes out.
McCain sings bomb bomb Iran. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
This is quite similar to Canada, in that the party members pick candidates and vote for the leader. However, once the slate is tabled for each riding, it's purely a case of confirming you're registered on the list in the riding.
EDIT: I had to double check this before commenting, but in some states you don't even register with a party as far as the state is concerned (Georgia, for example, it's been 12 years and I'd forgotten). Though they still have the party primaries.
Most people just vote in the general election where this isn't necessary. The reason the Democrats or Republican might want voters to register for their party primary is to avoid the other party getting their weakest primary candidate the win so that they can beat them in the actual election.
Also keep in mind that there is no federal election, so when you hear people talk about "the popular vote" it's a misnomer. There isn't actually a national popular vote. All elections are run by individual states, and in fact even national offices like President can have different candidates on the ballot in different states, depending on what happened earlier in the election season during the party primaries.
Anybody who could not tell what the effect of picking or not picking Trump in 2016 would be should question their moral compass or mental acuity. It was pathetically obvious how social/moral matters would be handled with each option.
Both parties share sweeping agreement on nearly every single economic bill that passes. If you ever start thinking they might disagree about something, don’t worry because it will never pass, because they don’t disagree.
The record is painfully clear. You only have one choice on economic policy.
[1] https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/moral-panic-journalism?...
"This is about the point where some (most likely some in my own business) will scream: 'Both sidesism!' That’s the now-cliche argument that any criticism of Democrats whatsoever must be some kind of journalistic reflex to equate the parties, when clearly one is worse than the other."
"One is worse than the other. But that doesn’t mean we have to feel jazzed about supporting a party that would grade our worthiness as people on a sliding scale of identity. It doesn’t change the fact that the broad center of the American electorate — traditional conservatives and liberals both — no longer has a political home."
The era where bipartisanship was more common during the last three or so decades of the long post-WWII (through mid-1990s) realignment wasn't because of a stronger center, it was because a very similar distribution of viewpoints as today was distributed between parties who weren't clearly aligned against each other on the main axis between the major factions; so you had the same recognizable liberal and conservative factions, with “liberal Republicans” and “conservative Democrats” being substantial factions. Historically and structurally this is an aberrant situation, the parties tend to align against each other on the major ideological axis of divisions in the countries. But things got shook up by the New Deal (and later public welfare programs) and then a series of Civil Rights measures that didn't quite fit the existing partisan alignment, and they came hard and fast enough that it took an unusually long time for the new alignment to shake out...
Now, there is a broad disenfranchised group, but it's not mainly the “center”, it's a diverse group of people whose views fall in a variety of places not near the axis between the major parties; in a system which supported more viable parties having a meaningful role in the political systems, they’d be served by their own parties; as it is now they are either protest voting or voting with whichever major party seems least bad at the moment and not liking it much, and in many cases being hyper-targeted by propaganda from the other major parties side not aiming to engage their interest, but to alienate them from the major party closer to their interests (or electoral politics generally) as part of the zero-sum nature of the two-party system.
That is equating them. He is presenting the chief arguments why neither faction represents him, both leading to the same conclusion.
Democrats have their own far out wing, but unlike Republicans, they do not own the party. That comes at a substantial price: a significant chunk of their loss in 2016 came from being unable to engage their own far-left wing with a candidate they felt was too far to the right.
He would love a party that represents exactly his views, without having to compromise on any issue or work with people who disagree with him on any point. Congratulations. Welcome to the group called "everybody". Meantime, those who would like to actually work at governing the country try to find positions that people can tolerate, even though practically nobody loves them.
I know this is a systemic issue of the chosen representative models — but the outrage it would produce in Europe if the person with a fewer number of absolute votes would win would be absolutely of the charts. In the US it is more like a "unfortunate, but what can you do" type of reaction.
Looking at the current state of the US democracy worrying about the parties visions of "americanism" seems downright naive given that one of the parties seems to be in the process of trying to get rid of the democratic vote altogether.
As an Austrian living in Germany I can't help but thinking of the Weimar Republic before the Nazis came to power. Stories about people bashing the social democrats back then, with the Nazis rising on the horizon. Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag and blaming it on the communists. I said that Trump was a fascist back when he was elected and most US commenters would tell me I was paranoid, delusional etc. I told them that I was not sure if this guy would go peacefully if he lost the next election and I was right on the money. The problem right now is that Trump is not the only fascist in the republican party. Of course there is also true believers in democratic principles in the GOP, but they seem to be in the minority.
Given those thoughts I wonder whether the US has the freedom right now to complain about the vision of the one party that still stands for democratic principles not aligning a 100% with their own ideas. Personally I'd rather vote for a 1000 regulations I absolutely hate, implemented by people I absolutely despise than voting for someone who could potentially get rid of me being able to vote in the future.
Once you lose the right to vote, you won't have the possibility to alter that choice anymore. I always perceived US citizens as people who valued democracy above petty party politics, bit I am not sure about that now.