We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here. The dominance of the two major parties in the American electoral system is well-understood, and is primarily mathematical, not political. (Look up Duverger's Law for an explanation.) Voting for anyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is equivalent to an abstention; in most states, your candidate won't get any electoral votes unless s/he wins the state outright.
So it doesn't matter if you vote for the Green Party, the Nazi Party, the Libertarian Party, or for Mickey Mouse -- you are depriving your preferred major party candidate of the marginal support of your vote, and little else.
But, as I said earlier, this is simple mathematics.
But there's more than the immediate effect. Third party candidates can, if they make a big enough splash, have a "wave" effect that carries over to the next election. For example, Perot was all about the economy, and he was similar to Bush, who lost to Clinton by arguably enough votes where if Perot didn't enter, Bush probably would have won, or it would have been a lot closer. Next election is suddenly about economic issues. Similarly, in 2000 Nader was about the environment, and it is no coincidence that after Gore lost the environment was a big issue in 2004. Further, even though it's not common, there have been third party mayors, governors, representatives, and even IIRC senators.
Its not as if major parties fading to obscurity as other parties take forefront hasn't happened before, or have you been seeing Whig and Federalist candidates running of late?
Wigs for everyone! Big ones!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wigs for everyone! Big ones!
Sir, I'm just honored that the man with the most aliases on Paizo has more of them mocking me than any other subject that isn't just a variant of his own name. I salute you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remember, you started it. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Bro! Sheet cake?
Dude, Donald Trump hasn't touched it, swearsies!
But there's more than the immediate effect. Third party candidates can, if they make a big enough splash, have a "wave" effect that carries over to the next election. For example, Perot was all about the economy, and he was similar to Bush, who lost to Clinton by arguably enough votes where if Perot didn't enter, Bush probably would have won, or it would have been a lot closer. Next election is suddenly about economic issues. Similarly, in 2000 Nader was about the environment, and it is no coincidence that after Gore lost the environment was a big issue in 2004.
I think you're assigning attributing a false cause to these observations. There's nothing "sudden" about an election being about the economy. Neither was it necessary for the Green party to rack up votes for 2004 to be about the environment. (And, of course, the party that made the environment an issue in 2004 lost anyway, so a whole lot of good the Green surge did.)
Further, even though it's not common, there have been third party mayors, governors, representatives, and even IIRC senators.
And that's fine. If you feel there's a real chance your local candidates will be elected, go ahead and vote for them. But your vote for President should go one of two ways.
Its not as if major parties fading to obscurity as other parties take forefront hasn't happened before, or have you been seeing Whig and Federalist candidates running of late?
For that to happen, a) an existing major party must experience a crisis of support, and b) a third party must experience a simultaneous surge in support. Neither of these has taken place in recent history.
Libertarianism was getting a real push for a while. If the tea party was more organized it could probably be seen as a real threat to the right wing stability.
But how do you think those two things happen? By people actually "wasting" those votes.
Frankly, this is (among other reasons) why we need to move to a parliamentary system. That way parties with only a few representatives can at least form coalitions to get their voices heard, and third parties actually have a chance.
You know, in addition to preventing the blatant abuse of Presidential power we've been seeing as each subsequent generation steals more power from congress than the one before it.
Especially if they have to wear those big f&*+ing wigs.
The only thing about polls is they mostly interview people with landline phones, which means, let's be honest, old people.
Most polls are published with demographic info, including age bracket membership and crosstabs. If you're concerned about a poll being weighted too old, you can verify that.
Sanders has obtained a heavy following among young disenfranchised milennials
Well, sure, but why should they receive special attention in the polls? There's pretty much no group *less* likely to vote, and a poll doesn't have a lot of value if it fails to measure likely voters.
And before you say those people don't vote - that's what they said before Obama got elected.
Youth voter turnout was slightly up in 2008 from 2004, but it wasn't remarkable - 1992 had higher youth voter turnout figures. No one's really figured out how to get young people to reliably vote.
Just remember, most people supporting Trump aren't supporting his views. They are supporting the fact that he is willing to actually express his opinion no matter the political consequences. Even most of his supporters know he his crazy. They just want a politician who behaves like something other than a politician.
