Comments on: A syllabus of errors

By: Pay per click Search Engine Advertising

Pay per click Search Engine Advertising — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:13:16 +0000

Good point guys! You can search for more information at http://www.giveramp.com as it’s better then Google for this type of topic.

By: Jeff Bogdan

Jeff Bogdan — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:09:20 +0000

First, why do the comments on this site display so weirdly (at least, on IE? Some lines are completely obliterated, as if a child had got hold of a bottle of whiteout and applied it in streaks to a manuscript. Anyhow, though I’m not voting for Nader this year (tho’ I remain unrepentant about having voted for him in Democrat-safe NJ in 2000), his analysis of of the U.S. duopoly is still relevant and so far absent from this discussion. The nutshell version goes like this: National campaigns are fabulously expensive—mainly becauase modern campaigns are primarily conducted through TV ads and public election funding just can’t compete with all the private cash sloshing around. Only someone who is personally wealthy or who can raise really big bucks can even dream of running for President. Big money tends to come, duh, from very rich people and big corporations whose polital interests, while not completely determined by their economic interests, are certainly heavily weighted toward them. This naturally has an effect on what parties (and candidates within each party) they are willing to contribute some of their wealth to. So that while the Republicans and Democrats are not identical, in many respects they are quite similar in their views about economic policy, social insurance, distribution of wealth free (so-called) trade and large swathes of foriegn policy. Which is why in 2000 we had a Democratic President who tossed thousands of families on on welfare out of a 10th storey window, while them assuring on the way down that he felt their pain and promising them the good jobs that somehow never materialized; who pushed through NAFTA and wanted to extend that mad-scientist scheme to the entire hemisphere; who couldn’t be bothered paying attention to the outright theft of African American votes in Florida—many more votes lost to the Democrats that way than through Nader’s incursion and dangling chads combined—and a Democratic Party that couldn’t be bothered doing anything about it even after the fact. (See the footage, as shocking in its own way as that of Bush reading My Pet Goat or something or other while Manhattan burned, of the Black Congressional Caucus pleading before the U.S. Senate for one, just one Senator to co-sign their protest of this 1980s Salvadoran-style election, and coming away empty-handed—not a single Democratic Senator would lend a hand.) So vote for Kerry, United Fronters, but don’t get too relaxed when he wins. La lucha continua, as they say in Central America and , nowadays, in Florida, too.

By: Brennan Griffin

Brennan Griffin — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:35:00 +0000

I think part of the answer is in structural ballot access patterns. Third parties in the US used to be much more common and more powerful until early in the 20th century. Republicans at the time were consistently getting pluralities, but were beaten by politicians running on joint Farm-Labor and Democratic fusion tickets (one politician running on the ballot line for both parties). Republicans used their political might and with the help of Democrats to get rid of fusion in all but a few states, vastly complicating things for third parties. With fusion, a party can use ballot access to form coalitions on the big tickets, without having to play the spoiler a la Ralph Nader. Its no accident that New York, which still has fusion, has some thriving third parties (Conservatives, Working Families Party, even a Right to Life Party). These parties wield significant statewide influence, command patronage jobs, and get candidates to sign off on anything from higher minimum wages (WFP) to freezes on taxes (Conservatives). These parties can wield significant influence in tight elections – throwing the election to Giuliani for example, when the Liberal Party (misnamed these days) endorsed him and gave him the margin of victory in his first race. They can always play the spoiler if they need to, but they also have the carrot of an endorsement that carries real, provable votes as well.

By: Tom Morris

Tom Morris — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:05:26 +0000

The reason why the Liberal Democrats have lost the middle ground is because they have sold out their liberal principles for namby-pamby social democracy. They now treat the individual as an idiot rather than as a rational being. There is no proper liberal alternative, since they have become social democrat. I vote for them only in the hope that they might become liberal again.

