Palin for Prez in 2012 likely suicide for GOP

[Nyarlathotep]

Elect more parties.

Works for other countries.

Eeeee-Yeah. Lets look at our 'third party' choices for president this time around. I know there are other things that one could vote third party for, but I think the presidential choices are pretty ilustraive of the problem with third party candidates in general

We had the Libertarians. They had Bob Barr as their candidate, who until recently was a hard-right Republican who made Bush look like a commie. A break from the usualy Libertarian wacky fun, but whether his views stayed the same as they had always been or he truthfully converted to the cause of bringing about Libertopia, Not someone I would have voted for.

On the other end of the spectrum, we had the Greens. Their candidate was Cynthia "Crazy Eyes" McKinney, a twoofer who als made the claim while campaiging that tthe guvernment is covering up the massacre of 5000 civilians in the wake of Katrina. Pass.

Theen there was the Constitution Party. Hey, that sounds good, the Constitution is a Good Thintm, so a party devoted to that cause might be a good thing too, right? I don't recall who they put on the ballot but here is the first few lines of their party platform

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Ummm, I think I'll pass on that one too.

Then there is the Reform Party. Everybody wants reform right? Of course that was Perot's outfit and Perot was well known for his mental stability(not). They also ran Pat Buchanan in 2000. This time around they ran a guy named Ted Weill who I never heard of, which puts it a leg up on the others, but any party that was started by Ross Perot and recently ran Pat Buchanan as a candidate scores a big "No Thanks" from me.

So that is the problem. Third parties in this country tend to be havens for whackjobs and extremists. I would gladly vote for other parties if that weren't so, but it is so. I have no idea how to fix that problem either.

 

[leftysergeant]

I would be perfectly cool with the death of the GOP. They haven't put up a rational candidate for prez since Eisenhower.

Better they should split into Christian Conservative and Entrepreneurialist Parties and let the Libertarians have the entrepreneurs who want to smoke dope and get laid. Then the Greens would have a shot at getting elected in large enough numbers locally to prove that they have some workable ideas. This would, of course, pull the Democrats back to the center-left where they belong in order to keep their academic, union and environmentalist power base.

If the Democrats cannot return to the principles of FDR, and the GOP is a bloated corpse, I could put up with a Green president for a while.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

As ponderingturtle said, it's the voting system – winner takes all – that practically turns the whole political scene into a two-party dominance. I think the scholarly literature on the issue is pretty straight forward.

The only way to change it would mean a migration towards parliamentarism, which would require a change in the constitution. For anyone to take up the task of reforming the constitution... well, good luck with that political suicide!

 

[CFLarsen]

It isn't about which candidates the parties choose for the elections. It is about who among the people think they can make a difference.

I do find it revealing that just because the single American doesn't find third party candidates viable, no third party candidates can aspire to be elected by other Americans. Is this a matter of ego being extrapolated onto a national scale or what?

In elections, it's not about you. It's about you, together with everyone else.

And who said anything about the country having to be a superpower? What does that have to do with the electoral system? The US electoral system was basically in place long before the US became a superpower.

If you don't think you, as a voter, has political influence enough, together with others, to make a fundamental change, then you do not live in a free society. Then, you think you live in a suppressive dictatorship.

 

[GreyICE]

Elect more parties.

Works for other countries.

Basic game theory Clause. No runoff, winner-take-all elections, how many parties are there?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Basic game theory Clause. No runoff, winner-take-all elections, how many parties are there?

Precisely! The problem is structural rather than volitional. What power does an independent presidency have if the congress and the senate is two-party?. What power has an independent congressman (voted in one state) if the majority of congressmen are either republican or democrats? The constitution must be changed, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I do find it revealing that just because the single American doesn't find third party candidates viable, no third party candidates can aspire to be elected by other Americans. Is this a matter of ego being extrapolated onto a national scale or what?

Now you are arguing to argue. I think the fact that the Libertarians do the best of the third party by sometimes getting as much as a fraction of a percent of the total vote demonstrates pretty much clearly that just about everyone finds the third party canddates not worth voting for.