That seems unlikely. I think they probably support at least some portion of his views that aren't represented among the other candidates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there's more than the immediate effect. Third party candidates can, if they make a big enough splash, have a "wave" effect that carries over to the next election. For example, Perot was all about the economy, and he was similar to Bush, who lost to Clinton by arguably enough votes where if Perot didn't enter, Bush probably would have won, or it would have been a lot closer. Next election is suddenly about economic issues.
Except that so was the 1992 election -- '92 was when Carville coined the "It's the economy, stupid!" slogan that Clinton rode into victory. I don't actually see any evidence that Perot had any long-term effect on either party's platforms.
Similarly, in 2000 Nader was about the environment, and it is no coincidence that after Gore lost the environment was a big issue in 2004.
Again, I don't really see any evidence that "the environment" had any effect on the 2004 elections or policies. The 2004 election was primarily about national security, Iraq and 9/11.
Its not as if major parties fading to obscurity as other parties take forefront hasn't happened before, or have you been seeing Whig and Federalist candidates running of late?
Yes, but the third-party support has little or nothing to do with "major parties fading to obscurity." The Whig party, for example, disintegrated all by itself through internal divisions over the slavery question. And, yes, there's some evidence suggesting that that the modern Republican party may be in the throes of such a process -- but voting Libertarian (or any other third party) won't strengthen the Republican party in any way, nor will it help resolve any of the divisive issues.
Let me put it this way. The next good reason that I hear for voting for a third party presidential candidate will be the first.
Libertarianism was getting a real push for a while. If the tea party was more organized it could probably be seen as a real threat to the right wing stability.
If the tea party was more organized, we'd have a Republican in the White House. Not a Libertarian.
But how do you think those two things happen? By people actually "wasting" those votes.
Eventually, yes. But it has to be preceded by an incredible surge of popular support (not *voting* support, but general support) for a third party. We haven't seen that in recent history. The mistake you're making is in assuming that if FPTP were replaced by a more reasonable voting system, people would flock to other parties as their first choice. There is no evidence for that case.
Libertarianism was getting a real push for a while. If the tea party was more organized it could probably be seen as a real threat to the right wing stability.
It not only "could be," but it was and is. The current disfunction in the House of Representatives is largely a function of the Tea Party Republicans being elected, and then refusing to follow the party leadership.
But how do you think those two things happen? By people actually "wasting" those votes.
Not in the slightest. It was not by people wasting their votes -- how many Libertarians are voting, for example, for Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader? The answer, of course, is "none," because there are literally no Libertarians who hold national office. The people who are threatening "the right wing stability" are Republicans, who managed to win nomination against more conventional candidates at the primary and then the general election.
Everyone who voted Libertarian at the general election deprived a right-leaning Republican of their vote and their support and as a result helped the Democratic candidate.
If you want to support small-l libertarianism, voting large-L Libertarian is literally among the worst things you could do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about those of us who disdain political bundling of our issues as it comes with current party choices? I'm for less gun control, but want gay equality. I favor a graduated tax system, but am against abortion. I want to have a liveable minimum wage, but I'm in favor of an increased military presence. I think drugs should be legal and the death penalty abolished, but I also think we should privatize education with a voucher system because the public route has been a joke. Every one of those statements has been at odds with itself, party-wise, even though strictly speaking they're totally unrelated. Yet you tell me where I can find any party that is behind those SUPPOSEDLY opposite statements that has nothing to do with one another.
Third parties are the only way I can find anyone who even remotely agrees with me, because as Rand Paul and his father before him showed us, if you don't tote the party line 100%, you won't get the nomination from the base, anyway, because those idiots don't care about general electability, they only care about who most appeals to their established bundles. I mean, I would vote for RP in a heartbeat, if only because he had the balls to filibuster against his own party's act and buck the party trend...even though there's things I disagree with him on, the sheet fact he's even slightly off base had me ready to cheer. I felt similarly when I found out Rubio's stance on immigration, until he went full party puppet once he hit third place.
Seriously, we need a centrist party.
If every politician would shag a cake this world would be a better place.
#shagacakeforworldpeace.
What about those of us who disdain political bundling of our issues as it comes with current party choices?