By: cure

cure — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:40:10 +0000

abb1…We’ve put Republicans in the Governership of Massachusetts for well over a decade. In a PR system, individual Republicans would have a worse time of winning than they do now. Party affiliation is loose enough in the United States that, as many have noted, the variation within parties allows the wishes of local voters to be reflected quite well with WTA. That said, is the lack of third party representation that important anyway? I don’t think so. Coalition building isn’t very important when a PM isn’t selected. The Senate and Congress both contain members that could just as easily be members of Green, Libertarian, Constitution, “potato-throwing farmer” (as the Economist puts it), etc.. In many cases, party affiliation is useful merely as a fundraising tool. Further, the importance of major parties lies in their ability to vet candidates. Look at the Filipino elections, with their weak post-Marcos party system. Because the party system is weak, celebrities dominate policy wonks in elections. Lastly, it must be remembered that the US is essentially a contractually linked set of states, who entered a union with the promise of local representation. Despite the fact that post-Warren we are much more centralized, it’s simply a non-started that smaller states would give up considerable political power and agree to a PR style system.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:43:18 +0000

I think PR systems are much better in all situations and for for all levels, except, of course, the presidential election.

I’m not saying that one system works better or worse than another, just that the system we use in the U.S. is just fine for us.

With our WTA system if you are, for example, a republican in Massachusetts, your political views are not represented on the federal level at all. Your vote is wasted, you have exactly zero representation. Sure, your region is represented, yet it doesn’t sound like a good deal at all. And republicans are a significant minority in Massachusetts.

Adoption of instant-runoff voting, as in Ireland or Australia would eliminate the “wasted vote” problem for minor parties while maintaining local representation.

Your interests on the federal level have a regional component and the rest – let’s call it “political” component. Under WTA (even with instant-runoff) your regional interests are guaranteed to be represented – 100%; your political interests, however, will be represented only with 50% probability. Under PR you have nearly 100% chance that your political interests will be represented, and, if there is a strong regional uniqueness where you live, then you will most likely have a regional party to vote for, if you are so inclined (like Basque Nationalist Party in Spain for example).

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:26:23 +0000

How do the LibDems do it? Who votes for them?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:51:34 +0000

[W]hat about a list system combined with a geographic top-up (or vice versa), or State-wide PR, or PR for State assemblies and senates only, or… there are lots of ways of doing it. For President, obviously, we’d need something different, like run offs, etc. I prefer approval voting for president. I think PR by state might work (and would avoid gerrymandering issues). Anything that does away with the primary system, however, is bad – I hope this isn’t what you’re suggesting by going to a “list” system. Clearly the PR model is much more flexible, which is not necessarily a good thing, but probably is. There is a counter-argument here. In a PR system, people are still locked into specific parties with narrow platforms. Often, there is only one candidate available from each party. In a two-party system with amorphous, coalition parties (as in the U.S.) the voters get to decide not only which party to vote for, but also who is the representative of that party in each race. There may be any number of different viewpoints expressed (compare Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, and Kucinich). Especially in regional and local elections, people can come up with their own platforms, which might even overlap between the two “major parties” (see Northeast and West-Coast Republicans vs. Southern Democrats). They can have candidates who directly reflect their views and are not necessarily beholden to a particular party ideology. My Republican Representative, Tim Johnson, is socially and fiscally conservative, but sides with Democrats on a lot of farm issues, since I live in a mostly rural area. If voters had to choose between a Tory, a LibDem, a Labour, and a Green candidate, it would be hard for voters in my area to find one that really reflected their politics. I’m not saying that one system works better or worse than another, just that the system we use in the U.S. is just fine for us. Now, that’s not to say I wouldn’t prefer going to PR for local elections, or to approval voting for winner-take-all races. But I don’t think either of those changes would or should lead to a system with a large number of smaller, tightly-focused parties.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:19:59 +0000

Adoption of instant-runoff voting, as in Ireland or Australia would eliminate the “wasted vote” problem for minor parties while maintaining local representation. We currently have independent and minor party representatives in most of the state and national lower houses, elected under this system (upper houses are usually PR).

