That latter type of voter is probably feeling that the America he grew up in is somehow different now, and his community got screwed over. I can actually understand that, too, on some level. That guy/gal feels like America cares more about political correctness than it does about saving his community’s factories.
Easy to do and the sense was clear. I wouldn’t have paid it any attention except for the chance to get a pun in.
possibly, but it doesn’t really explain why they ‘rebel’ by voting for a nakedly plutocratic party like the gop.
Also it doesn’t explain why it’s mostly high school educated rural whites who subscribe to this. non whites struggle economically quite a bit too.
I think it’s more about the bigotry and authoritarianism, the economic arguments are just to paper over their real motives.
It’s bigotry and authoritarianism because they grew up assuming that if they played by their culture’s rules and worked reasonably hard, they’d have a certain standard of living. That world changed on them and they’re resentful. Explains why white millennials and boomers are Trumps strongest supporters
Are you sure its white millennials? According to stuff like this white millenial men are fairly even in party affiliation.
Which considering that white men in general voted Trump something like 62-31, is a pretty big improvement if white millennial men are 50/50. Republicans are losing white millennial women by huge margins, barely breaking even with white millennial men, and the 40% of millennials who are non-whites are probably a lost cause (I’m wondering if white millennial women are now more heavily democrat than latinos are).
No! Christ, I meant X’ers not millennials, sorry
I think the parties should be dissolved into a bunch of lesser parties and then coalitions (yes like in the UK) would need to be formed to be a governing body. This would FORCE you to work with the opposition in some measure, which I feel would be good for the country as a whole.
Because it was the rich white men that busted up their unions, moved their factories away, and left them with nothing, they believe that if they vote for those rich white men, they will bring them back.
How would this be accomplished?
It would be as easy as asking the cat to bell itself.
You’d have to change our voting system so that even a small percentage of the people voting for you translates to a small percentage of representatives. So a party with 5% of the popular vote controls 5% of the representatives. Then if you are a fan of their policy you would vote for them hoping to push them from 1 to 2 senators, for example.
In our system, voting for anyone who isn’t one of the top 2 players is throwing away your vote.
I was just wishing out loud. But I suppose it is at least possible to have a third party arise that would most likely be centrist.
Yes, having ranked choice voting would have quite a number of effects. With the FPTP method, only two parties are viable. One may occasionally dissolve, but that vacuum does not stay empty long. But there is no room for a third party.
Electing representatives at large would also have an effect of increasing representation of smaller voices.
Not a viable party. Not without completely changing the way that we tally votes for office.
That’s one way. A parliamentary system of representation proportional to the vote is another. I would expect with Ranked Choice voting you may get somewhat more variety, but I think its more likely you’ll get to choose between multiple Democrats and Republicans rather than have truly viable alternatives.
Single seat elections are usually (see California for a notable exception) limited to one candidate per party.
We’re edging into territory where I can become extremely boring but I’m on a tablet right now and about to take a nap so everyone is temporarily reprieved.
You folks have taken this thought experiment far beyond anything someone in my pay grade can debate knowledgably, but I could not disagree with this idea more than I do. I think multiple parties (literally any more than three) would be a disaster waiting to happen.
First let’s acknowledge the sad truth in the United States – things always devolve into a worst case scenario eventually. I offer the current administration as evidence to support this assertion.
Second, many parties guarantees everyone becomes a single issue voter. Not only do you have a party for every issue, you have TWO parties on each issue; you end up with a pro-life party and a pro-choice party, a gun rights party and a gun control party, a socialized medicine party, and a privatize healthcare party, etc. Yes it will require coalitions and alliances – but even more than now it makes every issue very polar. Only extremes get a voice, there will not be a party for moderate middle of the road positions.
Third, every real world example of this system routinely (or at least eventually) ends in a deadlock where they have to scrap the administration and start from scratch with new elections. That spells instability to me. Not the place for the only remaining (or possibly soon one of only three) superpowers left on the planet.
Last, it will lead to illogical alliances that are counterproductive. It is conceivable that the pro-life party and the pro-choice party may need team up to oppose the privatize healthcare party (or the socialized medicine party) because of a costly or bad policy or candidate. Those groups are not going to leave the alliance with a better understanding of each other or a reasonable compromise after the crisis.
To me the great appeal of a three party system is that it will create a more fluid and idea driven electorate (as opposed to identity politics). Ideally, people will be better informed and make decisions based on the merits of a policy rather than who introduced the policy. (I have been in a church hall when someone mentions Obama introduced new legislation last night. The immediate and universal response was: “We hate it!! What does it say?” Without even knowing what topic it concerned they HATED IT!!! And these days even I often say “What is this asinine thing Trump suggested last night?” before knowing any details. Note: I am usually correct.)
If we could take an idea and judge it for what it says and proposes, we MUST end up with better bills and eventually better laws. Even if the original idea is less than ideal, it might be a good starting point to make a better option. Or it might help create an opposite starting point with a few good points from the original. We do not have to agree with an entire big tent party – there will be less group thought and extreme views, nuance might be built into proposals from the start and are far more likely to be part of the end product.
Okay, I admit I am overly optimistic and expect a best case scenario. Please inform me of the multiple ways in which this is wrong and ignorant. I will start by pointing out I have no idea how to get to this system from where we are right now (it is entirely theoretical to me – but also pretty ideal in my view).
It’s not first-past-the-post voting that prevents there from being coalitions in the US: it’s that you have a presidential system, with a president who holds office regardless of party standing in the legislature.
Canada and Britain both have first-past-the-post voting, and both have multi-party systems. There are always two major parties, but there are also other smaller parties. And, the executive only holds office as long as they have confidence of the Commons. That’s what forms coalitions: If Cameron doesn’t have a majority in the Commons, he won’t be PM unless he gets support from another party, either vote-by-vote, or by a formal coalition. And if the junior party in the coalition is unhappy, they walk, and Cameron loses office.
That doesn’t happen in the US system. The President doesn’t need any support in Congress to stay in office, and even if he appoints individuals of a different party to the Cabinet, that’s not a coalition: because he can just as easily fire them from Cabinet, and continue as president, even if the other party controls both houses of Congress.
It’s not FPTP that prevents coalitions; it’s your constitutional structure.
FPTP doesn’t prevent coalitions or inherently enable them, rather it encourages large parties that are coalitions of interests before rather than after elections.
And FWIW, when the UK was one of the top dog nations, there were several periods of party re-alignments and instabilities (1840s -1860s, 1880s-1890s, 1910-1930s).
And if it wasn’t for the good old US of A, you might have ended up as the…
Sorry, that one cuts off before the joke comes in. Try about 2:16 in this one:
