Unity08 - Can it make a difference?

[spazattak]

Unity08 (http://www.unity08.com/) is a movement to elect one Democrat and one Republican (both) to the President/Vice-President of the United States. They contend that the current parties are pandering to their extremes and addressing only side-issues while important issues and things the majority of Americans agree upon are being ignored. They don't take any hard stances on the issues (http://www.unity08.com/believe) but have classified several areas as crucial (terrorism, competition from inda & china, national healthcare, energy independence, education) and others as ancillary (gun control, gay marriage, abortion).

The questions I would like to see discussed are: Can this have an impact? Can it gain momentum in our current political/voting climate? Why/Why not? What would it take for something like this to succeed in changing they way things currently opperate?

[slortar]

Great, a one party system now...

[BrainGlutton]

If this group presents its case well enough that both the Pub and Dem front-runners feel obliged to make a pre-convention pledge to choose a running mate from the other party, it will work. Otherwise, not a chance. In sum, not a chance.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

This idea is bad comedy.

[BrainGlutton]

Great, a one party system now...

Just the opposite of where we should be going. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169

[RTFirefly]

What's the point? You've got one party that exists in the real world, but is afraid of its own shadow, and another that will never give an inch on anything, but exists in an alternate universe.

"Let's take one of each" doesn't solve anything. Either the GOP needs to be dragged into reality, or the Dems need a backbone infusion. You're free to decide which is the less Herculean labor, but there's no 'unity' to be had until at least one of those labors is accomplished.

[hawksgirl]

I thought that they used to elect the winner as President and the 2nd place candidate as VP (which may have similar results) until they realized that two people who ran against each other wouldn't work together very well. I think the Constitution was altered to get the system we now use.

I dislike this idea since it will effectively eliminate third parties completely. I doubt it would be put into use since a lot of people are so entrenched in the belief that they are right and "they" are wrong that they wouldn't want any type of power sharing.

[Lemur866]

Unity? What good does it do to hold the Vice Presidency? Sure, in modern times the Vice President has some power. But this is all delegated power from the President. Constitutionally, the Vice President has only two powers, to break a tie in the Senate, and to assume the office of President when the President dies.

The Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

If you want "unity" it might make more sense for one party to control the congress, another to control the presidency. Luckily, it looks like we're heading that way in 2006.

[Governor Quinn]

On the one hand, I agree with the basic point brought up by this organization. The shouters seem to control both political parties, and they seem to be focused a lot on basically meaningless issues.

On the other hand, however, I regard their solution as being impractical. A fusion candidacy strikes me as having a chance equal to that of a snowball in hell. If either of the major parties is going to move to the center, it must come from the efforts of those within the parties to have any possible chance of working. Moreover, this group's focus is on the Presidency, which strikes me as being impractical, rather than on the Congress and the various Governorships, where there is a better chance (especially involving the Governorships) of a move to the center.

Finally, it should be noted that their leadership (http://www.unity08.com/founderscouncil) is far from impressive.

[Frank]

I thought that they used to elect the winner as President and the 2nd place candidate as VP (which may have similar results) until they realized that two people who ran against each other wouldn't work together very well. I think the Constitution was altered to get the system we now use.
It was changed because Jefferson (for President) and Burr (for Vice-President) recieved 73 votes each in the Electoral College in 1800. The lame-duck Federalists in the House of Representatives attempted to elect Burr as President. Burr, not surprisingly, did not disavow this attempt. After about 23 ballots, some of the more reasonable Federalists gave in, and Jefferson was elected.

Fascinating story, really, and a defining moment in U.S. history.

[BrainGlutton]

I thought that they used to elect the winner as President and the 2nd place candidate as VP (which may have similar results) until they realized that two people who ran against each other wouldn't work together very well. I think the Constitution was altered to get the system we now use.

12th Amendment, 1804. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Mmmm..what's that I smell?

Is it...the slowly approaching popular support for a third party that will be fought tooth and nail by both parties?

