Pages: 1 … 10 11 12

 

2011-08-06 10:37:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

But you still only have a realistic choice of two.
If you're pro-abortion but want tax cuts who do you vote for? It then boils down to which single issue is more important to you.

Single issue, two party politics is shit at many levels.
And again, you miss the point. Our two major parties are anything but single issue. That point was made quite unambiguously earlier.

If a voter votes based on only one or two issues, that's a different issue altogether.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-06 20:27:42
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
But as I've pointed out, given the lack of alternative parties voter's choice will typically boil down to one issue.
Its not as if there are other parties giving the voter a spectrum of options, just two.
Fuck Israel
2011-08-06 20:30:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

But as I've pointed out, given the lack of alternative parties voter's choice will typically boil down to one issue.
Its not as if there are other parties giving the voter a spectrum of options, just two.
and that changes when you add more parties? No, didnt think so.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-08-06 21:18:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
Yes it does, for example:

Currently if you're pro-gun and pro-stem cell research which of the two parties do you vote for? There is none which meets your needs.
If there is a single issue which you think is important but neither party addresses you're stuck there too.

If there were 3,4,5 parties, chances are one will have the spectrum of policies which suits you, or a single issue party which addresses your one issue.

I picked two trivial policies, for those substitute pro-fiscal conservatism and anti-war, or pro-private business and against military spending, or anything else you care to think of.
No doubt you'll argue the Tea-Party, or Ross Perot could have met some of that, but neither had a hope in hell of achieving even minor representation, let alone running the country.
Or that the two main parties will eventually pay a little lip-service to adopting some aspects of challengers policies to steal their votes and shit them out, but thats too slow and not how democracy should work.

Two parties =/= choice.
Fuck Israel
2011-08-07 09:05:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes it does, for example:

Currently if you're pro-gun and pro-stem cell research which of the two parties do you vote for? There is none which meets your needs.
If there is a single issue which you think is important but neither party addresses you're stuck there too.

If there were 3,4,5 parties, chances are one will have the spectrum of policies which suits you, or a single issue party which addresses your one issue.

I picked two trivial policies, for those substitute pro-fiscal conservatism and anti-war, or pro-private business and against military spending, or anything else you care to think of.
No doubt you'll argue the Tea-Party, or Ross Perot could have met some of that, but neither had a hope in hell of achieving even minor representation, let alone running the country.
Or that the two main parties will eventually pay a little lip-service to adopting some aspects of challengers policies to steal their votes and shit them out, but thats too slow and not how democracy should work.

Two parties =/= choice.
Libertarian Party would be the one you would vote for in your example.

The bottom line is there are dozens of political parties here, but only two have broad enough appeal to be viable on the national stage. Your complaint is that one-or two-issue parties don't have a large enough draw to elect either representatives, senators, or the president. Of course they don't, because those individuals have to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of constituents. A one-trick pony simply won't carry the day.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-08 01:29:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
Its a chicken and egg problem, there is not the slightest chance of the libertarians getting a candidate elected so why vote for them?
Its not as if the Libertarians are really a one trick pony either.

Although, if a reasonable number of people care about a pony I don't see why their views should be ignored.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-08 01:30:38)

Fuck Israel
2011-08-08 03:59:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a chicken and egg problem, there is not the slightest chance of the libertarians getting a candidate elected so why vote for them?
Its not as if the Libertarians are really a one trick pony either.

Although, if a reasonable number of people care about a pony I don't see why their views should be ignored.
Of course the Libertarian Party isn't a one-trick pony. But you said there isn't an option for someone with those views to vote for...I pointed out that there is, and quite easily. Chance of getting elected is irrelevant. Your complaint is whether there is a party that represents that person's views. There is.

Now, if it boils down to which of those single-issue points is most important to them (gun control or stem cell research) and they don't want to vote their conscience and choose both--which is what they should do--then they can be pragmatic and see which of the two major parties holds the position that is closest to theirs. In this case, I would guess they would vote Republican, as the Republican party is pro-gun rights and is not against stem cell research (despite what you hear in the media). They are against embryonic stem cell research, as it causes a fetus to be aborted in order to accomplish the research (according to their thought), which would conflict with their pro-life position.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-08 05:02:08
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
What would be the point of voting for a party only to throw away your vote?
Seems bizarre.

The other problem with voting for the one party which supports whichever single issue is most important to you and never mind the others is that party then believes they have a mandate from the people to enact whatever is in their manifesto.

I bet many of the 'fiscal conservatives' who vote Republican don't really give two craps about gay marriage, for example.
Again, having a two party system means all sorts of weird crap is assumed to be 'the will of the people' when its anything but.

I bet many of the people who voted Republican in the mid-terms would have taken a 1% increase in income tax over a cut in the national credit rating, for example.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-08 05:07:14)

Fuck Israel
2011-08-08 05:14:44
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

What would be the point of voting for a party only to throw away your vote?
Seems bizarre.

The other problem with voting for the one party which supports whichever single issue is most important to you and never mind the others is that party then believes they have a mandate from the people to enact whatever is in their manifesto.
You've just effectively argued against your point and for the system we have, where a small number of broad-reaching parties dominate.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-08 05:19:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
Not really, you're clearly missing the point.

The point is the system is shit, you can either vote for one of two parties - whether or not they meet your needs - or you can not bother voting.

How is that a good system?
Fuck Israel
2011-08-08 05:21:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really, you're clearly missing the point.

The point is the system is shit, you can either vote for one of two parties - whether or not they meet your needs - or you can not bother voting.

How is that a good system?
No, you're clearly missing the point, even though you're arguing for it.

And why would you not vote for a party if it meets your needs? That's non-sensical.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-08 05:33:32
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
Obviously if a party meets your needs then you'd vote for it, duh.

If neither of the two parties meets your needs, and you have a choice of legitimising a party you don't generally agree with, or throwing your vote down the drain, doesn't that strike you as a bad system?
Fuck Israel
2011-08-08 06:02:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Obviously if a party meets your needs then you'd vote for it, duh.

If neither of the two parties meets your needs, and you have a choice of legitimising a party you don't generally agree with, or throwing your vote down the drain, doesn't that strike you as a bad system?
In your countries system that 'wasted vote' would be transferred to a party you don't wholly agree with. I fail to see the difference.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-08-08 06:05:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Obviously if a party meets your needs then you'd vote for it, duh.

If neither of the two parties meets your needs, and you have a choice of legitimising a party you don't generally agree with, or throwing your vote down the drain, doesn't that strike you as a bad system?
In your countries system that 'wasted vote' would be transferred to a party you don't wholly agree with. I fail to see the difference.
Not necessarily, and if it were then you're aware of it so you can choose to vote differently eg tactically or 'below the line' - in which case your vote is transferred exactly as you wish.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard