Although, to throw another wrinkle in, that’s not always how it works. Detroit, where I live, is heavily Democratic, and what you say would be true if primaries were partisan.
However, the primaries for city-wide elections in Detroit are non-partisan, and all potential candidates are lumped together, with the top X votegetters continuing on to the general election. (For example, a few weeks ago, some eighty-odd people competed in the primary for city council. Of those, the top eighteen will be on the general election ballot in November, of which nine will be elected to city council.) So in this case, the primary simply serves to weed out the less well-known candidates, regardless of party affiliation, so that voters can concentrate on a manageable number in November.
All municipal offices in Ohio have similarly “non-partisan” primaries and generals. However, the local party committees do endorse candidates in both races.
Given that the question seems to have been answered, let me ask another related one (though it may stretch the scope of GQ). While reading the political threads in GD, I have more than once seen people (usually right-wingers) say that what the Democratic party should do to eventually get back in power would be to move towards the centre. (I don’t have a cite ready, but I do remember Shodan, for one, saying just that.) They also say that the Republican party has successfully positioned itself in the centre of the political spectre. I’ve always found that this was an odd suggestion, because if both major parties are basically centrist parties, well, the voters don’t have much of an option. To me, it’s a good thing for voters to have access to candidates who have a large variety of political opinions, even if you or I don’t agree with them.
But reading this thread, I see that in the US, the opinions of the candidates don’t necessarily match the official position of their party. So while the Democratic and Republican parties may be “officially” positioned in pretty much the same place on the political spectre (say the centre), their candidates may have opinions that are all over the place, depending on what the registered voters want in the primaries. This makes more sense to me.
So I guess that what I’m asking (and as I said, it might be more of an IMHO or GD thing than GQ) is:
[ul]
[li]Am I correct in my assumption? I mean, is this why the major parties in the US should be “officially” close to the centre?[/li][li]Is the Democratic party so left-wing? I don’t follow US politics that much, but I’ve never really felt that.[/li][li]Is the Republican party really in the centre?[/li][/ul]
Thank you!
[ul]
[li]Am I correct in my assumption? I mean, is this why the major parties in the US should be “officially” close to the centre? Well, compared to other countries, they’re both very close to the center. But it’s where they vary that the differences come in.[/li][li]Is the Democratic party so left-wing? I don’t follow US politics that much, but I’ve never really felt that. Can’t…. express…. opions…. here. Generally it’s accepted that they self-identify as being more left of center. It’s the fringe that really puts them over the edge, though. The Democratic Party is the closest thing to a coalition that you’ll find in the United States – for example, a tree hugger won’t make it with the Republics or alone. Neither will a PETA person. But the Democrats will be happy to have anyone that will vote Democrat, so they all get along happily over there. Note: not everyone that votes Democrat is some type of wierdo, though, and you’ll see that the Republicans have their wierdos, too.[/li][li]Is the Republican party really in the centre? Officially, close. They self-identify as being to the right of center. Don’t confuse the current administration with what real Republican’s believe. There’s much less of a coalition feel on the Republican side, although the religious right is often seen as the wackos that determine strategy.[/li][/ul]
I think those are fair, generally accepted views without any slant. They both have their weirdos. Anything else would exceed the bounds of GQ, I think.
Will Rogers reportedly said, “I’m not the member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
If that statement is close to what he said, it pretty much sums up American political parties. Party affiliation used to be a very big deal in the 19th Century. Most people just voted straight tickets (and is still an option today in certain places), i.e, you just would show up at the polls and drop in a Democratic or a Republican ballot.
But eventually in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Australian ballot, where all the candidates with their party affiliations were listed as options, became the predominant style.
Thanks for all the information, acsenray. I’ve never really understood what the DNC does. What power/influence does the chairman have when it comes to setting party platforms?
Although it’s more complex than that in Presidential elections. We place a checkmark next to a person’s name, but we’re really voting for electors chosen by that person or his party. Once the electors are chosen, they go off to Washington and place their votes on our behalf. They almost always vote for the person that selected them, but they’re not legally required to do so.
Voters have plenty of options, as we almost always have at least six presidential candidates on the final ballot. There’s a perception, however, that selecting anyone but the Democrat or Republican is “throwing your vote away,” so even in cases where a large percentage of the populace dislike both of those candidates, they’ll vote for one of them anyway. Twice in recent history a third-party presidential candidate made a serious run (Anderson and Perot), but neither ended up garnering significant electoral votes in the final count.
I am not aware of any country where an elected representative would “lose their position” in the event that they were to switch parties while in office, except of course that a minister could not expect to retain his seat in the cabinet if he crossed over to the opposition benches. Maybe there are some European countries where this would happen, for example if a “party list” electoral system is in operation, but I am not familiar with it.
