"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Assur]

Hi

It also depends on the electoral system! In the UK and the US all MPs are elected directly in constituencies, so votes for a third party are in vain. In continental Europe some of the seats are awarded proportonally to the votes cast, so smaller parties, who are incapable of getting a majority in a constituency, get some seats in parliament, thus usually leading to coalition governments, where different points of view have to be reconciled.

The other difference is that in Europe the Prime Minister (calll him what you will :unsure: ) is elected by a majority in parliament, whilst in the US the presidential and the congress elections don't have a direct relationship. So you have different outcomes from different systems:

In Europe the boss has a majority in parliament, supported by several parties, whilst in the US you have two parties and the president may not have a majority in either house, but gaining legitimcy by having been directly elected.

good karma

[Thecla]

Clinton, along with any number of democrats, wanted to go after Iraq as well

I guess I missed the bit where Clinton proposed a US invasion of Iraq.

If you say it enough, it must be true.

That has certainly been Cheney's position.

[Jester]

"...like keeping spending down..."

Ahahahahahaha... ha... haa....

Ooh, that's a good one.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Yup. One problem we have in our public schools here is that the children speak 81 different languages.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . smaller parties, who are incapable of getting a majority in a constituency, get some seats in parliament, thus usually leading to coalition governments, where different points of view have to be reconciled.

And if you have enugh parties, no one can get things done without even more compromise than it takes to get in a bicameral system.

On the bright side, rapid change is often prevented, and a more gradual pace is undertaken.

Down side: difficult to get change at all.

Half empty, half full?

Works better, in my opinion, in countries that already have reasonably strong cultural identities than in chaotic and diverse nations.

My due lire

Occhi

[Ajax]

I've been reading this topic and finally decided to post. I apologize that this post will respond to issues from throughout the thread, but there is really no appealing alternative (other option is post crazy multiple posts, don't think anyone would like that).

I am a political scientist by education (about to graduate!!! Yay public education!) and many points brought up by Assur strike home. Yes, the United States' "winner-take-all" system has a "funnelling" effect--it reduces the chances of third-party candidates by concentrating efforts into the two main parties. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, and they have been explored a bit by other posters (so I don't have to :)). I should say, however, that the fact that third parties don't usually win elections doesn't mean they don't have an impact. They are able to draw attention to their issues, and that causes some response from the bipartisan system (be it reactionary or concilatory).

I'd say, the two-party system is probably the biggest concept of American politics a foreign observer should grasp.

Now, about the earlier discussion on the role of the media in political campaigns. First off, it has been noted (nods to Occhi) that no media source will be apolitical. Sadly, this is true; but at least they could strive toward objectivity, even if its not possible. But today's news organizations fail to do even that--they are shamelessly, blatantly advocative. One of my political science courses every semester is a seminar class, in which various speakers come to lecture for 50 minutes on whatever pleases them. Last semester, an old wizened reporter spoke to my class regarding the role of journalism. Apparently, back in the day (1950s-60s) journalists sought to report facts, and separate facts from the commentary or opinion. But when the journalists who had been schooled in the 60s came into the industry (late 60s and onwards to the present), that goal of objectivity flew out the window. Now, issues of whether perfect objectivity can be achieved aside; it should be noted that at least the attempt at objective journalism is superior to completely, intentionally biased reporting. Objective journalism becomes advocacy journalism. If you want and example of the excesses of advocacy journalism, just look at Michael Moore's films.

Take, for example, Farenheight 9/11. In it he implies Bush did not do enough to encourage international support for OIF. And he flashes a 3s clip of GWB taking a golf swing. That is to imply, he's spending his time on a "game" and letting the "reigns of leadership go slack." This implication is so false as to border on the absurd. British PM Tony Blair is actually playing rounds with the president at that very moment, but you wouldn't know it from watching this "documentary." Of course, Michael Moore is such an extreme example of advocacy journalism that even people who share his slant have come out against his film (indeed, liberal journalists have been the most articulate critics of him, as conservatives are so far from him that they merely make "fat-kid" jokes). But the point is made; today's media seeks to display "fact" only in a light which would support its specific viewpoint.

