25
   

The Democrats will win again in 2016

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 11:29 am
The presenter of that video is really awful. I'm having to go back to attempt to figure out what he is saying. As i don't come on line to post here, but to do other things, it will be a while before i finish that video. Whether or not i'll comment i can't say--as i've said, i don't come online to post here.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 12:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Typical sneers from you. By your criteria, there were no national parties in 1860.

On the contrary. As I explained before, there was one: the Democrats.

Setanta wrote:
But i'm sure you're right, Bubba, you're always right . . . at least that appears to be your opinion.

That's what I like about you, Set. You may fuss and grumble, but in the end you grudgingly concede that I'm right.

Setanta wrote:
I don't see that the post you link, from four years ago, in a thread on a different subject, is something i ought to have had in mind when posting.

I never said you should.

Setanta wrote:
While your view in that post is compelling, i think it is ovesimplistic. I think it can equally well be explained by the behavior of an electorate in what is essentially stable, complacent societies (as is said earlier). But even then, it isn't entirely predictive. I've already alluded to the Canadian experience. In England and in France, the lives and times of political parties have been and are much more fluid and unpredictable than is the case with the United States.

And that's entirely consistent with my position. Since those countries don't have all three elements that are the props of the two-party system in the US (single-member constituencies elected on a plurality basis, nationwide elections for a single executive, and the electoral college), we should expect that they would all have multiple-party systems. And they do.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 01:58 pm
@joefromchicago,
Your criterion of being registered in all states is a pointless quibble--whether Douglas or Breckenridge, the Democrats won no state that was not a slave state. Bell won the only slave states which weren't won by a Democrat. Lincoln won all of the free states. Obviously the important issue was slavery, and the vote divided along those lines. Who was registered on the ballot where seems to me to have had little significance. I don't know if the Republicans even bothered to try to get on the ballot in slaves states--but whether they tried and failed, or just didn't bother, is not important. I don't consider that you've made a case that the Democrats were the only national party. After all, Ross Perot in 1992 was on the ballot in all the states, but failed to win a single state in the Electoral College. Being on the ballot doesn't mean anything if it doesn't get to your goal.

Whereas the state of political affairs in Canada, England and France may be consistent with your position as outlined in that thread from four years ago, it is not consistent with the general claim that first past the post electoral systems inevitably lead to two party states. I'm not suggesting that you are obliged to defend a position you haven't taken. But i wasn't responding to your position is a long ago post. I was from the outset objecting to the first past the post position taken by RG, or at least as i understood it to be the position he had taken.

But i won't be churlish about it . . . you're right, Bubba, i'm sure you are . . .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:01 pm
By the way, Ross Perot's experience in the 1996 election, when he was the candidate of the Reform Party is instructive on how the two parties attempt to exclude third parties and third party candidates. In several states, he was obliged to get on the ballot as an independent, because those states would not recognize the party. Furthermore, he was not allowed to join the debates, and i believe that was because of the objections of the Democrats and Republicans.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:39 pm
@Setanta,
I learnt this about DUVERGER'S LAW in High school because I was a student in a Pa city that had a noble history of electing third party candidates for mayor in the early 20th century.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:44 pm
@farmerman,
God damned anarchists . . .
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:45 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I was from the outset objecting to the first past the post position taken by RG, or at least as i understood it to be the position he had taken.


The only thing I've said about that in this thread is that it responsible to a greater degree for the two-party system we have today than is either the electoral college or the party failures of 1860. I don't know what you understood my position to be but whatever that was it seemed to me to be a great deal more absolutist than what it actually was.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:50 pm
@Robert Gentel,
That's cool, i'm not out to bust anyone's gonads . . .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 02:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
No. Though it certainly contributes enormously, the primary reason for the two party system is not the winner-take-all electoral vote distribution in place everywhere except Maine and Nebraska but the first-past-the-post part of the system and even if the electoral college were abandoned entirely, making each vote count on its own, the first-past-the-post systems inherently favor the large parties and disfavor the small parties, inevitably trending toward two-party duopolies.

But like Joe said, nothing is going to change on this front anyway.