On the subject of “gerrymander”, the word is quite well-known in Ireland.
If you win a primary to run as a Republican or Democrat, all it means (at least in PA) is that the voters have supported you, not necessarily the party. With turnout in local elections hovering between 10-20%, it may mean that you got the support of only 10% of registered party members.
Although, having party support never hurts. Out here, the local parties endorse preferred candidates. What does that get you? It might get some some cash or at least access to the donor lists. It also gets you on the party’s ‘sample ballot’. Many voters look at the top of the ticket, but seldom consider offices such as Attorney General or Treasurer. At the polls, party supporters will be there handing out a ‘sample ballot’ with the names of the party’s endorsed candidates. Folks who don’t really have any opinion between John Doe and Joe Blow will vote for the guy the party supports. That’s worth several percentage points in a low interest election.
The PA Attorney General owes his primary victory entirely to the support of the state party, in my opinion. He won by about ten percent but was on sample ballots in 66 of 67 counties. Heck, I am still trying to mend relations with the guy running my borough’s party. I ran for committeeman and didn’t win. Afterwards he expressed his disappointment that I never approached him to ask for his support. Its like paying tribute to the mafia Godfather.
I see your point. But what would you consider “fringe” left-wing opinions in the US? I see you mentioned environmentalists (or at least, “tree-huggers”): would someone whose political platform is mostly related to the protection of the environment be automatically seen as an extremist in the States? Or if not, what more would be required? I believe that the “mainstream” political spectre is narrower in the US than in Canada or especially Europe, but I want to see to which extent it is true.
I have heard a lot about the religious right (it’s hard to read this message board and not hear about them). Why do you think that the Republicans are less of a coalition? From what I’ve heard, there is still a wide variety of opinion among them. There are people who agree with the current administration’s goals, there are more libertarian people who want a more fiscally conservative policy, there are the religious conservatives, and also moderate people who consider national security and being hard on crime to be important policies. There seems to be variations among Republicans’ political opinions.
I was mostly thinking about Congressional elections (and the many other offices that are filled by way of elections in the US), not really about Presidential elections. Given that in pretty much all US elections, the major candidates are backed by either the Democratic or the Republican party, my first thought was that if those parties both consider themselves to be centrist parties, there isn’t much choice for the voters if they don’t want to “throw their vote away”. But the concepts of weak party line and primary elections means that voters can push to have the candidate they prefer on the ballot, even if this candidate’s positions are somewhat at odds with the official position of the party that supports him or her. So I don’t think there’s really a problem; in fact, the American system seems rather interesting.
I’m not aware of any such systems either. Can you give examples, Kiminy?
Here in Canada, not only isn’t there any penalty for switching parties, sometimes you can even get a reward if you play your cards right. Witness Belinda Stronach, who was rewarded with a cabinet minister position for switching from the Conservative to the Liberal party.
Don;t put too much faith in primary elections. In general, a primary election is only meaningful when there is an open seat. Incumbents rarely even face a primary challenge and almost never lose in the primaries. I can only think of three incumbents in the last 10-15 years who lost their primary.
Even when you have an open seat, parties tend to strongly discourage primary challenges as they are perceived to weaken the candidate in the general.
Well, it’s the same thing here in Canada, incumbents are almost automatically selected as their party’s candidate, and often the party “parachutes” candidates in ridings, even over the head of the local association. But that’s not an artifact of the voting system, it just depends on how it is applied. What I find interesting about primary elections is that, when there is one, it makes it much easier for voters to choose a party’s candidate. Here, I think that only the registered party members may have a say in this party’s candidate, and most people are not members of a particular party.
On the issue of party strength and elections, there is a belief that makes sense among political researchers that as congressional districts become safer and safer over periods of fine-tuning through redistricting, members will feel more and more pressure to go along with the party. Of course, if their seat is very safe they may feel they don’t need to, but defying the party can have some real consequences. In other words, when your seat wasn’t as safe, the party would allow you some slack to go off the agenda and vote against them since you may need to in order to keep your seat and that’s important to them. Now that your seat is safer, they don’t allow you so much slack. This is one theory to explain why the congress, or the parties, seem to have become more ideologically at odds over time since the 1960s.
Case in point, here in PA, the legislature just voted through a very handsome pay raise for itself. Classic corrupt legislature style, middle of the night, no debate, literally. 15 subcommittee chairs voted against the raise and all 15 were removed from their leadership posts immediately afterwards. I wish I could say that this was an exception, but its pretty well known that voting against your party leader earns you punishment. You may find your office funds vanish in an instant. Any appropriations to your dictrict might be mysteriously deleted from the bill.
And the worst part is, 95% of the clowns who voted for the increase will be right back in ofice after the 2006 elections.