Well, how could objectivity be achieved through advocacy journalism? The answer is, by balancing the sources of news against one another. While you may have a rightist slant from, say FOX news you can flip the channel to CNN and get another version of "fact." Theoretically, between the multiple sources of information you can get a glimpse of "reality" and make your own decision. The speaker, obviously, frowned on such a setup, especially to news sources (like, I'd say, CNN) which attempt to portray their stories as unbiased when it is actually advocacy journalism.

Take a second to think of the implications of this system of information. What is the result of this reporting scheme? You have two schools of thought which are basing their thinking off of "fact;" causing a further separation of their political viewpoints. Whether or not the United States has the capacity to deal with an infinite widening of its political spectrum remains open to debate.

This also touches on another topic early in the thread--both parties in a bipartisan system reaching to the moderate voters. If it is truly a bipartisan system (winner-take-all rules and party power evenly balanced) then the voter whose political views straddle the two parties will control the outcome of the contest (median voter theorem). As a result, each party will try to reach to the middle, to control the "median voter," and win. Well, it turns out that issue advertising doesn't sway the median voter, because the median voters all agree/disagree with different aspects of the parties' platforms. One voter, say, favors abortion rights but also favors private gun ownership. If the democrats come out strongly anti-gun, they just lost one median voter. Of course, coming out strongly in favor of abortion would alienate those median voters who agree with the standing on gun control. (Obviously, this situation applies to both parties equally.)

So what can the political parties do that will make their candidate more appealing to the median voter over the opposing candidate, without alienating anyone who could vote for them? Personal attacks. This fits right in with advocate journalism widening the distance between political camps; you end up with extremists who will ignore any positive attribues a candidate may have, and instead go for cheap shots (such as the whole Purple Heart Band-Aid Fiasco). Or using a poorly-spoken (but, perhaps, fairly intellectual) President mumble himself into "sound-bite unellectability™".

The fact is, polls consistently show that voters consistently frown upon negative campaigning. Yet it remains a permanent facet of politics (at least in America) because its utility cannot be doubted. The issue of PACs and 527s becomes salient here; they enable candidates or parties to covertly fund such smear campaigns without the negative repercussions of a voter's psychological resistance to negativity. Indeed, these peripheral testaments against a candidate add credibility to otherwise outrageous accusations; r.e.: Swift Boat Vets. against Kerry saying that he's unfit for Commander in Chief is alot more credible than President Bush/GDP claims, even if done with identical style, media, etc.

Sorry if this has seemed a bit of a ramble, but this came in the middle of some poli sci reading at 0000 hrs. And, unlike Occhi, I have no coffee beans to chew on, I have to dilute my caffiene with hot water. :)

Any observations, I'd be happy to hear them.

P.S. whoever pointed out George Soros gets a brownie point. He was the driving force and finance behing the rise of 527s, and the direct result of his campaign is his ability to influence politics with his vast amounts of soft money. *skin crawls* This makes the difficult trail of soft money almost impossible to track; I have to stop talking before I say something I'll regret *skin crawls*

[eppie]

And if you have enugh parties, no one can get things done without even more compromise than it takes to get in a bicameral system.

Well that is where I disagree very much. Let me illustrate that by giving some advantages and disadvantages of these systems.
The twoparty-system (like in the US) means (or turns out to be) that if you are a small party, now way will you be elected, or even take part in presedential elections because you don't have a chance. Even when there are 10 milion people who vote for you. (I now there is also soemthing as a parliament but when it is always just about Bush vs. Kerry noboby bothers to check things out for himself. So in principle you can start your own party but unless you are able to get milions and milions of dollars campaign money, just forget it.

So what than the problem is there are all these people with, acoording to what people say here, very different opinions on different subject but still they "have" to vote for one of these parties. So then it might be al very easy "to get things done" but it can very well be that half of Bush voters don't agree with his environmental policy, but he can still take the decissions.