Do you want an actual answer to this, or are you just moaning about the political reality you live in?
The real answer is that you have to make a hard decision. There is no perfect option for you. Welcome to life. Time to make a sober evaluation of your priorities, and - based on that evaluation - choose and support the major party candidate who best represents your views.
Democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. Democracy is about compromise.
I'm for less gun control, but want gay equality. I favor a graduated tax system, but am against abortion. I want to have a liveable minimum wage, but I'm in favor of an increased military presence. I think drugs should be legal and the death penalty abolished, but I also think we should privatize education with a voucher system because the public route has been a joke. Every one of those statements has been at odds with itself, party-wise,
A number of these statement are at odds with themselves, period. They reflect a worldview that I've never even heard of before. Why would you expect any party to support these views? Even a third party isn't going to give you that jelly bean assortment of political positions.
even though strictly speaking they're totally unrelated.
They are not totally unrelated.
Yet you tell me where I can find any party that is behind those SUPPOSEDLY opposite statements that has nothing to do with one another.
You can't, and you won't. And no political system changes are going to make that a reality.
Third parties are the only way I can find anyone who even remotely agrees with me, because as Rand Paul and his father before him showed us, if you don't tote the party line 100%, you won't get the nomination from the base, anyway, because those idiots don't care about general electability, they only care about who most appeals to their established bundles. I mean, I would vote for RP in a heartbeat, if only because he had the balls to filibuster against his own party's act and buck the party trend...even though there's things I disagree with him on, the sheet fact he's even slightly off base had me ready to cheer. I felt similarly when I found out Rubio's stance on immigration, until he went full party puppet once he hit third place.
Seriously, we need a centrist party.
Your views are not centrist. They are weirdly polar, similar to the way Paul's platform was weirdly polar.
Australia has.And before you say those people don't vote - that's what they said before Obama got elected.Youth voter turnout was slightly up in 2008 from 2004, but it wasn't remarkable - 1992 had higher youth voter turnout figures. No one's really figured out how to get young people to reliably vote.
My bad - I'm referring specifically to American youth. We haven't cracked that nut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about those of us who disdain political bundling of our issues as it comes with current party choices? ...
"They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate."
The two party system does not appeal to almost half the country. I'm guessing that many people who do vote do it while holding their nose, or just voting against the other guy. There is an enormous potential for something other then a republicrat, but both political parties and the media are fighting it tooth and nail. Shove the donkeys and elephants into the glue vat, turn off the Fox/MSNBC/CNN and vote for someone who actually represents you.
Or, enjoy the s*+&show...
Where is Doodlebug these days anyway?
What about those of us who disdain political bundling of our issues as it comes with current party choices?
You have the same choice as anyone else:
1) Work within the system to effect change
2) Work against the system and effect nothing.
Third parties are the only way I can find anyone who even remotely agrees with me.
That's nice. Did you want to find an echo chamber with a person who agrees with you, or did you want to have a political effect?
Politics, more or less by definition, involves finding people who do not agree with you and making necessary compromises to achieve broad support about partial steps towards achieving those compromises.
"They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate."
The two party system does not appeal to almost half the country.
It's a mistake to attribute every non-voter to distaste for the way our elections are run.
I'm guessing that many people who do vote do it while holding their nose, or just voting against the other guy. There is an enormous potential for something other then a republicrat, but both political parties and the media are fighting it tooth and nail. Shove the donkeys and elephants into the glue vat, turn off the Fox/MSNBC/CNN and vote for someone who actually represents you.
Again, literally counterproductive until and unless the voting system itself is changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm for less gun control, but want gay equality. I favor a graduated tax system, but am against abortion. I want to have a liveable minimum wage, but I'm in favor of an increased military presence. I think drugs should be legal and the death penalty abolished, but I also think we should privatize education with a voucher system because the public route has been a joke. Every one of those statements has been at odds with itself, party-wise,They are not totally unrelated.
By all means, explain to me what gun control has to do with gay equality. I'll wait. While I wait, prepare up how a graduated tax system has anything to do with abortion, privatized education anything to do with the death penalty...an argument could be stretched to lump an independent living wage in with an increased military presence, since both cost a lot of money, but even that is a stretch.