[John Mace]

If you want "unity" it might make more sense for one party to control the congress, another to control the presidency. Luckily, it looks like we're heading that way in 2006.
Amen! I didn't like it when the Dems controled both, and I'm liking it even less when the Republcans do.

[BrainGlutton]

Mmmm..what's that I smell?

Is it...the slowly approaching popular support for a third party that will be fought tooth and nail by both parties?

I doubt it. Because there's no third party movement on the horizon that would have anything like broad enough support to get its foot in. The Libertarians and the Greens have been around a while, and how many officials have they got elected? Remember the Reform Party? Where are they now?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I doubt it. Because there's no third party movement on the horizon that would have anything like broad enough support to get its foot in. The Libertarians and the Greens have been around a while, and how many officials have they got elected? Remember the Reform Party? Where are they now?


I know. I doubt it too, but I hold onto hope that a third party could get forged as some sort of check on the main two.

Sorry. I'm too young to remember the Reform Party.

I did vote for Nader once, though.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

The reason that elections are decided on fringe issues while the central ones get ignored, is actually rather interesting. I believe I read it in A Mathematicial Reads the Newspaper.

The thing is that there exist a great deal of very important centrist issues. However, people do not feel very strongly about them, and they will not base their choice of president on any particular one.

There also exist fringe issues about which most people might feel passionate about, but about which some may feel so passionately about that they become one-issue voters.

Lastly, you combine the above two with the fact that people do not ponder deeply enough their choice of president. Thus, what you would expect that the non-passionate issues would still in the end add up and compete on their true value doesn't actually happen. If it did, then everything would make sense. Some things a few people care a lot about, others a lot of people care somewhat about. However, people do not think carefully enough to tally up those subtle issues properly.

What ends up happening is that it makes much more strategic sense to focus on the few fringe issues that matter a lot for some people, than to focus on the many centrist issues that matter for a large number.


Sigh, that's why our democracy is messed up. At least, we have to give people a few days off, sit them into rooms, and force them to study things carefully before they vote. Of course this brings up many questions about who determines the reading material and how do you monitor whether people read it (ie who decides the quiz questions). One strategy is to have voting on that too, and to have voting on whether that previous round of voting was objective, and to have voting on the round of voting just mentioned, ad nauseum. It sounds impractical, but actually technology has just matured to take it into the realm of possibility. (And anyone, particularly with Flash experience, who wants to join me in the task of putting such a scheme together, is powerfully besseched to do so.)


But anyway, competition (though it sorely lacks now) is the most important thing in regard to nearly anything. Unity will only kill competition, create one-party rule, etc.

Second, who exactly determines which party gets the presidency and which gets the VP? Unity should really think about some other scheme, such as a multi-person panel, which will share the presidency itself. If it can figure this out well, it'll actually have a lot of mass-appeal going for it. Of course, it is mass appeal that has brough America its McDonald'ses and other lowest-common-denominator monstrocities.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Er, I do not think I made my point clearly enough. The numerous non-extreme issues are underrepresented because people cannot properly weigh them all in their heads. The issues that are easy to think about, or rather the issues that are easy for some minority groups to use to decide who they'll vote for predominate.

Er, maybe that's not clear either. If 80% of the people will vote based on the issues of education, the economy, national security, and etc, but never actually take the time to analyze them well and, most importantly, to do a weighted average of the candidates relative each issue. While 20% will vote based on gay marriage or gun control or something and do not have to do this profoundly difficult juggling and weighing. Then only the 20% can actually be affected by campaign speeches or promises. The 80% will be too confused to be swayed by information.

I mean things are not black-and-white, but you can see how advocating a holistic multi-fronted plan for national reform is like spitting in the wind when the other guy has a clear message of "elect me and you'll get this." Even if only a minority of people would in principle say they actually care more about the "this" than all the things covered by the multi-faceted plan.

[Marley23]

Mmmm..what's that I smell?

Is it...the slowly approaching popular support for a third party that will be fought tooth and nail by both parties?
With the way the system is set up, I wouldn't count on that happening in this lifetime.

