A question from Russia on American presidential elections

A huge answer is in order and I am not the one to provide it. However your queries are right on the mark and should lead to a lively discussion.

I understand it, but maybe somebody can feel capable to give an answer to just one of my questions? Especially if a particular issue is of specific interest to such person…

I not only seem to write long postings but also tend to ask questions that require huge answers.

Okay, here's an attempt to answer your questions
Realize that "typical" stances of Republicans and Democrats will not necessarily reflect the feelings of all member of those parties - my answers will take a broad sweep of typical issues:

Abortion:
R - typically against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger. There are some who would ban it outright as murder and some who would allow it up to a certain point in pregnancy.
D - typically for allowing abortion. Again, some would allow it up to a point, others would allow it throughout pregnancy.

Economy:
R - Typically want smaller government, lower taxes. Believe that encouraging business growth helps all Americans by providing jobs and boosting economy.
D - Typically want to provide government programs. Believe higher taxes on those with more money should be used to help those with less (redistribution of wealth)

Civil rights:
R - Believe in equal opportunity for all.
D - Believe in equalizing outcome for all.

Business:
R - Believe tax breaks for business helps workers by providing jobs.
D - Believe tax increases or benefits requirements help workers have a better life.

Crime:
R - Believe in stronger enforcement of existing laws to reduce crime.
D - Believe in more laws to reduce crime

Education:
R - Believe parents should have choice of where to send children to school, even if that means vouchers would go to religious schools. Believe more accountability and more competition between schools will improve all schools.
D - Believe more money is nessecary to improve schools - oppose vouchers for private schools.

Energy:
R - Believe we should be less dependant on foreign oil - desire more oil exploration/drilling in USA along with research of alternative energy sources. Believe Kioto treaty would cripple US economy while doing nothing to solve possible global warming (Man-made contribution to greenhouse gasses is 0.3% of total greenhouse gasses).
D - Believe we should be less dependant on foreign oil - desire less oil exploration/drilling and stronger regulation reguarding fuel economy. Believe Kioto treaty will help fullfill our obligation to other countries.

Environment:
R - Believe regulation should be based upon sound science and that economics should be a part of environmental decisions.
D - Believe environmental concerns supercede economics.

Family:
R - Believe in traditional marriage and family, promote abstinence education.
D - Believe alternate views of marriage and family should be accepted, possibly encouraged, believe sex education should include discussion of contraception, abortion, alternate lifestyle.

Foreign policy:
R - Tend to want to work things out on our own, even if it means war.
D - Tend to want to utilize international organizations, such as UN, to work things out.

Government:
R - Tend to want smaller government, less intrusive government, less regulation, less assistance.
D - Tend to want more programs and assistance for people, more regulation.

Gun control:
R - Believe 2nd ammendment refers to the individual's right to own guns and favor fewer restrictions on gun ownership - site statistics showing higher gun ownership = lower gun crimes.
D - Believe the type and number of guns should be limited for individual ownership - site statistics showing higher gun ownership = higher gun crimes.

Immigration:
R - Want tightly controlled immigration - see illegal immigration as a security risk. Realize need for fairly high immigration to meet job demands. Belive benefits for illegal immigrants are draining government funds.
D - Favor giving illegal immigrants right to health care, education, etc.

Health care:
R - Want limits on laws suits to slow health cost increases - favor free market health care system.
D - want limits on prices doctors and drug companies can charge - favor government -provided health care system.

Supreme Court:
R - Favor constructionist judges who believe the constitution should be interpretted strictly by what it says and what it meant when it was written so the only way to change it is to pass an ammendment.
D - Favor judges who interpret the constitution in light of today's standards so that interpretation can change with the times.

Social Security:
R - Favor allowing workers more control of a social security account to invest.
D - Believe government should take care of people more after they retire.

Taxes:
R - Favor reducing taxes as a means to boost economy. Claim government income increases after a tax reduction due to better economy.
D - Favor increasing taxes on higher income people to increase government income.

Welfare:
R - Believe in limited financial help for those in need. Favor job training assistance and financial assistance for a limited amount of time. Believe in keeping minimum wage low so employers are more likely to hire and train people and that employees who work hard won't stay at minimum wage if there is sufficient opportunity.
D - Believe increasing financial assistance for poor will improve their ability to help themselves. Favor increases in minimum wage to the point where it can support a family.


I think those are all of the major issues, but I may have missed a few. As to your question about the 2-party system: I suppose it would be possible for a third party to win a presidential election, but it would have to be one that captures the issues that cross party lines. For instance - there are many republicans who are economically conservative and socially liberal who may vote for a 3rd party candidate. Most people, however, tend to vote either Republican or Democrat because currently one of those two will win and many feel that voting for a political party with a relatively small number of supporters is tantamount to wasting their vote. Realistically, a largely 2-party system is the only way to ensure that a president will have a majority mandate, the support of the majority of people in the country. If there were 3 major parties, a president could be elected with only a little over 1/3rd of the vote, ensuring that 2/3rds of the population did not support him/her - that, in my opinion, would be worse.

