Would it be better for the U.S. as a whole if one party wins decisively in 2008?

[glenn1]

Was thinking about the last few elections where the victory margins were extremely thin - 2 plurality wins for Clinton, a statistical tie in 2000, and a barely majority for Bush in 2004. To a certain extent, I believe the lack of a clear and unambiguous defeat for either party has actually prevented a sense of closure and ability to move on. It allows for the incubation of a festering resentment of the other side in place of what would normally be a necessary critical self-assessment and needed changes.

 

[Farang]

Yes as long as one party has firm executive control and the other has firm congressional control. I suppose this is most likely with a strong Republican win, which doesn't seem likely.

 

[bamacre]

The Republicans don't stand a chance in '08. Too many Republicans are pissed off that the party has been taken over by big-government morons with a failed foreign policy.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republicans don't stand a chance in '08. Too many Republicans are pissed off that the party has been taken over by big-government morons with a failed foreign policy.

And rightfully so!

 

[theeedude]

If my party was collectively dumber than the Dixie Chicks, I'd be pissed too
And the answer is yes. Elections have to mean something. I don't want a situation like now where the voters have spoken, but minority party continues to obstruct their will with vetoes and Senate rules. If voters liked the wonderful GOP years of 2002-2006, they can vote for GOP ticket, if they want a change and the Democrats to govern, they should vote for a Democrat ticket. Deadlock was OK in the 1990s after Clinton already restored the fiscal balance with his tax hike, and there weren't really any big issues to address. Now it's a different situation. Current status quo is not something we should preserve with deadlock.

 

[PrinceofWands]

What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't think it would be good if there was a "decisive" win. Mostly because what's commonly seen as decisive is nothing of the sort, the winners spin victory as an absolute domination of the political opposition, when in reality the margins of victory are almost always slim enough to have been determined by voters who were too drunk to notice which candidate they voted for. The end results of the 2004 election were a bunch of Republicans acting like the most obnoxious idiots in recent memory, crowing about how the conservative majority would reign for 20 years or more (look at the archives here on P&N if you don't believe me). And of course there were also the extremely pissed off Democrats who, in addition to feeling bad about not winning back control of anything, were also pissed off at the Republicans for acting like a bunch of ass clowns. All in all, it further polarized the country and reminded us all how much we hate about 50% of our fellow citizens.

A best result for democracy is that which reminds every group out there that they live in a country in which their viewpoint is not the only viewpoint, and that people who disagree with them not only have the right to do so, but have a loud enough voice that everyone has to pay attention. Democracy only works if the Republicans have to acknowledge that the Democrats aren't going to all move to Canada, and if the Democrats all realize that the Republicans aren't going to spend all their time camped out on the border waiting for gay Mexican terrorists to try to sneak over. Democracy only works if we're ALL reminded that we have to compromise and maybe, just maybe, try to see the issues from another point of view.

 

[Muse]

Well, the only way this is going to happen in 2008 is a Democratic romp. It may be the best short term outcome, per the arguments in this thread.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, if democratic, and no if Republican, so I voted 'no'. Sorry, but unity is not more important to me than good policy.

 

[Moonbeam]

If the Democrats win it will still be just like divided government because they will be too afraid of losing a vote to do anything.

 

[blackangst1]

I prefer one part in executive, other in Senate. I really dont care which, as its really irrelevant, but it balances things out IMHO. Theres wackos on both sides, although I'll withhold comments about Dems.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think it would be good if there was a "decisive" win. Mostly because what's commonly seen as decisive is nothing of the sort, the winners spin victory as an absolute domination of the political opposition, when in reality the margins of victory are almost always slim enough to have been determined by voters who were too drunk to notice which candidate they voted for.

Yeah, it's the indy/swing voters who make a difference. This group tends not to pay attention to, or give a crap about politics until about 5 seconds before they vote. Talk to some of these people sometime, they are ones who think Obama is a Muslim and refuses to pledge allegiance to flag etc. They are the ones who vote based on a candidate's haircut, sex or accent etc. Sad really, makes the whole thing seem so random & illogical.

-snip-

All in all, it further polarized the country and reminded us all how much we hate about 50% of our fellow citizens.

Yeah, polarization will not be reduced merely because of some margin of vcitory.

A best result for democracy is that which reminds every group out there that they live in a country in which their viewpoint is not the only viewpoint, and that people who disagree with them not only have the right to do so, but have a loud enough voice that everyone has to pay attention. Democracy only works if the Republicans have to acknowledge that the Democrats aren't going to all move to Canada, and if the Democrats all realize that the Republicans aren't going to spend all their time camped out on the border waiting for gay Mexican terrorists to try to sneak over. Democracy only works if we're ALL reminded that we have to compromise and maybe, just maybe, try to see the issues from another point of view.

I much prefer a divided government. When any one side holds all the power the 2nd thing they do is forget whatever priciples they may have held because they're too busy with the 1st thing they do- stealing the country blind with pork barrrel projects to cronies etc.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

I agree completely...unification could only herald Nazi 2.0 under the current circumstances. The very idea gives me night-terrors.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

We already do. The problem is the public that DOES vote doesnt want them. Pretty simple solution, really.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

We already do. The problem is the public that DOES vote doesnt want them. Pretty simple solution, really.

You need to remove party control of elections.

As an outsider, if I had to pick one thing that is 'wrong with America', it is 'the groups who are allowed to run your elections'.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

We already do. The problem is the public that DOES vote doesnt want them. Pretty simple solution, really.

You need to remove party control of elections.