[Marley23]

Unity? What good does it do to hold the Vice Presidency?
Yet another very good point.

Here's a thought: instead of just trying to draft some Republican and some Democrat, why couldn't these Unity people come up with a platform first? This is the same problem that came up with the Kerry-McCain idea two years ago. Many people thought it sounded great because 'it'll cut across party lines and bring people together,' yet the proposal completely ignored the fact that they differed strongly on a lot of issues. How would they have been expected to govern? How would this 'Unity' ticket govern? And with no organization at all, how do they think they're just going to leap into a Presidential election and make a significant impact?

[panache45]

This idea would tremendously increase the chance of an assassination.

[Debaser]

Peggy Noonan's new column discusses Unity and the chances for a new political party. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/ As usual, Noonan's column is an interesting read.

I think that I've there ever is a chance for a new party it's now.

Voter turnout is low. People are very dissatisfied with both parties and congress in general.

The Republicans are running things and doing a bad job of it. The Democrats have become scarier and scarier as they move further left and fume about not being in charge.

IMHO, the best hope of a new party forming would be not from the ground up, but from the top down. Let's say a group of senators and reps simply decide to break from the Republicans. They are unhappy with spending and know they are going to get killed in the next election anyways, so they form a new party. What's to stop them?

They can try and bring along a few willing Democrats if possible, but they don't even need to. If you were able to kick start a party in such a way, the popular support could be built up around it.

They could pick some issues:

Immigration. Controlling the border. National guard. Build a wall.

Spending. Smaller government. Controlling spending. Balanced budget ammendment. Line item vetos.

Go light on the social issues. No extreme right stuff like pro-life rhetoric or other religious issues. Not liberal here, either, though.

This would be a party that would get a lot of support. It's impossible to get any party build from the grassroots up, IMHO, with our system and voting structure. But, you could kick start such a party from the top.

[Marley23]

The Democrats have become scarier and scarier as they move further left and fume about not being in charge.
Yourself excepted, how many people do you think are really scared of today's Democrats? Nevermind the "further left" stuff- I'll say it's highly debatable and leave it at that.

[Debaser]

Yourself excepted, how many people do you think are really scared of today's Democrats?

Lots of 'em.

Plenty of mainsteam Americans get scared when they hear Nancy Pelosi speak. The American people aren't nearly as liberal as the leaders of the Democratic party.

Don't get me wrong. Generally speaking, I think people are more dissapointed with the Republicans right now. But, the party controlled by Dean, Pelosi and Kennedy running the country? Scary!

[BrainGlutton]

The Democrats have become scarier and scarier as they move further left . . .

:rolleyes: You don't really live in America at all, do you? Not the same one the rest of us do.

They could pick some issues:

Immigration. Controlling the border. National guard. Build a wall.

Spending. Smaller government. Controlling spending. Balanced budget ammendment. Line item vetos.

Go light on the social issues. No extreme right stuff like pro-life rhetoric or other religious issues. Not liberal here, either, though.

The America First Party already exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_%282002%29

http://www.americafirstparty.org/

[Lemur866]

Read my lips.

There will be no third party.

The only way a third party could be succesful is if one of the major parties collapsed completely. Except even a collapsed major party still has a lot of power. So the proto-third party people will instead take over the failing major party.

So in the 80s you have southern social conservatives taking over the formerly northern liberal Republican party which was decimated by Nixon. And before that, the Republican party was the party of abolition and reconstruction. How many southern plantation owners are turning over in their graves at the sight of their great great grandchildren become fanatical partisan Republicans?

If the Republicans implode, some wing of the Republican party will take it over and turn it into the new Republican party. If the Democrats implode, some wing of the Democratic party will take it over and turn it into the new Democratic party.

If a third party can't even elect a governor, or a senator, or a member of congress, how in hell can they expect to elect a president or vice president? Wally Hickel, Jesse Ventura, and Bernie Saunders aren't on anyone's presidential shortlist. If a third party can't even form a majority in ONE state, how can they do ANYTHING?