Every member of either party is, for the most part, just the same bundle of beliefs. The faces change, but its the same "if you like poor people you need to hate religious people" or "if you like military strength capable of helping the oppressed in other nations you need to also ignore the oppressed in our own" if-then garbage.
There is an enormous potential for something other then a republicrat.
This is simply untrue (look up Duverger's Law, as I already mentioned).
If there were, the "republicrats" would have already become that thing, because that would be an easy way to capture a large amount of loose votes and thereby win elections. Both major parties have managed to achieve a rough stalemate where they both win as many votes as they can, but any major move to reach out to a new group will typically end up costing them more votes from than they'd win.
You can see that with the current Republican party's treatment of Hispanics. One of the lessons from 2008 and 2012 that the entire pundit-ocracy noted is that Hispanics voted overwhelmingly Democratic despite being socially much more conservative. This needed to be fixed. They would appear to be low-hanging fruit that could be pulled away from the Democratic camp, much as Reagan was able to pull white southern voters away from the Democrats. But instead, the core/primary voters are pulling the Republican party away from a Latino-friendly platform.
This is one of the reasons that most of the candidates initially pushed their Hispanic ties -- Spanish-speaking Bush (and his Latina wife) and the two Cuban-American candidates (Cruz and Rubio) are the obvious examples -- and were similarly being pushed by the party elite. However, look at the backlash.
By all means, explain to me what gun control has to do with gay equality. I'll wait. While I wait, prepare up how a graduated tax system has anything to do with abortion, privatized education anything to do with the death penalty...an argument could be stretched to lump an independent living wage in with an increased military presence, since both cost a lot of money, but even that is a stretch.
They are related through common ideologies. For example, a less-regulation-is-better worldview informs an anti-gun-control and a pro-marriage-equality stance. A traditional, American religious worldview informs an anti-gun-control and an anti-marriage-equality stance. A progressive worldview informs a pro-gun-control and a pro-marriage equality stance. There isn't, to my knowledge, a coherent worldview that informs a pro-gun-control, anti-marriage-equality stance (maybe a variation of family values?).
The problem you're encountering is that people typically don't decide on where they fall on issues on an issue-by-issue basis. For most people, that's far more time-consuming than they're willing to put up with. Instead, people tend to use political heuristics to help them make decisions. A person's worldview is an example of one of these heuristics. A particular news channel or radio personality might be another, a church might be another, and so on. It's why certain combinations of (to you, seemingly unrelated) issue positions are so popular.
Your combination of views, however, doesn't appear to be informed by any single popular heuristic. In other words, it doesn't seem likely that you have a coherent worldview supporting all of those various positions.
Every member of either party is, for the most part, just the same bundle of beliefs.
That's the point of a party. They literally have declared party platforms that candidates are expected to adhere to, for the most part.
The faces change, but its the same "if you like poor people you need to hate religious people"
Okay, no. No major political group hates religious people for being religious. If you're a religious person and you feel hated, it isn't because you're a religious person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, not taking life on an issue by issue basis seems a lazy way to approach situations. There is no singular black and white answer to all of the problems of society. It's much more granular than that. We are far too dynamic of a species to paint entire societies with such a broad brush as either "more regulation or less regulation". That's absolutely ludicrous.
If an individual is so lazy to actually find articulating their perspectives on an issue by issue basis a chore, then their opinions are likely to be uninformed and ignorant anyway.
But, then I'm also in the opinion that we should revamp the system as an education based weighted oligarchical republic where education is free but non-compulsory and additional votes are granted for the more educated, so yeah, my opinions are, to say the least, a little unique, I know.
For example, every time I see people trying to tell others to get out and vote I look at them like they're crazy. Why would you want someone so ignorant that they choose not to vote at all to water down the strength of your own opinion? (Yeah, I realize the masses are more easily swayed to fall into line and support your ideals, but I mean the general push to get people to vote, rather than the party sponsored movements.)
Well, not taking life on an issue by issue basis seems a lazy way to approach situations.
You can view it as lazy or efficient, but either way, you already do it. You unquestionably make extensive use of cognitive heuristics in decision making, even if you aren't conscious of it.
