Is Doctor Who Republican?

[Russell Nash]

Don't have time for details, but here goes.  The simple answer is organization and money.  The two big parties have such a lock on those that it makes it next to impossible to break in.  It does happen in local races where money is not as big of a deal.  And a rep from New Hampshire (I believe) is a communist (or something), so it can happen.

[Zathras]

OK, while we're on the subject of the two-party system, there's a question that I've asked several times of various people, and never managed to get a straight answer for:

What does it mean, exactly, to say that the US has a two party system? Why does "everyone know" that a third party can't win an election? Is there anything actually stopping them from doing so, other than that "everyone knows" not to waste their vote on third parties?

OK, that was more than one question. But I've never really understood how you can have thirteen different parties nominating candidates for the presidency in a two-party system...

Edit: I miscounted, and perhaps misunderstood the electoral rules. Only six parties are on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes, and take the presidency directly. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, it's not a plurality of votes that's required, but an absolute majority (that is, if one party gets 269 votes, another gets 200 and a third gets 69, then we don't know who will be the new president), so if no party gets 270 votes or more, then the House of Representatives gets to choose a president. And I get the impression they can choose from any of the 13 people who've put their name forward in any state? Of maybe anyone they damn well please?

Does that sound more right?

I believe it's because the "independents" go about it the wrong way.  Secure positions at the local and state level, then go on to secure several seats in the House and Senate.  This would lend legitimacy to the party.

You nailed it on the head, a 3rd party candidate can't win because, "a 3rd party candidate can't win".

For the record, I'm registered Republican so I can at least participate in the farce of the primary elections.  If I was told that my vote would break a tie, and either Obama or McCain would win, I still think I'd vote for Barr.

[Heradel]

Don't have time for details, but here goes.  The simple answer is organization and money.  The two big parties have such a lock on those that it makes it next to impossible to break in.  It does happen in local races where money is not as big of a deal.  And a rep from New Hampshire (I believe) is a communist (or something), so it can happen.

You're thinking of Bernie Sanders, I-VT, who self-identifies as a democratic socialist and caucuses with the Democrats.

[davedoty]

What does it mean, exactly, to say that the US has a two party system? Why does "everyone know" that a third party can't win an election? Is there anything actually stopping them from doing so, other than that "everyone knows" not to waste their vote on third parties?

Well, that's not wrong, but I don't think it's quite that simple, either.  The two main parties represent (or at least successfully present themselves as representing) fundamentally different views of American society.  Most third parties either focus specifically on one issue (the environment), one philosophical tact that's not really seen as mainstream enough to hold with the Big Two (libertarianism*), or simply being all-around on the fringe.

So, while there's certainly a degree of "don't waste your vote," I think there's more to it than that.  We have a dualistic mindset in general, with most of the country seeing our society in a tug-of-war between conservatism and liberalism, with the Republicans and Democrats seen as embodying those two positions.

To end the two-party system, you'd have to either change the perception that those parties represent those fundametal values, or change the perception that American society is driven by a dualistic struggle between those two value systems.

It would also probably help if the constitution could be amended (ha, good luck) to allow coalition governments similar to the parliamentary system in the UK, but that fundamental perceptual view of the party system has to be the first step, I think.

* I hold a lot of libertarian views myself.  It's not a put-down.  It's just a fact that most of the country don't see conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism as the three primary forces driving the push-pull of our society.

[davedoty]

Actually, as I think about it, if we ever had enough viable parties to keep any one from getting an electoral majority, we'd have a de facto parliamentary system, with the election regularly going to the House to elect.  And since the House would assumably be made up of a large number of parties in this scenario, we'd probably be looking at coalition governments in order to get enough votes for a single candidate.

Of course, without rules in place for votes of no confidence, once in, the president would be in for four years, with no consequence if the coalition fell apart, except for difficulties four years down the line pulling a new one together.

[Heradel]

Actually, as I think about it, if we ever had enough viable parties to keep any one from getting an electoral majority, we'd have a de facto parliamentary system, with the election regularly going to the House to elect.  And since the House would assumably be made up of a large number of parties in this scenario, we'd probably be looking at coalition governments in order to get enough votes for a single candidate.

