Complaining about the two party system Split from EP163

[ChiliFan]

As I said before, I don't think there was enough detail in this story about what they were rebelling against. I don't know about any particular left wing stories in Escape Pod either. What I do think is that there are plenty of things to rebel against in the USA and in the future it could get even worse. I think I'd like to see a satirical story on Escape Pod where these policies are taken to their conclusion. I don't think I qualify for Escape Pod because I haven't had any Sci Fi stories published.

In the current US Presidential election what are the candidates' policies? It seems that whenever they give speeches they don't mention their policies. They have websites which are supposed to explain what their policies are, but I still don't know. I think that what there is which people could rebel against is as follows. 1. Lack of medical care and/or the cost of medical care. 2. An electoral system that only allows 2 parties to get anywhere. This means that whenever people have had enough of one party making a mess of things, the other party will be re elected. 3. Workfare, which isn't even mentioned on Barack Obama's or John McCain's websites and wasn't mentioned on Hillary Clinton's website either, as if it was an accepted fact of life. 4. The attitude that money is more important than people's lives. 5. Using the Bible to jusitify various policies.

As far as I'm concerned Democrats as well as Republicans are also conservative. There is a Green Party with different policies, but the electoral system prevents them from having any real success. Other countries have some of the same problems listed above, but that doesn't mean these policies are right.

I think the economic system used in Star Trek: The Next Generation and later versions of Star Trek is good, although it hasn't been properly explained. Some people think it's what's called Participatory Economics, which is explained on a few websites if you do a search.

[wintermute]

2. An electoral system that only allows 2 parties to get anywhere. This means that whenever people have had enough of one party making a mess of things, the other party will be re elected.

I'm not expert on the American electoral system, but it seems to me that the only thing preventing a third-party candidate from being elected is that no-one will vote for them because they know no-one else will vote for them...

[ChiliFan]

2. An electoral system that only allows 2 parties to get anywhere. This means that whenever people have had enough of one party making a mess of things, the other party will be re elected.

I'm not expert on the American electoral system, but it seems to me that the only thing preventing a third-party candidate from being elected is that no-one will vote for them because they know no-one else will vote for them...

Unfortunately, it seems the reason not many people vote for them is because of the electoral system. I've heard a lot about the way US Presidents are elected, but not the Senate and the House Of Representatives. I do know that lots of countries or even most countries use proportional representation electoral systems, but there are different types of this system. Critics of this will point to the Italian system which has recently been changed. I think the Senate and House Of Representatives must be elected by some form of system called "first past the post" or a variation on this. This system means that only candidates from 2 parties stand any real chance of winning. Another system is the single transferable vote. Under this system, people write who their first preference, second preference, and possibly third preference would be, so that they can vote for whoever they really want, but then if that candidate doesn't get enough votes to win, then their second preference candidate will get their vote, and this would be whichever candidate they see as the lesser of 2 evils. This would mean that as many Americans who wanted to could vote for the Green Party as first choice, knowing that their votes wouldn't be wasted if they voted Democrat as second choice. I think such a system may be specifically banned by the US Constitution at least for the Senate.

[ChiliFan]

I've just managed to find this http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html which explains that voting in the USA usually consists of "plurality" (also called "first past the post") or "plurality with a runoff" if no candidate gets a majority of the votes. This page is mainly about describing and promoting alternative systems to these.

[stePH]

In the current US Presidential election what are the candidates' policies? It seems that whenever they give speeches they don't mention their policies. They have websites which are supposed to explain what their policies are, but I still don't know.

Recent elections in the USA have been virtually empty of meaningful debate or discussion of issues that really matter.  For an illustration of this, check out Dan Carlin's show #123 "The Empty Calorie Inquisition" in which "Dan reacts to the woeful media questioning at the recent Democratic Presidential debates with questions of his own for the candidates."  (This show was released April 24 this year.)

In past shows, Carlin has also gone into detail as to why the two parties have a lock on the system and how they've blocked "third"* parties from having any real chance of succeeding.

*I find it weird to call them "third parties" since there are more than just one of them.  Perhaps "minority parties" or "marginal parties" would be a better description, but everyone else calls them "third parties" so I guess I'm stuck with that.

[Darwinist]

In the current US Presidential election what are the candidates' policies? It seems that whenever they give speeches they don't mention their policies. They have websites which are supposed to explain what their policies are, but I still don't know.

Recent elections in the USA have been virtually empty of meaningful debate or discussion of issues that really matter. 

That's what was cool about when Jesse Ventura won the governor's race in MN as a third party candidate. Love him or hate him, he got some of the real issues out there and challenged the stuffy politicians that were also running at the time.   I seem to recall that when he won she showed up wearing  jeans, a leather jacket, and a Jimi Hendrix t-shirt. 

[Heradel]

Third parties would do a lot better in a less polarized environment. Sure, there are things that the R and D's do to minimize them, but ever since the Republican Revolution in the 90s and the subsequent polarization and permanent campaign atmosphere they brought in (ex: non-political hires to the DOJ being vetted for political affiliation and being disqualified for being liberal or having worked at liberal causes) there's been a war-like state which encourages people to go to one side or the other, that along with stratospheric Wrong Track poll numbers mean that most people aren't willing to take a chance on a third party because they're looking for A. Change and B. Change from a party with a track record of Change (granted, not much recently).