That's is why a multi-party system is very good. Okay thre are more parties and almost always coalitions have to be formed, but the chance that decissions are made with support of most of the people is a lot bigger. If one of the parties in the government sees that there are several small parties that have a certain opinion on let's say teh environment they have to take that into account. There can be a majority government based on its economic plans, still its plans about the environment can still be influenced a lot by the smaller parties.

Another example, we have now "the party for the animals" which standmainly for better animal rights. Of course such a party should never be big because it is too much focussed on one subject. The chance is quite high that they will get 1 or 2 seats (of 150) in the parliament next elections. What this shows is that there are apparently so many people that are really so angry about animal treatment that they are willing to vote for such a party (and they are not just some treehuggers, but a lot of inteligent and repectable citizens). So this gives a signal to other bigger parties that animal rights are an important topic for the people. Because here, just like in the US, the election debates are often based around two or three important issues, like economics, asylum-seekers etc.. Result: the following elections the party of the animals will be gone again, because the bigger parties changed their attitude on animal rights....so democracy worked!
This multi party system has a much bigger capacity for correcting politicians. And teh making of decissions doesn't go so much slower. Our government also "just went to Iraq" while they knew that most people were against that, they made that decission fairly quick.

[Occhidiangela]

Multi party system also is a catalyst for indecision, which puts the citizen even further in the grip of the professional bureaucrat, since he is around for a long time and the political agility necessary to overcome that inertia is absent.

I give you . . . Europe, and in particular, Belgium and Italy, and prime examples of the inertia being a significant empowerment of the bureaucrat at the expense of and exercise of franchise for smaller parties.

Bureaucrats like many small parties: Divide and Conquer. :blink:

[eppie]

For me as an outsider, like I said, the elefant and the donkey to me are almost the same species.

BINGO! Now think how your country looks to an outsider. 

What I meant to say was that compared to what we have here the democratic en republican party are very close together politically (that might have something to do with what happens in a 2 party system like ajax explained.

QUOTE 
I got a different conclusion though. (and sorry if somebody feels insulted) What I thought was "all the economically important states (except for Texas) are Kerry states while most of the farmer states are Bush supporting. (that's where you get your square miles)"

Not a different opinion at all, unless you are trying to say they are stupid. 

What?? You read my mind! No just kidding.

But to make you understand my mind was working when I read that. It seems that some farmer in south dakota who has never seen a muslim in his life has more influence on what happens in the middeleast than most locals. :rolleyes:

[Ajax]

On the topic of gridlock--comparative politics doesn't really hold with the theory that multi-party systems promote gridlock. Many parlimentarian governments are able to function smoothly with coalition governments. Until the unity of the coalition is destabilized.

This is precisely one of the strong points of the bipartisan system. With only two parties, you may disagree on some points but those points do not become the whole of the agenda. This allows for an individual party to retain a wholistic look and strategy on the business of running the nation.

In other words, bipartisan systems are more focused in accomplishing their objectives. Doesn't mean more efficient, (in fact, coalitions can increase efficiency by absorbing what would have been opposition) but it does provide the party in power with more strategic foresight.

As for the notion of third parties, they still can define political issues. Your example of the animal rights party proves this point, that minor parties aren't serious political contendors but extensions of media campaigns. Happens just as much in the bipartisan system.

[Nystul]

As for the notion of third parties, they still can define political issues. Your example of the animal rights party proves this point, that minor parties aren't serious political contendors but extensions of media campaigns. Happens just as much in the bipartisan system.

Absolutely. Ross Perot picks up a big chunk of votes in 1992, taking potential votes away from George Bush (Sr.) resulting in an election win for Clinton. What happens in 1994? The Republicans take over Congress. How? In large part, by addressing the issues of the Perot voters. The agenda of the Republican Party was changed, not in a drastic way but in small ways, by the third party movement. It is a similar deal with Nader and the Green Party. They are too far out of the mainstream to actually win elections in most states, but if they take enough votes away from the Democrats then the Democrats *have* to shift their agenda to accomodate these voters.

But you don't need something as drastic as starting a new party to shift the agenda. There are other aspects, like the primary process. A good showing in the primaries for someone representing a certain issue will allow them to command some attention to that issue whether they win or lose. Also, since the different types of political viewpoints are flavored by region, the U.S. Congress ends up being very similar to a multi-party body with fluid alliances between groups.