This is the post to which i was responding. I continue to doubt that first past the post systems will inevitably lead to two party states. I would accept a contention that they would lead to there being two major, powerful parties, but as far as i know, the Americans' hallowed two party system is not common in parliamentary democracies.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 03:07 pm
@Setanta,
Plurality systems (of which fptp is a subset) are not a pre-requisite to duopolies, and that's why I did not claim as much.

As for my statement to the effect that fptp invariably trends to duopoly I agree, and to have the correct level of nuance that statement should have included the word "almost" prior to the word "inevitably."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 03:46 pm
I don't know that i'd agree with that, either . . . apart from my caveat about two parties being dominant at any given time.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2012 04:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Your criterion of being registered in all states is a pointless quibble--whether Douglas or Breckenridge, the Democrats won no state that was not a slave state. Bell won the only slave states which weren't won by a Democrat. Lincoln won all of the free states. Obviously the important issue was slavery, and the vote divided along those lines. Who was registered on the ballot where seems to me to have had little significance. I don't know if the Republicans even bothered to try to get on the ballot in slaves states--but whether they tried and failed, or just didn't bother, is not important. I don't consider that you've made a case that the Democrats were the only national party. After all, Ross Perot in 1992 was on the ballot in all the states, but failed to win a single state in the Electoral College. Being on the ballot doesn't mean anything if it doesn't get to your goal.

You seem to conflate being a national party with being a successful national party. The two are not the same. The Democrats ran candidates in every state in 1860 -- at the state, congressional, and presidential levels. No other party did so. That means the Democrats were a national party, regardless of their electoral success, whereas the Republicans, despite their electoral success, were not.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 02:21 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I learnt this about DUVERGER'S LAW in High school because I was a student in a Pa city that had a noble history of electing third party candidates for mayor in the early 20th century.


After having Nick Clegg as deputy PM, I can tell you that electing 3rd party candidates doesn't seem as much of a noble endeavour as it used to.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 01:25 pm
VA will attempt to reallocate EC votes in January


Quote:
a new bill from Sen. Charles Carrico, a Virginia Republican from the rural -- and increasingly out-voted -- southwest part of the state. I talked to him today about the strategy, which starts in earnest when the legislature returns on January 9. "We'll introduce the piece of legislation, and we'll be hearing from both sides," he said. "From those that are critical of it, from those that are positive. It comes down for me, as a rural legislator, to a fairness issue. I'm making sure the people of my district are represented."

Carrico argued that the electoral vote split wasn't "really a partisan issue," and "could cut both ways," depending on who was winning a state. "George W. Bush won the electoral college and lost the popular vote." And the most head-scratching part of his proposal, which would assign Virginia's two statewide electorals to whoever won the most gerrymandered districts, was negotiatiable. "We're still not sure we're going to leave it at that," he said. "If we tweak the legislation somewhat to allow those votes to the statewide winner, the metropolitan voters may understand that their vote is going to be heard."
Source


In other news, I just read that Hillary is "very, very ill"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 02:56 pm
@joefromchicago,
I don't agree, and for the reasons i've already stated. No matter what you claim i seem to equate, it's not solely electoral success which leads me to reject your criterion. The Republicans were successful in three major regions of the country--New England, the Mid-Atlantic states and the Midwest--and in the two Pacific coast states. Whether or not you think that makes them a national party is a matter of indifference to me. I consider that they were.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:42 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

That's cool, i'm not out to bust anyone's gonads . . .


Must not comment...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 05:42 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

That's cool, i'm not out to bust anyone's gonads . . .


Must not comment...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2012 07:16 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Perhaps you might explain your reasoning.

Perhaps you did and I didn't get to it.

In either case, "four years is an enternity in American politics" is a truisim.

Save this thread and revist it in four years.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2012 01:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In either case, "four years is an enternity in American politics" is a truisim.


It's also a misquote, the original is by Harold Wilson.

'A week is a long time in politics.'
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2012 07:34 am
@JPB,
Really? That's up to the states? Doesn't seem right that it could be different state by state.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/14/2021 at 06:21:03