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:01:49 +0000

Zaoem, I write Op-Ed pieces regularly, and an important component of the art is writing in a way that indicates that you are aware of obvious objections, and have an answer, even if it’s too complex to be spelt out. To write a piece on third parties and not even mention the Reform party fails this test. On your second point, the authors mention “winning significant portions of the popular vote” as a criterion. Nicholas, it’s begging the question to say that, since the US is now more centralised, winning governorships does not count as much as it used to. On this formulation, it’s tautologically true that centralisation has caused the decline of regional parties.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:34:22 +0000

Poportional Representation vs. Winner-Takes-All. PR: a number of small parties with definite platforms form alliances after elections. What you get, eventually, is a ruling coalition and opposition coalition. WTA: a number of small parties with definite platforms form alliances before the elections. What you get is two parties with amorphous platforms. One will be the ruling party and the other one the opposition party. Clearly the PR model is much more flexible, which is not necessarily a good thing, but probably is. It’s also much more transparent: if you want to vote for your regional party or, say, for the anti-war party – you just do it and let your party find the best alliance; you don’t have to guess who is going to be better for your pet cause – republicans or the democrats.

By: Jeff Licquia

Jeff Licquia — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:50:39 +0000

From a historical perspective, Quiggin is on better ground than Monbiot. I count the following parties as “major” in American politics: Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Democratic, Whig, Republican. All other parties that have arisen in American politics have been pretty much the same: influential during a short ascention, followed by collapse. I will note three exceptions: – The minor parties participating in the 1860 election. All serious students of history have to agree that this election was a major anomaly. – The 1864 “Union” party, a Republican party in all but name. – The National Republican party, which had the unique position of having only one major party in opposition. Its anemia led to the formation of the Whig party. Some might suggest that the whole debate is circular, in that we assert “all third parties fail except for those which don’t”. But it is instructive that our system seems to be unable to support more than two parties at a time; every instance of a third party ascending to major-party status in our history has been accompanied by the demise of a major party. It’s also worth noting the periods in our history that were characterized by virtual one-party rule: roughly, the Washington era and the period immediately preceding Jackson.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:55:38 +0000

I’m not sure an analysis of smaller parties can make sense unless you try to analyze how the larger parties change. We don’t today have the Republican party of Lincoln or the Democratic party of Martin Van Buren. Each of the bigger parties has been transformed from time to time. The most recent set of changes are probably the rise and relative fall of the ‘Moral Majority’ within the Republican Party. Inside-Party movements have many of the characterisitcs analyzed above as ‘third party’, but when they gain influence they get the power of being one of the larger parties.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:54:36 +0000

Dave—sure, a completely at-large system would be wrong (and absurd, and unmanageable, and….) But, what about a list system combined with a geographic top-up (or vice versa), or State-wide PR, or PR for State assemblies and senates only, or… there are lots of ways of doing it. For President, obviously, we’d need something different, like run offs, etc.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:48:55 +0000

There must be a strong regional bias in UK politics that allows smaller parties like the Liberals to succeed in a first-past-the-post system in some districts, while the Conservatives win elsewhere. I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree with this. Yes, the Liberals retained (tiny) local strongholds throughout the 1924-1992 period in which they were basically out of the picture nationally (you can end the period in 62 or, more plausibly, 83 if you like). But the regionality doesn’t play into their post-92 resurgence much. On the other hand, I guess my (opaque and hurried) point about constitutency size was that it is easier to make an impact in much smaller constitutencies, both because there are fewqer voters and because it is easier for the parties to make an impresion by leading local campaigns, etc. Finally, the Liberals were, until about 1999 perceived as a middle party (for most of that time rightly), so could win votes from their left and their right (still do, in fact, even though the view that they are a middle party is almost completely exploded); whereas there has ben no space at all for a middle party in the US for generations.