The unfortunate thing about Nixon is that a lot of his policies were moderate, and he did some really good things, but his partisan side was ugly, and has fucked over this country as much as his good policies helped. LSD is more or less illegal because they blamed the anti-war protests on LSD, rather than accepting that perhaps people just didn’t want us to be at war. I think that’s how Nixon shattered the left, by creating a culture of fear around the left drug culture. A lot of third party stuff is formed out of that disenfranchised bit of the left. I don’t believe our country can be whole until that disenfranchisement is brought back into the fold. The reality of the situation is that Timothy Leary really DID help people with LSD, and Prozac doesn’t really help, until we can accept that one of the biggest parts of our governmental policy was largely a sham, I don’t know that anything will work, or if we’ll ever maximize the social welfare.
True enough, but what I am arguing is that ‘median voter’ relies on the system of disenfranchisement. So it only accounts for the people actually voting, and it comes around to the ‘median voter’ but it pushes certain people out of the system so that a skewed demographic becomes the ‘median voter’.
I simply never have agreed with you that the two-party system is a good thing, and with all the arguments to the contrary I’ve heard from you and many others, I simply have not seen a compelling argument for it yet. I think it’s the way it is all because of power, and that the power is entrenched. It’s not about maximized welfare, it’s about entrenched power. People vote for the lesser of two evils, not a true representation. Why do we find monopolies and collusion as bad things in business, but not in politics?
Please don’t think I was defending Nixon, he was a evil, nasty man. I was just pointing out he was a moderate especially on the economy. I am completely in favor of legalizing most if not all drugs. I mean legalize by the way, not just not enforce. That has its own problems. I say this as a non-user who both studied the data available back in 1983-4 but used a few minor ones in the 80’s.
I “know” from testing and real life observation that Pot is safer than Alcohol and that “Shrooms” have nearly no negative effect. If LSD was OTC its health risk would largely disappear. I can’t comment on the others, but as I do have a libertarian or rational anarchist streak I believe people should be able to abuse themselves.
The franchise is available to everyone over the age of 18 who is either a native or a naturalized citizen. Those who meet these criteria and do not vote are making their own choices. They are not disenfranchised.
I think you are mischaracterizing my arguments a little. I do not think there is anything sacred about a two-party system. It does some things well and some things badly. However, under plurality rule, the world tends to see two parties in stable equilibrium. The reason why viable third parties do not exist is not because they are ruthlessly stamped out by The Man, but because there exist few incentives for most people to have anything to do with them.
If you feel strongly that multiple parties are normatively superior, that’s fine. Argue that we change the voting rules. If you pick a rule I like, I would be with you 100%. Like I mentioned in another thread, I am very partial to approval voting. I would not shed a tear if we tossed both plurality voting and the electoral college into the dustbin of history. They make up a pretty good system, but I like approval voting more.
The reason why power becomes entrenched in this context is because it, to a certain extent, delivers welfare. If people didn’t believe that the powers that be did, they would vote them out of office or fail to vote at all in much larger numbers.
Right now, the majority does not seem to believe that this administration is delivering. Watch it lash out in terror and anger. The chairman of the RNC is on record saying that 2005 is not a very good year for the GOP.
Yes, it is a “true” representation. The fact that you do not feel that a candidate best represents your preferences is a function of your preference ordering, not of the aggregation rule. People have two choices: change their preferences or change the candidate. I have said this a million times, but we get the candidates we deserve.
Jim: I didn’t think you were defending Nixon. I was talking about how even though he was a moderate himself, he is largely responsible for what I see as a swing hard right that this country took later on.
I mostly want psychedelics to be legal because I think they are good things for society. The reason I would make other drugs like Heroin, Meth and Coke legal is not because I think they are good for society, only that I think enforcement is worse. It’s a very simple and logical step to realize that if coke dealers weren’t afraid of being turned in, they would have no reason to kill snitches.
Maeglin: My question would be, are people voting for it to get better or are people voting to keep it from getting worse?
I am not necessarily about changing the voting rules. Except as you said about the electoral college. I am about removing entrenched divisions culturally, by trying to sway people into broadening the way they look at things. I am not a “systems” kind of guy. I think the “system” is just fine. I am trying to change the way that people PERCEIVE that system.
If people keep using a CAD program the wrong way because the pedagogy taught them a bad way to use that CAD program, that doesn’t reflect poorly on the CAD program, it reflects poorly on the pedagogy. I am less interested in changing the program itself, so much as the way the program is utilized.
Counting the parties in both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia there are actually six parties represented, as well as several independent members.
I have some libertarian leanings, but damn some of those extreme libertarians scare the crap out of me.
I think a third party could grab the socially liberal/fiscally conservative or socially conservative/fiscally liberal platform and make a run for it but it would either be absorbed or replace an existing party and the other side would form to counter balance it. I think a stable government is something Americans value very highly, much more so than change, and the two-party system is good at that.
Cite? I seem to recall several polls (none recent, but in past election cycles) showing that most voters surveyed would like more than two parties to choose from. And there was a Zogby poll last year showing most voters would have liked third-party candidates included in the presidential election debates: http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/zogbypoll.html
Oh, I’m sure that’s the case, as long as it is hypothetical parties being discussed. Everyone can envision one close to their ideal in that case.
If faced with an actual radical, amateurish, and unrepresentative effort (which is what most third parties actually look like), this goes right out of the window and that party is murdered at the polls.
Third parties aren’t just affected by structural difficulties. They are also hampered by the fact that most voters consider themselves Republican, Democrat, or as independents leaning in those directions.