There is no singular black and white answer to all of the problems of society. It's much more granular than that.
Heuristics don't seek to provide a single answer, or black-and-white answers. They provide shortcuts that allow us to make decisions without thoroughly analyzing those decisions ourselves.
We are far too dynamic of a species to paint entire societies with such a broad brush as either "more regulation or less regulation". That's absolutely ludicrous.
While I agree that "less regulation is better" leads to poor outcomes, it is unquestionably a coherent worldview (not to mention a popular one).
Note that the above heuristic is pretty black-and-white. That isn't true for all heuristics, though.
If an individual is so lazy to actually find articulating their perspectives on an issue by issue basis a chore, then their opinions are likely to be uninformed and ignorant anyway.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to articulate their reasons for having a particular position on every issue, on demand. You can't even do that (if you had to, you'd probably end up trying to work through your reasoning on the fly for many, many issues).
But, then I'm also in the opinion that we should revamp the system as an education based weighted oligarchical republic where education is free but non-compulsory and additional votes are granted for the more educated, so yeah, my opinions are, to say the least, a little unique, I know.
Hoo boy.
For example, every time I see people trying to tell others to get out and vote I look at them like they're crazy. Why would you want someone so ignorant that they choose not to vote at all to water down the strength of your own opinion? (Yeah, I realize the masses are more easily swayed to fall into line and support your ideals, but I mean the general push to get people to vote, rather than the party sponsored movements.)
Generally speaking, it's because they understand the audience they're speaking to, and the way that audience typically votes. If you can be certain that a majority of the audience you are encouraging will vote in the same way you will, you don't "dilute" your vote by encouraging them. You strengthen the likelihood that outcomes you desire will occur.
The Democratic Party, for example, tends to encourage general increases in voter turnout, because they understand that the majority of non-voters would support Democratic candidates if they were required to vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I stated, I understand party motivation behind it. I agree, people naturally think with heuristics, but the current system is overreliant and oversimplified.
...and the reason you couldn't define my party preference was intentional presentation. Like anyone with beliefs not represented by a party bundle, I have some that take preference over others in weight, especially depending on governmental scale, whether local, state, federal, etc. I do end up usually sucking it up and choosing a lesser of two evils, and about 65% of the time it is a particular party, but it doesn't mean that just because I can work within the system that it is acceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't share probably half of Green Tea Gamers beliefs, the political agenda he espouses isn't some bizarro unique thing. In fact I would say its pretty typical of a good (if minority) section of the populace. Hell, from what I could tell when I lived there, it matches pretty strongly with the average Republican voter in Wyoming and some other parts of the west (Although I think the Tea Party has altered that a bit). Its pretty standard libertarian.
As far as voting, I hate our two party system and how it forces us into choosing "the lesser of two evils" over and over again. I think its up to the individual voter to decide if he wants vote his conscience and go third party, or weigh political realities and vote Dem or Republican. Their is nothing wrong with making either choice and we shouldn't lambast people who vote differently.
As I stated, I understand party motivation behind it. I agree, people naturally think with heuristics, but the current system is overreliant and oversimplified.
...and the reason you couldn't define my party preference was intentional presentation. Like anyone with beliefs not represented by a party bundle, I have some that take preference over others in weight, especially depending on governmental scale, whether local, state, federal, etc. I do end up usually sucking it up and choosing a lesser of two evils, and about 65% of the time it is a particular party, but it doesn't mean that just because I can work within the system that it is acceptable.
I suspect you'd have problems in any system. Do your beliefs line up with any existing 3rd party?
Even in a parliamentary system, you need to reach a certain percentage to get any representation.
And even in a direct democracy, the most effective way to get what you want is via consensus-building and compromise. If I need to promise support for something I mildly dislike in order to get someone else's support for something I really want, that's the way things get done.
To a first approximation, the House of Representatives is a direct democracy, as are the various committees that make it up. Every Congressman gets an equal vote to use as s/he sees fit. One of the issues that makes the current House so dysfunctional is a misunderstanding, on the part of the Tea Party, of the nature of that democracy; a bill that draws 30% support from the Republicans and 90% from Democrats will pass.