That said, the radical libertarian movement on the Right this year has a decent chance of splitting from the Republican party, especially since the 'big tent' is really more a collection of polls (the tent kind, not the data kind) and torn nylon these days.

[stePH]

... especially since the 'big tent' is really more a collection of polls (the tent kind, not the data kind)

Those would be poles. 

Not to be confused with Poles, which would be people from Poland. 

[Ocicat]

I'm a huge proponent of preferential/ranked voting.  i don't think we can fix the country until we fix the two party lockout system.  The way we vote currently means that voting for a 'third party' candidate is "throwing your vote away".  Third party candidates are blamed for drawing votes away from the major party candidate they are ideologically closest to, and thus helping the other guy win.

But it doesn't have to be that way.  If we had local and state level elections using a ranked voting system like IRV, you could say that you'd really like the Green candidate to win, but if he's not viable, give your vote to the democrat.  Your vote for the Green doesn't help the Republican candidate at all.

Of course, this doesn't really apply to the presidential level.  The electoral college is a whole 'nother messed up barrel of worms.  But before we can fix that, we need to implement local level changes.  It's currently being used in San Fancisco, and a handfull of other cities around the country.  It was recently passed in Pierce County, Washington - thanks to the efforts of a IRV group that I'm a member of. 

Process matters.  And the way we do things is not written in stone.

[Heradel]

... especially since the 'big tent' is really more a collection of polls (the tent kind, not the data kind)

Those would be poles. 

Not to be confused with Poles, which would be people from Poland. 

Arg, yes, teaches me to quickly jot off something before running to lunch.

Let me add two other things,

1. A link to the DOJ stuff I mentioned: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/doj/

2. The reason why there's a possible split on the right and not a possible split on the left is because the GOP has pretty much collapsed on the national level in terms of ideology. States might go blue this year that if you told someone back in the 90s that they might go blue they'd laugh, look worried and send for the nice men in white with the special jacket fitted just for you (For the record, VA/NC/GA/MO). McCain's chances are pretty much nil unless Obama has some spectacular implosion after Denver (before, Hillary could restart her campaign and be nominated via the super delegates), and even then he'd have a snowball's chance of it.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

... If we had local and state level elections using a ranked voting system like IRV, you could say that you'd really like the Green candidate to win, but if he's not viable, give your vote to the democrat.  Your vote for the Green doesn't help the Republican candidate at all.

... Process matters.  And the way we do things is not written in stone.

Thanks for that!  I like that idea a lot, and I had never heard of it before.  (*tagging it on del.icio.us as we speak...)

Not to get all science-fictiony on everyone, but What If...

There were a central database that housed a profile for every voter (Privacy Issue fanatics: you may opt out if you don't want your precious "information" floating around "out there"... just like you can stay in your house if you don't want people to see you.  Why do they look, anyway?  Spies!  They're all spies!!!)

...ahem... central database with a profile that details what each person's opinion of an ideal candidate would be, along with each individual's qualifications.  Then, whenever the law requires an election, the computer could run the public's collective wishes against the public's qualifications and provide either a "winner" or a slate for people to vote on.

The beauty is that for the system to work, we would be forced to come up with meaningful qualifications to ask for, and they would have to be verifiable and well-defined for people to satisfy the qualifications.  That would take a lot of the meaninglessness out of campaigning.  So, instead of candidates blathering on about being "tough on crime", "a person of character", having "strong moral values", or "cutting taxes for the right people", they would have to codify their credentials for the database somehow.

People could specify whether they want an educated person, or not... or select someone from a particular field.  Say there's an economic slump, and a lot of people want someone who understands the economy; an actual economist would have an advantage. ..unless people wanted an uneducated businessman who built a huge company out of nothing. 

Race, religion, etc. would be irrelevant... of course, people could specify that they want "a religious person" in their qualifications, they just wouldn't be able to attach a particular religion to it.  (Evil, but genius, I think.)

Political affiliation could still influence things, but in a more realistic way.  If parties have to put their real priorities out there to be matched with voters' priorities, that can only benefit everyone.  The Democrats could still pretend to care about the Environment, but if their other qualifications don't match the Green party guy, all the advertising money in the world won't help them.

And maybe we'd finally get a straight answer on what exactly "tax cuts for the middle class" means.  (Yeah, I know... it IS science fictiony, isn't it?)  As long as I'm dreaming, I might as well ask for the Fair Tax. 

But the best part would be in getting rid of stupid, pointless, pandering, meaningless rhetoric.  Who really knows what "moral values" means in a politician, after all?

[stePH]

Who really knows what "moral values" means in a politician, after all?

Near as I can figure out, it means he hasn't been caught with a hooker yet.

[Russell Nash]

Who really knows what "moral values" means in a politician, after all?

Near as I can figure out, it means he hasn't been caught with a hooker yet.

The first politician who says, "Yeah, I hired a hooker. So what?"  Gets my vote.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Who really knows what "moral values" means in a politician, after all?

Near as I can figure out, it means he hasn't been caught with a hooker yet.

The first politician who says, "Yeah, I hired a hooker. So what?"  Gets my vote.

I just wanna see his campaign posters.  Or hers. 

[williamjamesw]

As long as they're not paying for the services with public funds; why should it matter to me at all?