 

[mikeyx]

My thoughts are that if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate her for a 2012 presidential run, then they will essentially be committing political suicide.

Yes, yes they would. And I would go so far as too say any fundie who would debate this is honestly showcasing how far from the center they really truly are.

 

[mikeyx]

I don't see any way Palin gets enough primary support to win the nomination. Probably do as well as Huckabee did, they appeal to the same segment.

Bullshwa, Huckabee was smarter and more likeable as fundies go

 

[CFLarsen]

If it's the system, and people are sooooo dissatisfied with the two party system, change the system.

Or are Americans simply rendered powerless to a political elite?

 

[drkitten]

If it's the system, and people are sooooo dissatisfied with the two party system, change the system.

Or are Americans simply rendered powerless to a political elite?

Alternative hypothesis : most Americans simply aren't that dissatisfied with a two-party system.

Given the bread-and-circuses style of politics that most parliamentary democracies seem to fall into -- I believe the Italians, in particular, change governments more often than they change their underwear -- it's not clear that adopting a parliamentary system would be that good a thing. Especially given our recent experiences with single-party control over all branches of government, as is endemic in parliamentary systems.

 

[geni]

And who said anything about the country having to be a superpower? What does that have to do with the electoral system?

You claimed that electing more parties works for other countries. Since none of those countries are superpowers or have been superpowers it appears it doesn't work.

 

[CFLarsen]

It could indeed be that most Americans aren't that dissatisfied with the two-party system. Which would leave those complaining about it in the minority.

So, why should the minority decide what happens to the majority? Why, that sounds even worse than a two-party system!

It is an interesting claim that a superpower necessarily must have a one or a two-party system. However, it is shot down immediatedly by the historic reality: The US wasn't much of a superpower until after WWI. But it still had had a two-party system going back way longer than that.

Multi-party parliaments are much more healthy for democracies: You get a variety of different political platforms, that are much more likely to change to reflect reality better, you get a representative parliament, and you generally force the political parties to work together in coalitions, instead of having entrenched politics.

While true that Italian politics have resulted in a lot of changing governments, it certainly isn't the rule: E.g., Norway has had 22 governments since 1945, Denmark 25 and Sweden 19.

 

[GreyICE]

It could indeed be that most Americans aren't that dissatisfied with the two-party system. Which would leave those complaining about it in the minority.

So, why should the minority decide what happens to the majority? Why, that sounds even worse than a two-party system!

It is an interesting claim that a superpower necessarily must have a one or a two-party system. However, it is shot down immediatedly by the historic reality: The US wasn't much of a superpower until after WWI. But it still had had a two-party system going back way longer than that.

By the way, this is from a self-proclaimed defender of rationality. So this makes this logic chain EVEN FUNNIER.

Claim: A superpower must have a two party system.
Statement: The US was not a superpower before WWI
Statement: The US had a 2 party system.
Conclusion: This claim is shot down.

This is in the exact same form as the following proof:

Claim: All squares have 4 90 degree angles
Statement: A rectangle with 2 unequal sides is not a square
Statement: A rectangle has 4 90 degree angles
Conclusion: The claim is shot down.

I love this logic. I think I shall frame it.


The rest is almost as silly.

 

[DavidJames]

There are far more voters who want fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and less intrusive government than who want the government trying to impose some moral code on the nation, as well as the truly ridiculous crap like teaching creationism in science classes.

You must be talking about Democrats then because Republicans disagree.

 

[Brainster]

I make no judgment at this point on the wisdom or insanity of Sarah Palin's becoming the Republican nominee in 2012. But I would point out that she's highly unlikely to win the nomination. I can't remember the last time a VP nominee of either party who lost in their first general election as a VP candidate who went on to be the nominee of his party in the next cycle:

2004 Edwards: Nope
2000 Lieberman: No
1996 Kemp: Negative
1988 Bentsen: No
1984 Ferraro: Nope
1976 Dole: No, but did become the nominee 20 years later
1972 Shriver: No
1968 Muskie: Nope
1964 Miller: No
1960 Lodge: Negative
1956 Kefauver: No
1952 Sparkman: Who?
1948 Warren: No
1944 Bricker: Nope
1940 McNary: Nein
1936 Knox: No

Of course, VP nominees who actually became VP have a much better track record, with Gore, Bush Sr., Mondale, Humphrey, LBJ (special case obviously), and Nixon all getting the endorsement of their respective parties.