Until recently, this type of log-rolling was business as usual in Washington. By refusing to roll logs, they've both eliminated their ability to get their own agenda through, and also surrendered much of their ability to block other people's agenda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't share probably half of Green Tea Gamers beliefs, the political agenda he espouses isn't some bizarro unique thing. In fact I would say its pretty typical of a good (if minority) section of the populace. Hell, from what I could tell when I lived there, it matches pretty strongly with the average Republican voter in Wyoming and some other parts of the west (Although I think the Tea Party has altered that a bit). Its pretty standard libertarian.
Really? Let's break it down.
thegreenteagamer listed the following beliefs. I'll mark the ones that could be considered classically libertarian in bold.
Less gun control
Equal gay rights
Graduated tax system
Opposed to abortion rights
Minimum living wage
Increased foreign projection of military strength
Legalized drug use
Abolished death penalty
Privatized education
As you can see, of the positions he highlighted, classically libertarian beliefs are actually in the minority. Of the remaining, a number are flat-out antithetical to libertarian belief (especially opposition to abortion rights, and a minimum livable wage).
In other words, his list of policies is about as libertarian as it is any other political alignment - you might as well have called him "pretty standard progressive" for his beliefs on gay rights, a living wage, and an abolished death penalty.
As far as voting, I hate our two party system and how it forces us into choosing "the lesser of two evils" over and over again.
Hate it all you want, but vote sensibly.
I think its up to the individual voter to decide if he wants vote his conscience and go third party, or weigh political realities and vote Dem or Republican.
I don't have a lot of patience for people who use the, "I voted my conscience!" line as an excuse for avoiding making a hard decision about which choice they actually should make.
Their is nothing wrong with making either choice and we shouldn't lambast people who vote differently.
Except there is something wrong with voting third party - you're actually hurting yourself and those who believe as you do by virtue of the opportunity cost you spend voting third party when you could be voting for a major party.
As I said, I am a centrist. It's the closest approximation I can find to an encompassing description.
I actually prefer not to vote third party when it can be help, but there are instances where I simply refuse to choose between the presented dynamics.
Sometimes, I vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when one is disgusting to me, such as in the most recent vote for Florida governor, but even in those cases, whomever I almost always end up voting for tends to lose. Third party is still preferable behavior to skipping voting altogether.
I think the last time I voted for someone and they actually won was a mayoral race.
stuff [
Unless his plans on voting involve locking you in a basement and voting for you, why do you care?
Is it better if he should be just completely apathetic and not vote at all?
As I said, I am a centrist.
That isn't what a centrist is. A centrist doesn't take far-left and far-right beliefs and squeeze them into a single ideology. In fact, centrism is opposed to exactly that.
I actually prefer not to vote third party when it can be help, but there are instances where I simply refuse to choose between the presented dynamics.
Okay, but why?
Sometimes, I vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when one is disgusting to me, such as in the most recent vote for Florida governor, but even in those cases, whomever I almost always end up voting for tends to lose. Third party is still preferable behavior to skipping voting altogether.
Well, perhaps, but that's not exactly a high bar to meet.
Unless his plans on voting involve locking you in a basement and voting for you, why do you care?
I'm curious. Is that a problem?
Is it better if he should be just completely apathetic and not vote at all?
No, but no worse, really, either.
As I said, I am a centrist.That isn't what a centrist is. A centrist doesn't take far-left and far-right beliefs and squeeze them into a single ideology. In fact, centrism is opposed to exactly that.
I actually prefer not to vote third party when it can be help, but there are instances where I simply refuse to choose between the presented dynamics.Okay, but why?
Sometimes, I vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when one is disgusting to me, such as in the most recent vote for Florida governor, but even in those cases, whomever I almost always end up voting for tends to lose. Third party is still preferable behavior to skipping voting altogether.Well, perhaps, but that's not exactly a high bar to meet.
There's no such thing as a belief that isn't ideologically imbalanced, when you break it down to a granular enough level. I was giving you far reaching examples of each category.