As an outsider, if I had to pick one thing that is 'wrong with America', it is 'the groups who are allowed to run your elections'.

To some extent I agree; however, it matters not who runs them. What matters is who gets the votes.

It could be like this: my wife was immigrated to the US. In her country, months before the election, representatives from the different candidates went literally door to door, the malls, etc and solicited votes with money. If someone agreed (which most do) they would get paid and fill out their ballot then and there choosing the candidate who just paid them off. Those ballots are then drooped into the ballot box.

But, like I said, it doesnt matter who runs them. Americans are too complacent to do their own research, and too lazy to even vote. So we get what the public wants. We have the government people think is best. Otherwise, people would 1. vote, and 2. vote for someone else.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What would be good for the country is a fragmentation and reorientation of parties until we have 4-7 major parties with significant differences so that the people of America can finally gain semi-accurate representation.

:thumbsup:

The only thing worse than the polarization we have now would be unification. We need political diversity.

We already do. The problem is the public that DOES vote doesnt want them. Pretty simple solution, really.

You need to remove party control of elections.

As an outsider, if I had to pick one thing that is 'wrong with America', it is 'the groups who are allowed to run your elections'.

One of the most noticeable things about American political language is "bipartisan". There are bipartisan commissions, bipartisan support, bipartisan bills, etc etc. The parties protect and look out for each other first and fight political battles second. The very idea of having more than 2 parties is probably alien to people that don't pay attention to politics.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
To some extent I agree; however, it matters not who runs them. What matters is who gets the votes.

It could be like this: my wife was immigrated to the US. In her country, months before the election, representatives from the different candidates went literally door to door, the malls, etc and solicited votes with money. If someone agreed (which most do) they would get paid and fill out their ballot then and there choosing the candidate who just paid them off. Those ballots are then drooped into the ballot box.

But, like I said, it doesnt matter who runs them. Americans are too complacent to do their own research, and too lazy to even vote. So we get what the public wants. We have the government people think is best. Otherwise, people would 1. vote, and 2. vote for someone else.

Respectfully - it does matter.

Take your current cycle. In Canada, where we are a long way from perfect, a Libertarian minority as strong as yours would have created a legitimate party by now, and gained proper access to elections.

Besides fringe and regional parties, Canada has seen both left-er and right-er parties founded, and in force on the national stage within a decade, simply because the people wanted it, and the existing parties had no power to stop it.

Applied to the US right now, and the popularity of libertarianism, it's pretty clear that in other democratic countries, there would by now be a real libertrian party. Consider the benefits to everyone if Ron Paul were the Libertarian candidate and you would have both that option, and a true Republican available on the ballot, something which is impossible under a (effectively) closed, two-party system. As it is, only one of those two options will be on the ballot nationwide come November.

 

[Nitemare]

I'd rather see the political parties dissolved and we get to vote for a person not just the same crappy 2 parties every 4 years

 

[fskimospy]

If you guys are so excited about more parties, voting for them won't really help. Start pushing for a constitutional amendment to reform our entire electoral structure to proportional representation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We have seen the results when a single party gains control of the political system.

And it does not bode well. The check/balances intended within the Constitution can fail.

Paranoia just makes the overall system show the faults to a much greater extent.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
-snip-

You need to remove party control of elections.

As an outsider, if I had to pick one thing that is 'wrong with America', it is 'the groups who are allowed to run your elections'.

Parties don't control the elections, the individual states do.

Parties do control their own nomination process. I see no real problem with that.

IMO, the biggest barrier to a larger multi-party system is our own mindset. I think we mostly vote against candidates here. Examples like Ross Perot (a decent sized 3rd party) and to a lesser extent Ralph Nader seemed to have backfired on their supporters.

I think the 2nd choice thingy would be a big help in overcoming that. The Perot peeps could've put the Repub as #2 and the Nader peeps the Dem, if they wished.

Take the top 2 vote getters. Then allocate to them any 2nd choice votes they got to see who really wins.

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

Only if it's the right candidate. I already consider most Americans fvcking idiots, so I have no interest in seeing them collectively elect another fvcking idiot into office like we saw last time.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1
To some extent I agree; however, it matters not who runs them. What matters is who gets the votes.

It could be like this: my wife was immigrated to the US. In her country, months before the election, representatives from the different candidates went literally door to door, the malls, etc and solicited votes with money. If someone agreed (which most do) they would get paid and fill out their ballot then and there choosing the candidate who just paid them off. Those ballots are then drooped into the ballot box.

But, like I said, it doesnt matter who runs them. Americans are too complacent to do their own research, and too lazy to even vote. So we get what the public wants. We have the government people think is best. Otherwise, people would 1. vote, and 2. vote for someone else.

Respectfully - it does matter.

Take your current cycle. In Canada, where we are a long way from perfect, a Libertarian minority as strong as yours would have created a legitimate party by now, and gained proper access to elections.

Besides fringe and regional parties, Canada has seen both left-er and right-er parties founded, and in force on the national stage within a decade, simply because the people wanted it, and the existing parties had no power to stop it.

Applied to the US right now, and the popularity of libertarianism, it's pretty clear that in other democratic countries, there would by now be a real libertrian party. Consider the benefits to everyone if Ron Paul were the Libertarian candidate and you would have both that option, and a true Republican available on the ballot, something which is impossible under a (effectively) closed, two-party system. As it is, only one of those two options will be on the ballot nationwide come November.

Every time we have a third party candidate, you throw the election to the other major party. Ross Perot-Clinton. Ralph Nader-GWB.
Please run as a third party Ron Paul, leading to....President Hillary.