I’ve run several GD threads on that very question. (Most recently, see “A multiparty system is better than a two-party system!” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169.) My thinking is, a change to a PR system would bring into politics a lot of extremists of the right and left who are present are effectively barred out of it unless they want to compromise their principles and work within one of the two main parties (as many do). We might see Congressman Ralph Nader, Congressman Al Sharpton, Congressman Michael Badnarik, Congressman Pat Buchanan, Congressman Roy Moore, Congressman David Duke, Congressman Louis Farrakhan, etc. On the other hand, under the present system the centrists – who are the majority, both in the political world and in the general population – need extremist support to win voting majorities in districts – and under a PR system, they wouldn’t. E.g., the mainstream, big-business-interest Republicans would no longer need the fundaloonie Republicans; the latter could split off, form their own party, go their separate way, and get their own representation in Congress, where they would vote with the Bizpubs on some issues but not others. I fleshed out the dynamics of this, best I could, in the thread linked about.
So, in short, I think you’re half-right: Under a PR system extremists would get actual, direct representation in Congress than they have now; but extremists still would lose some of the policy influence they have now, because there would be a solid majority centrist block that, most of the time, on most policies, would be in agreement, center-left with center-right, and could get its business done without going to the extremists for votes. Most of the time, but not always, and sometimes the fringe parties would be able to use logrolling to get at least some of their agenda enacted. Also, the fringe parties would be represented on all the legislative committees and provide a wide range of different minority viewpoints in the process of crafting legislation before it comes to a floor vote.
I’ve read thru the thread again - I honestly didn’t see any.
The only poster I could identify as a conservative was Sam Stone (OK, libertarian), and his predictions (that Gore isn’t the right candidate for the Dems and that they need to run to the right to beat Bush) haven’t been shown to be inaccurate. If you mean Big Kahuna Burger, I don’t know enough about his politics to identify him as a conservative. Of course, he could be.
No, I don’t think you are wrong. Kerry is not a serious candidate. More like an empty suit.
I am not sure why you think I believe myself to be non-partisan. I am conservative. And I didn’t post the predictions because I wanted to be fair. I was amused by what some are able to convince themselves of if they wish hard enough.
FWIW, I don’t expect the Democrats to win the Senate in November, and I expect a Bush victory. It is entirely possible that I am wrong, and that I am confusing what I wish for with what is realistic. Like a lot of folks in the other thread.
If it turns out that I am wrong, OK, then I’ll be wrong. If it turns out that I am right, I will do my best not to be insufferable about it.
I grant that my best may not be all that good. And I am looking forward to the meltdowns with evil glee.
How’s $100 - straight-up. If the Democrats (including Jeffords - although technically an independent, he caucuses with the D’s) have control of the Senate, you win; if not, I win. “Control” may include the VP if the Senate is otherwise split evenly.
A hundred is too much for me; I could go for fifty. The VP as of the date the Senate convenes, or the VP that is elected in November? I’d prefer the one elected, obviously.
Yes, the VP that’s elected (by either the Electoral College or by the Senate in case of an EC tie) is the one that counts - we’re talking about control of the upcoming Senate, and the period of time between Jan 3rd and Jan 20th is too small to worry about.
But I don’t think there is a huge amount of support for Kerry per se. He is banking pretty heavily on being “anybody but Bush” and the war hero thing. I suspect that was the reason that there were so few Dopers who were willing to come out in his favor two years back. It was only after he became the last Democrat standing after the primaries and Dean’s downfall that Democrats sort of shrugged their shoulders, said, “Anybody will do” and jumped on the bandwagon.
Doesn’t mean that he is necessarily going to lose (although I expect it - narrowly), or that anyone is a fool to support him. It is possible to be anti-Bush and still rational (although relatively rare on the SDMB, and getting rarer as November approaches). But Kerry is the nominee very nearly by default. There was genuine excitement about Dean, and some more about Nader (although the lefties shouted that down as soon as they could manage it), but nobody considered Kerry a serious candidate until he was the only one left. So here we are.
Yes, I concede that I vastly underestimated the reckless stupidity of Dear Leader and his handlers. But in the interests of fairness, you could have quoted my express reasons for concluding that an invasion was not going to happen, which were and are quite correct:
Silly me, I actually listened to the schmuck when he told us he was going to put together a real coalition, enlist the aid of the rest of the world, and get the United Nations on board. I certainly won’t make that mistake again, I assure you.
And in case those quotes didn’t make it clear why I concluded from the lack of regional and international support that an invasion was “impossible,” it’s because the lack of such support would lead to precisely the boondoggle we have today.
As of today (10/6/04), http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/senate.html projects the next Senate as 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, 1 Independent. The preceding link is to a new page of the site, providing a detailed state-by-state analysis of the Senate races.
Did you really think then that Kuwait would not allow an invasion of Iraq from its territory? I would have considered it ours for the asking, as, indeed, it turned out.
Barack Obama must have been very, very good in a previous life to have accumulated so much positive karma. His old opponent was forced out of the race by the “scandal” of wanting a spicier sex life with his wife. His new opponent sounds like Marvin Martian on crack.
The guys must be an idiot. Millions of teenage boys (and a few of us adult kind) would sell their souls to the devil for one night with Seven-of-nine!!
I still think Howard Dean was a disaster for the Democrats. Imagine if he hadn’t been in the race - Kerry and Edwards wouldn’t have voted against the 87 billion, and wouldn’t have had to move over to the anti-war side in the primaries. No flip-flopper charges, no backpedalling and trying to straddle the line on Iraq. Bush would be in BIG trouble right now.