Answer, they can't, and this third party talk is just hot air.

[spazattak]

The reason that elections are decided on fringe issues while the central ones get ignored, is actually rather interesting. I believe I read it in A Mathematicial Reads the Newspaper.

The thing is that there exist a great deal of very important centrist issues. However, people do not feel very strongly about them, and they will not base their choice of president on any particular one.

There also exist fringe issues about which most people might feel passionate about, but about which some may feel so passionately about that they become one-issue voters.

Lastly, you combine the above two with the fact that people do not ponder deeply enough their choice of president. Thus, what you would expect that the non-passionate issues would still in the end add up and compete on their true value doesn't actually happen. If it did, then everything would make sense. Some things a few people care a lot about, others a lot of people care somewhat about. However, people do not think carefully enough to tally up those subtle issues properly.

What ends up happening is that it makes much more strategic sense to focus on the few fringe issues that matter a lot for some people, than to focus on the many centrist issues that matter for a large number.


Sigh, that's why our democracy is messed up. At least, we have to give people a few days off, sit them into rooms, and force them to study things carefully before they vote. Of course this brings up many questions about who determines the reading material and how do you monitor whether people read it (ie who decides the quiz questions). One strategy is to have voting on that too, and to have voting on whether that previous round of voting was objective, and to have voting on the round of voting just mentioned, ad nauseum. It sounds impractical, but actually technology has just matured to take it into the realm of possibility. (And anyone, particularly with Flash experience, who wants to join me in the task of putting such a scheme together, is powerfully besseched to do so.)


But anyway, competition (though it sorely lacks now) is the most important thing in regard to nearly anything. Unity will only kill competition, create one-party rule, etc.

Second, who exactly determines which party gets the presidency and which gets the VP? Unity should really think about some other scheme, such as a multi-person panel, which will share the presidency itself. If it can figure this out well, it'll actually have a lot of mass-appeal going for it. Of course, it is mass appeal that has brough America its McDonald'ses and other lowest-common-denominator monstrocities.

You make some very excellent points and really get at what I was looking for in this discussion. I don't think unity08 will be successful at all. What I am curious about though is that if it will have an impact as far as bringing the more important, less passionate social issues to the forefront.

[foolsguinea]

They could pick some issues:

Immigration. Controlling the border. National guard. Build a wall.

Spending. Smaller government. Controlling spending. Balanced budget ammendment. Line item vetos.

Go light on the social issues. No extreme right stuff like pro-life rhetoric or other religious issues. Not liberal here, either, though.

This would be a party that would get a lot of support. It's impossible to get any party build from the grassroots up, IMHO, with our system and voting structure. But, you could kick start such a party from the top.What you describe is a Pat Buchanan revamp of the GOP without the Religious RightTM. How broad-based is that, really?

[RTFirefly]

As usual, Noonan's column is an interesting read. Keyboard cleanup!!

[foolsguinea]

Lots of 'em.

Plenty of mainsteam Americans get scared when they hear Nancy Pelosi speak. The American people aren't nearly as liberal as the leaders of the Democratic party.

Don't get me wrong. Generally speaking, I think people are more dissapointed with the Republicans right now. But, the party controlled by Dean, Pelosi and Kennedy running the country? Scary!I expect that Debaser actually believes this, just as BrainGlutton [" :rolleyes: You don't really live in America at all, do you? Not the same one the rest of us do."] believes that such views are outside "America." They're both wrong about the whole, because they know their own parts, & extrapolate from those.