Some things are simply diametrically opposed. You're either pro death penalty or you're anti. You can't be "for it in some instances" because the death penalty is only applied TO some instances. It's not as if those proposing its continuance are in favor of graduating it up to the punishment for every crime. You're either for a graduated tax system, or you're not. The particular methodology isn't the problem for flat tax enthusiasts, it's that it is not equivalent altogether. The formula isn't the problem, it's the answer to the equation. For those things that supposedly have a centrist answer, such as abortion, it all boils down to a situational yes or no.
Anyway, I was saving time and using examples by simplifying my beliefs. As I said, we are far too complex of a society to simply paint it with a broad brush. I simply did not have the inclination to type out a massive essay about the nitty gritty of my personal beliefs to each and every specific situation, especially when it isn't going to change the mind of anyone I'm speaking to. I simply gave an example of a set of beliefs that are supposedly contradictory when they really don't have anything to do with one another beyond the overtly simplistic ideals of less or more regulation. I know I'm not the only person who doesn't fit into the two cookie cutter molds, and not just because MMCJawa pointed out that he also doesn't fit in the mold. The overwhelming majority of everyone I have made acquaintance with cannot identify completely with one party or another. As I said, I agree with one about 65% of the time, but again, that's simply because some of my beliefs I hold to more adamantly than others. Drugs, for example, are a very minimal opinion of mine. If it comes up, I vote for decriminalization, but I'm not going to go out and campaign for it, or choose a candidate based on that fact, unless it's a tie breaking issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean this as a particular insult in a personal manner, but many people believe that it is exactly that attitude - pick a party, stick with it, and shut up and do the best to support one of those two groups - that is exactly the problem, Scott.
As I said, I am a centrist.
People often say they're "centrist" when I don't think they really know what that means. Centrist doesn't mean "some ideas from the left, some ideas from the right". It means combining the viewpoints of the left and right into a sort of compromise viewpoint, saying that neither extreme can be correct, therefore the middle ground is where the truth lies.
While this can sound perfectly reasonable, it often times isn't. For example the centrist opinion on climate change would be summed up "Climate change is most likely real, but we shouldn't do anything about it". It's essentially the corporate political opinion on the topic, it's what Exxon-Mobil believes.
Sounds like a right wing opinion, if the end result is the same as the right wing - do nothing. That isn't a compromise.
The particular methodology isn't the problem for flat tax enthusiasts, it's that it is not equivalent altogether. The formula isn't the problem, it's the answer to the equation.
However, "flatness" does come in degrees; a politically savvy flat-tax proponent would be completely in favor of a two-level tax system as opposed to the one the United States currently has, because it's "better." One of the reasons the libertarians have never been particularly successful is because they have a tendency to allow the merely good to be the enemy of the perfect, and by refusing to compromise on a better situation, allow those who want a worse one to win.
For those things that supposedly have a centrist answer, such as abortion, it all boils down to a situational yes or no.
[M]any people believe that it is exactly that attitude - pick a party, stick with it, and shut up and do the best to support one of those two groups - that is exactly the problem, Scott.
Except that isn't the attitude Scott suggested. Voting against the greater evil does not imply that one particular party is always the lesser evil or that any one party is always deserving of your support. However, the lesser evil is always deserving of your support over the greater evil.
So ummm, the merits of third parties aside, what about this Trump fellow? Wacky, isn't he?
Yes. Yes he is.
While this can sound perfectly reasonable, it often times isn't. For example the centrist opinion on climate change would be summed up "Climate change is most likely real, but we shouldn't do anything about it". It's essentially the corporate political opinion on the topic, it's what Exxon-Mobil believes.
I don't think that's quite the case. No rational person would hold that climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it. The centrist position in this case is that climate change is real, but the costs of dealing with it are prohibitive, in which case a) more research is needed to find ways of dealing with it, and b) the question needs to be revisited when the economics changes.
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology. Abolishing taxes because "taxes are theft" is an extremist position; a centrist would try to find a specific level of taxes that maximizes public benefit. A centrist position on the death penalty could be that there's nothing wrong with it in theory, but that it's implemented badly/unfairly, and therefore the current situation needs to be fixed -- and executions need to be halted until the fix happens. A centrist position on drug legalization is that some drugs need to be decriminalized to some extent.