Of course, without rules in place for votes of no confidence, once in, the president would be in for four years, with no consequence if the coalition fell apart, except for difficulties four years down the line pulling a new one together.

It's a little more complicated than that, and one candidate could always throw his electors to another candidate (or the electors could just go off the reservation and vote for who they want to).

The system was set up as dualistic all the way back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

I'd also argue that there are three distinct political philosophies in America right now. The Christianist right is fundamentally distinct from the libertarian right. I would think that if the Libertarian party had run someone with a bigger national presence and  if this election wasn't happening during an existential crisis they might have had a shot at splitting off a good third of the vote that normally goes to Republicans. Either way, that tent's getting a lot more stretched out than it has in the past. 

[Russell Nash]

If the Libertarians started running strong, it would just mean the Democrats would win every election that used to be close.  That's the problem with third parties.  They take mostly from one party therefore giving the election to the other one. 

To have a third party that took equally from the established parties, you'd have to have a very centrist party.  That's a little tough so many will tell you there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties we have now.

[Heradel]

If the Libertarians started running strong, it would just mean the Democrats would win every election that used to be close.  That's the problem with third parties.  They take mostly from one party therefore giving the election to the other one. 

To have a third party that took equally from the established parties, you'd have to have a very centrist party.  That's a little tough so many will tell you there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties we have now.

There may be room for a center-right party if this election takes out a lot of the moderate Republicans, which the numbers say is possible. If the majority of the Republican Party are Southern Conservatives...

[Zathras]

Penn Jillette interview about voting for Barr:

http://reason.com/blog/show/129845.html

[qwints]

South Park is definitely a Republican show (although it's really more libertarian.)

It's certainly pro-big business (see WalMart episode and underpants gnome episode) and anti-environmentalist (see global warming episode).

[davedoty]

I don't know if it's entirely anti-environmentalist, although it certainly buys into global climate change denial.

The hybrid cars issue was more balanced; at the end of the episode, when either Kyle or Stan inevitably step out of character to deliver Matt and Trey's opinion statement on that week's issue, it was clear that they think the environment is in trouble, and that hybrids can help with that; their issue was in the smugness of so many environmentalists.  "Help the environment but don't be so smug about it" was pretty close to verbatim their message.  Not so much anti-environmentalist, as it was constructive criticism for how environmentalists can present their message.

But yeah, the climate change thing is disappointing.  Penn Jillette also buys into it, which makes me wonder why libertarians are so vulnerable to this particular form of pseudoscience.  The easy answer is a distrust of scientific authority, but Penn is certainly willing to accept scientific consensus on evolution, physics, and other issues.

[wintermute]

But buying into scientific consensus on climate change means that other people are affected by what you do on the privacy of your on property. This clearly goes against Libertarian Truth and so must be rejected.

Penn Jillette also denies that there's a link between passive smoking and cancer. Coincidence?

[Talia]

Wow, I had no idea. Just lost a bunch of respect for the guy. Pity.

[davedoty]

In his defense, he later did acknowledge that the study he based his passive smoking claims on was disproven.  He still stuck by what he claimed was the thrust of the episode, namely that if a business owner wants smoking in his establishment, non-smokers can simply go elsewhere.  If there's so little call for a smoking bar, it will go out of business on its own.  I tend to agree with this.

[wintermute]

In his defense, he later did acknowledge that the study he based his passive smoking claims on was disproven.

And had been disproven long before he cited it. But that's what happens when you base your opinion on a single, cherry-picked study, rather than on the consensus of the literature.

[DarkKnightJRK]

As for the original topic of this with Dr. Who, I think it's a lot to do with that it's far more family-friendly then a lot of the sci-fi shows on television I can think of.

[Russell Nash]

Since the Threadromancy has already been done, I'll add this. 

South Park is also in the Republican column. That surprises me far more than Dr Who, which at least doesn't actively mock everything the right stands for...

I think it's partly because so many of them love Cartman.

Having read the comments, it seems that South Park is Republicans' favourite show on Comedy Central, which might be asking Democrats who their favourite Fox News anchor is...

South Park and Political Correctness is a course at Brooklyn College.  In an NPR interview the professor said South Park was the perfect place to start talking about controversial topics.  South Park firmly stands in the middle and ruthlessly attacks both sides of the issue.