[kandrathe]

You make way too many assumptions about the midwest. I grew up on a beef cattle farm, and I went to my junior prom with an Iranian girl. There are hundreds of thousands of new immigrants into the US every year, and believe it or not, many of them choose states like Nebraska, or Ohio to live in.

As far as political opinion goes, I think we have the same spectrum of thought. Its just that the extremes are not as popular here. The two party system tends to marginalize those extremes, but a vote for the third party is not a wasted vote. The state were I live elected a third party libertarian Governor, and the two major parties were flabbergasted that it could happen. The majority of people in this state are descendants of immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia, and our opinions, values and attitudes reflect that experience.

I would venture that there are more members of the Nazi Party, or Communist Party here than in the Netherlands, and certainly more than you or I would like to believe. They are just not that visible to the mainstream, as they tend to get persecuted by the majority.

[eppie]

You make way too many assumptions about the midwest. I grew up on a beef cattle farm, and I went to my junior prom with an Iranian girl. There are hundreds of thousands of new immigrants into the US every year, and believe it or not, many of them choose states like Nebraska, or Ohio to live in.

You do know that that makes you part of the axis of evil do you?? :D

No just kidding Kandrathe I was exaggerating a bit for the sake of the discussion. I have been several times in the US and know a bit what's going on there.

As far as political opinion goes, I think we have the same spectrum of thought. Its just that the extremes are not as popular here. The two party system tends to marginalize those extremes, but a vote for the third party is not a wasted vote. The state were I live elected a third party libertarian Governor, and the two major parties were flabbergasted that it could happen. The majority of people in this state are descendants of immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia, and our opinions, values and attitudes reflect that experience.

I would venture that there are more members of the Nazi Party, or Communist Party here than in the Netherlands, and certainly more than you or I would like to believe. They are just not that visible to the mainstream, as they tend to get persecuted by the majority.

Well the question is what you call an extreme. The last reports from (I forgot the name, probably Unesco??)
showed that something in the order of 40 milion americans lived under the poverty line. So something must be wrong with that "persecution of the majority". I know that if those 40 milion would vote for a socialist party they would have directly an enormous amount of seats in parliament, so they could make changes. For some reason this does not happen.

One way of explaining this phenomenon is to say it is not so bad, and those numbers are not true (i'm very sorry I'm so bad with my sources). Maybe you have some link somehwere :D . Anyway, with all the getto's etc. I don't doubt these numbers.
Another explanation is that there is something going on for which reason thopse people don't vote. And it is very easy to say, as "well-off" person, that if they don't vote it is their own mistake, but people that have to fight every day to have food on the table often have different priorities.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I think all your potential reasons are wrong. :)

As I recall this poverty report was done by the census.

The first reason I think is that they skewed what an "American" is. Does "American" mean you live here or you have citizenship? I checked and saw no such qualification for being counted. We have a huge population of illegal immigrants from across our southern border with Mexico, and they usually come with just the clothes on their backs (now that's poverty!). Few speak english when they come, and due to community clustering, they are slow to learn it (if they ever do). They get further exploited with lower than minimum wages. To make their situation worse, I see few Mexican families with less than 4 kids. Finally it's not that they don't vote, due to their immigration status they can't vote.

I would put money on that being at least 80% of the poverty that was reported.

Another reason is what "poverty" is. They use a simple income number which makes for an inaccurate counting of people. The cost of living differs greatly depending on where you live in the US. The income poverty level in Montana is much lower than in California.

[kandrathe]

:lol:

You do know that that makes you part of the axis of evil do you??

I just flirt with the Axis of Evil. I didn't marry the girl. She actually was a radical and returned to help with the Islamic revolution.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services The official number is about 12%, or 34.6 million people.
2002 American Community Survey

40 milion americans lived under the poverty line.