And the Republicans are unlikely to win in 2012 anyway; most sitting presidents do win reelection.

 

[gtc]

It could indeed be that most Americans aren't that dissatisfied with the two-party system. Which would leave those complaining about it in the minority.

Indeed. Not the most is pretty much the definition of minority.

So, why should the minority decide what happens to the majority? Why, that sounds even worse than a two-party system!

Who are railing against here? No one is saying that the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

Multi-party parliaments are much more healthy for democracies: You get a variety of different political platforms, that are much more likely to change to reflect reality better, you get a representative parliament, and you generally force the political parties to work together in coalitions, instead of having entrenched politics.

Once again you are arguing from ignorance.

There is more variation within American parties than there is within the typical European party. US politicians are not beholden to the party platform and it is necessary in America to work together to form coalitions of politicians in order to get legislation passed.

Likewise, the way the US parties select candidates tends to be way more open than in most European countries. The UK Labour party could replace Gordon Brown as PM with any other MP at any time. The Conservatives could appoint anyone as opposition leader and the first time people get a say on the matter will be at the election.

On the other hand Obama had to go through the entire primary process gradually gaining the support of actual Democrat voters prior to being announced as the Presidential candidate and afterwards he needed to reach out to Clinton's supporters in order to ensure that they voted for him.

This information is not difficult to discover, you don't have to be American to undestand the differences.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Likewise, the way the US parties select candidates tends to be way more open than in most European countries. The UK Labour party could replace Gordon Brown as PM with any other MP at any time. The Conservatives could appoint anyone as opposition leader and the first time people get a say on the matter will be at the election..

Errr... I need to be clear on something...what do you mean when you say "the (insert name) party"?

If you mean the other MP's then you are staggeringly wrong.

I am not an MP, heck, I'm a 21 year old student. I've voted in a leadership election before.

ETA: I just noticed that you followed with a comment on how Obama had to run the gauntlet of the Dem voters before his election. This displays that unless you are being rather obtuse, you are ignorant of the selection process of leaders in the UK.

This information is not difficult to discover, you don't have to be American to undestand the differences.

Yet it seems you don't know.

 

[gtc]

Errr... I need to be clear on something...what do you mean when you say "the (insert name) party"?

What do you think I mean?

If you mean the other MP's then you are staggeringly wrong.

If so, I apologise. Does the leader of a political party automatically become the parliamentary leader?

ETA: I just noticed that you followed with a comment on how Obama had to run the gauntlet of the Dem voters before his election. This displays that unless you are being rather obtuse, you are ignorant of the selection process of leaders in the UK.

Yes. I assumed it was the same as in Australia. Afterall, it would be crazy if the parliamentary leader didn't have the support of his or her own MPs (although in theory the PM could rely on the support of other parties MPs).

Yet it seems you don't know.

That doesn't follow. My being wrong about the UK doesn't mean that one needs to be an American to understand American politics.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What do you think I mean?



If so, I apologise. Does the leader of a political party automatically become the parliamentary leader?



Yes. I assumed it was the same as in Australia. Afterall, it would be crazy if the parliamentary leader didn't have the support of his or her own MPs (although in theory the PM could rely on the support of other parties MPs).



That doesn't follow. My being wrong about the UK doesn't mean that one needs to be an American to understand American politics.

Oh, I mistook the last comment. Mea Culpa. I've been up for about 20 hours, so I'll blame that.

Yes, the MP's do vote on the choice for leader of the party, who, if the party wins becomes the PM. However, the grassroots party members also vote (myself included, although I am but a Lib Dem.

Indeed, you don't HAVE to vote. I didn't vote on who should be the candidate for the constituency in which Aberystwyth (where I am currently located) should be because, to be frank, I didn't give a toss.

In effect, the selection process for the party leader and the selection process for the Presidential candidate are similar, insomuch as they can be, given the neccessities of the American system.