We live in a highly mobile society. People regularly move elsewhere. If you don't like the local attitudes, you can move somewhere more your style. Further, due to the district-based representation of our election system, there is profound incentive for the would-be politically active to move somewhere where their vote will count. So we now have little pseudo-Americas, where the local majority takes their prejudices to be the "American" norm:
"Those hippie kids? Oh, they all moved away. They were a tiny minority opinion, anyway. One day they'll grow up, learn how the world really works, & become conservatives, if their brains aren't fried from drug use. People around here, well, we're the real America--those big city liberals are just an ... aberration."
"Those backward hillbillies? Can you believe people still think like that? I mean, this is America! I guess if you live in the boonies, you can be protected from reality & hang on to your old-fashioned ideas & provincial prejudices. But here in the real world, you have to grow out of that."

:D

[gonzomax]

Its not that the parties dont have differences.Its that the system is set up so huge amounts of cash are necessary to run. The politicians spend a huge amout of time trying to raise money. The corporations and individuals do not give the money without expecting something in return.
Public campaign finacing is the only way to get the system back. Make damn sure third parties get a chance for funds and have a chance to express their views. Return to fair and equal tv time. Regan did away with that and made Fox and Limbaugh possible. Thet do not have to air opposing views
Unity is what we have now. The democrats can not afford to go against the corporations.The repubs are the corporations.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Its that the system is set up so huge amounts of cash are necessary to run. The politicians spend a huge amout of time trying to raise money. The corporations and individuals do not give the money without expecting something in return.
Public campaign finacing is the only way to get the system back. Make damn sure third parties get a chance for funds and have a chance to express their views. Return to fair and equal tv time.

Right, that's another thing that's fucked up. It's based on money, and it's also based on tv ads. What kind of valuable information has a tv ad ever conveyed. It's just there to "sway", ie to affect our psychology, to affect the psychology of people who are not affected by rhetoric and reason. Ie it's just empty brainwashing-type bs. Of course, the politicians will never fix it because each individual who is in power is there because of that money and wouldn't want to mess with a good thing. That's what happened to that campaign finance reform thing passed not so long ago.

[BrainGlutton]

I expect that Debaser actually believes this, just as BrainGlutton [" :rolleyes: You don't really live in America at all, do you? Not the same one the rest of us do."] believes that such views are outside "America." They're both wrong about the whole, because they know their own parts, & extrapolate from those.

Look, I don't live in a hippie commune. I live in a small farming town called Homestead at the south end of Dade County, Florida, and I might well be the furthest-left person in it. I get my current-events info from the media like everyone else. And nobody who gets any of theirs from any source other than Fox and right-wing blogs could possibly believe the Dems have been "moving left."

[BrainGlutton]

We live in a highly mobile society. People regularly move elsewhere. If you don't like the local attitudes, you can move somewhere more your style. Further, due to the district-based representation of our election system, there is profound incentive for the would-be politically active to move somewhere where their vote will count.

Do you really believe anyone bases a decision to relocate on such factors as that?!

[Lemur866]

Not exactly, but I've known plenty of people who move from, say, Oklahoma to Seattle because Seattle is a lot more accepting of different sexual orientations. Seattle and Washington state have anti-discrimination laws that Oklahoma lacks. But of course, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality is probably a lot larger factor than the legal protection of homosexuality.

[BrainGlutton]

Not exactly, but I've known plenty of people who move from, say, Oklahoma to Seattle because Seattle is a lot more accepting of different sexual orientations. Seattle and Washington state have anti-discrimination laws that Oklahoma lacks. But of course, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality is probably a lot larger factor than the legal protection of homosexuality.

Right. I don't think any Democrat is going to move to another state because it has a better record of voting Dem. In fact, such a Dem might help the party more by moving from a red state to a blue state anyway -- but who does, for that reason?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

How about this:

All the political actors that are independently wealthy get together and form some sort of party. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that it'd be too left to be a true moderate party. Ignoring that point, that would have an initial publicy spike, money, and the ability to talk to the public.

They'd have to worry about credibility and carving out/maintaining a niche after that.


I STILL say that this fledgling party, after it gains some hypothetical steam, would get absorbed by the two parties, though.

[BrainGlutton]

All the political actors that are independently wealthy get together and form some sort of party. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that it'd be too left to be a true moderate party.

:dubious: By "left," you meant "right," right?