That's the problem with a poverty line. Earning $20,000 per year results in a much different quality of life if you live in NYC, versus outstate Alabama. The measure should be on misery, which is more a factor of having the basic necessities of life. Some poverty and misery is self-imposed due to habits that are destructive whether they be alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, or just plain wild living. How much poverty is a result of squandered opportunity? From my experience, there was at least %20 of my high school class that was not motivated to improve themselves. Here is a right wing slant on it here. I wouldn't suggest that poverty is not a problem, but one which is difficult to measure and more difficult still to cure. By all means, let's take care of those people who need help and get those who have stumbled back up on their feet.

I know that if those 40 milion would vote for a socialist party they would have directly an enormous amount of seats in parliament, so they could make changes. For some reason this does not happen.

Thankfully. The death knell of a democracy is when the people selfishly vote themselves money from the State. Socialism and Communism only work as ideologies. The reality is that some worker had to produce more at personal expense to accommodate the ones that are not contributing. Ideally, only the infirm, elderly, and children, etc are the ones we are subsidizing. But, once the mechanism is in place that removes the negative consequences for complacency, more and more people find that they can rely on the State to provide for their needs and do not contribute as they should. Look at unemployment in Britain, or Germany as examples. The problems with our current system are when the successful use their wealth to prevent others from attaining a similar success. There is a happy medium between giving a person a fish, and teaching the person to fish for themselves. In the former case, the person is dependant on you and subject to your will, and in the later case that person can tell you to take a hike if they so desire. So that is why I'm a bigger advocate for educating rather than subsidizing.

[Nystul]

Well the question is what you call an extreme. The last reports from (I forgot the name, probably Unesco??)
showed that something in the order of 40 milion americans lived under the poverty line. So something must be wrong with that "persecution of the majority". I know that if those 40 milion would vote for a socialist party they would have directly an enormous amount of seats in parliament, so they could make changes. For some reason this does not happen.

For starters, they would have very few seats in Congress. Remember, here we are voting for a representative of our location and two senators representing our state (who do not get elected in the same year). Only the top vote getter gets in. Based on your assumption that all people vote according to income class, all of the socialist votes would be taken from the pool that currently votes for Democrats. So, the only districts that would be represented by Socialists would be ones in which more people are in poverty than vote Republican, which would be a pretty small number of Representatives, and zero Senators. Instead, such people make the left economic wing of the Democratic party, pushing for things like more welfare benefits and socialized medicine.

But even then, being someone who doesn't make much money doesn't mean you are anti-capitalist. I've lived on the wrong side of the poverty line, although I didn't have to support a family at the same time. But anyways, having to struggle financially didn't suddenly make me think "Hey, wouldn't it be great if the government paid me the same amount of money as everyone else makes?" That's just not my way of thinking.

A lot of the poverty in this country is a self-inflicted condition. At UDF, there is a sign saying "positions available, $8-$10/hour". Outside UDF, there is a guy bumming change from the customers going in and out. Given a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, a good attitude, and no serious physical or mental handicaps, there are places everywhere in this country just waiting to hire you, that will offer double minimum wage and full benefits. A lot of the poor here aren't in a position to take advantage of those opportunities, but an aweful lot of them are (or certainly could be, if not for their own bad choices along the way).

[Minionman]

The death knell of a democracy is when the people selfishly vote themselves money from the State.

Depending on how literally you mean that, it sure doesn't mean the death knell of democracy when people yell about "lower taxes" or "build roads" depending on how far out you go. Both these examples are "voting themselves more money from the state"

Socialism and Communism only work as ideologies.

Which is why any socialist type party would really be socialist mixed with moderate stuff, I've heard europian types are like, and those countries seem to work fine. Whether it's good for the economy is up for grabs, but there certainly won't be tons of long lines happening everywhere and collective farms popping up.

[Minionman]

I don't think he meant "farm states" as "the midwest", By farm states I think he meant not only nebraska and Kansas, but also states like Alabama or Arkansas or Montana that aren't in the midwest. You probably mixed this up with the post by Jester which talks about the political diversity,

Does Portugal have less or more diversity of opinion than China? Than the American midwest? Than Paris, or Bangkok? Quebec? Who cares how large the areas are? What matters is the cultural, not geographic, homogeneity.

And got it mixed up with the post before this.


This stereotype of the midwest being boring is probably the reason you have crime shows set in places like New York (too many to count), Los Angeles (never seen one actually, but it seems like the type of place), Miami, Hawaii (that new one), or Las Vegas (first CSI), but never in cities like Chicago (kind of strange since Chicago is so big), Cleveland, St. Louis, or Detroit for example, and never in a million years in somewhere like Omaha or Iowa city, thanks to the stereotypes. (I've never been to Omaha or Iowa city, so I don't know what they're actually like, but the stereotype is there).

Edit: said what the stereotype was.

[Ajax]

something in the order of 40 milion americans lived under the poverty line. So something must be wrong with that "persecution of the majority". I know that if those 40 milion would vote for a socialist party they would have directly an enormous amount of seats in parliament, so they could make changes. For some reason this does not happen

I think one big mistake you may be making, eppie, is to think of the US and Netherlands as comparative cases. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Netherlands has a population of around 17M and total area of 41,526 square miles. "slightly less than the size of New Jersey." :) America's numbers, by contrast, are 293M people and 9.6M square miles. America's poverty class, using the 40M number, amounts to under 14% of the total population. That's not the best record, but it's hardly a "persecution of the majority." It makes sense that such a large number of poor seems astounding to you, being over double your own country's population, but it is hardly the worst percentage out there.

My point is furthered by the fact that the smaller the population the easier it is to have a high standard of living. For example, look at the per capita GDP of various countries. Of the top five, Luxemberg has a population of 0.46M, Norway of 4.57M, Bermuda of around 65K(!), and the Cayman Islands of around 43K(!). Compare these to the United States' 293M. So as far as quality of life goes, it isn't too bad over here. Of course, the limitation of per capita GDP is that a large, very rich or large, very poor population can skew the results, but it does offer a rough analytical perspective.

But onto another topic here. Sir_Die_alot mentioned that

Finally it's not that they don't vote, due to their immigration status they can't vote.

While his point is noted--that some people in the United States who are low income can't vote due to their immigration status--he is wrong that poor people want to vote. It is sad but true that the US has a relatively low voter turnout; but the worst turnouts are found in low-income households. This is referring to registered voters, not ineligible populations; and it should be noted that the fact that they registered at all is an indicator that they are relatively active politically. There is a larger population of unregistered voters who simiply don't care to get involved in the political process.

The best explanation for this phenomenon is that the poor have little invested in the current system, so they have little to lose by its inefficient governance. Sort of like watching a game of blackjack but not putting any of your own money on the table.

And Finally (because I'm sure you're all tired of hearing from me :)), something Nystul said just isn't true:

A lot of the poverty in this country is a self-inflicted condition. At UDF, there is a sign saying "positions available, $8-$10/hour". Outside UDF, there is a guy bumming change from the customers going in and out. Given a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, a good attitude, and no serious physical or mental handicaps, there are places everywhere in this country just waiting to hire you, that will offer double minimum wage and full benefits. A lot of the poor here aren't in a position to take advantage of those opportunities, but an aweful lot of them are (or certainly could be, if not for their own bad choices along the way).

While it is true that some people are poor by choice (it takes all kinds) and by addiction/habit (even more kinds); there is a population of homeless out there who really couldn't have done anything to avoid their condition. In fact, capitalism cannot function without excess labor--thus, the unemployed. You also overlook the fact that a great number of the poor are only temporarily below the poverty line, from loss of job or estate. In short, I'd encourage you to have some sympathy for the homeless and poor because not every one of them chose that fate.

[Sir_Die_alot]

While his point is noted--that some people in the United States who are low income can't vote due to their immigration status--he is wrong that poor people want to vote.

I was speaking only of illegal immigrants there, not people who just don't vote. :)

When people can but don't vote, it's been my experience they got tired of choosing the lesser of 2 evils and/or are just frustrated with the system. Also a feeling of not really making a difference is there. It will be interesting to see how much the 2000 election, with so many states in statistical ties, influence people who thought like that.