The 2 major parties in the US have changed dramatically over the years. During WWII - democrats were more likely to vote engage in war, now republicans have taken on that role. Political views of President Kennedy, a democrat, were nearly identical to today's republican stance and only remotely similar to today's democrats. This makes it difficult to boil it down to core Republican and core Democrat beliefs. The closes I can come is this: Democrats tend to want things to change. Republicans tend to want things to stay the same.

Idaho

Good effort. I was going to quibble....but nah. By the way...you will be voting Bush won't you?
And welcome to A2K

Lol, those answers are a little biased to the right...

Cycloptichorn

That I'll bet was written by a conservative.



A liberal would not have claimed tax increases help workers, but would have reffered to some sort of government intervension. (which naturally requires funding)



Not misrepresented, but you can tell from the parentes that this was written by a republican.



If it had been written by a Democrat the parentes would have been inserted here, calculating the cost of lawsuits as a fraction of the cost of premiums.



Both sides favor judges who share their views. The Republicans, being conservative, claim that their wiews are more constructionist.



As for third parties... The US doesn't have runoff elections between the two most popular candidates. Running for president is not that much of a problem, but most people are unlikely to vote for a third party candidate because they almost never win.

If the liberal vote hadn't been split between Al Gore and Nader who ran on a similar platform in the last elections, Bush would have lost.

I would say that in general, that list is spot on.

Idaho made a great effort there, and I applaud you. I agree it's (slightly) biased for the Republicans, but so what? I think Idaho tried not to biased. It's a good analysis in all.


Often in American Presidential races, (I'm sure its the same everywhere) one often winds up voting AGAINST somebody rather than FOR somebody. People that vote for Kerry don't necessarily like Kerry, they just want anybody-but-Bush. And similarly, People that vote for Bush may not necessarily be avid Bush supporters, but find Kerry unpalatable as a candidate.

Re: A question from Russia on American presidential election
Idaho, your answers are very informative. I do really appreciate your explanation. Thank you very much for your efforts! (Now I can even have my own preference, if I were American ) Can Mr.Bush and Mr.Kerry be called “a Typical Republican” and “a Typical Democrat”?

In this connection can I ask another question: Do Democrats and Republicans have diverse “ranking of the problems” that now confront the USA? What is considered tolerable and what is seen as the most important challenge by different political factions represented by George Bush and John Kerry (or possibly someone else, if this opinion is taken into account).

As to the only two alternative parties, single ballot election commonly appear to promote 2-party systems, proportional polling (in parliamentary republics) encourage the existence of numerous political groups, while run-off vote leads to forming blocs and coalitions. On the other hand when candidates use party instruments it is not only a question of voters’ choice but also a matter of finance, support, influence etc. Unfortunately in Russia the lack of these resources prevents any alternative views from simply being communicated to the public though our electoral system is a mix of all the three types I have just enumerated. And it seems to me that the Democratic and the Republican parties together have a much longer history and are too powerful to let anyone who has interests in politics to do without them. Is it so?

How does that work?

Definitely all the three types cannot be combined in the same elections. In presidential and gubernatorial elections run-off polling is used. This second ballot system applies to the executive branch of the federal and local government (city mayors etc.) and this is a traditional way to poll from the Soviet times. However the lower chamber of the parliament is elected consistent with a mixed system of single ballot, where half of the deputies are elected in their districts, and proportional voting, where people vote for party lists and the other half of the seats are distributed among the political blocks in proportion to the number of votes received. But now all is going to be changed.

I have tried to put it into a nutshell as I seek to get some info on the American political tradition in this thread and discussing Russian electoral system here can be regarded as off-topic. Though if you still have queries I will answer you willingly.

Re: Okay, here's an attempt to answer your questions


I'm not american, but I'll try to answer as best I can.



Thats about it I think, Kerry very typical, and Bush slightly atypical. American posters might know more than me though.

Oh, and Bush has generally spent more money on everything than is typical for republicans, while giving abnormaly huge taxcuts as well, wich has resulted in a massive government deficit.



I think traditionally Republicans have focused more on foreign policy, cultural issues (abortion and gay marriage), immigration, crime and taxes, while Democrats have focused more on civil rights (which republicans consider a non issue), education, social security, health care, the environment and welfare. In this election however, the Democrats focus more on foreign policy than they usually do.

It would also appear that issues unrelated to politics recieve very much attention in this election.



I'll leave this one for the people who know what they are talking about.



You sort off already answered that question yourself.



If either there are two parties competing for votes right of center, than that will help the left of center party win, as there are no runoffs. Likewise if there are two parties left of center competing for votes, it increaces the chanses of the right of center party getting elected. People belonging to either half of the political landscape will therefore want their side to be united under a single party, and will suport the largest party their side of center. People wanting change tend to prefer trying to change the party their side of center from inside rather than run an independent campaign, a so called "spoiler campaign", which will usualy not acomplish anything but split the vote their side of center, and get the party furthest from their possition elected.

So, it's not about the parties, it's about the system.



No, that's alright, I got my question answered.

I don't believe you find any one person that fits this mold perfectly. What makes one favor one party over the other would be a majority leaning one way or another.

Most people are conservative financially, and liberal socially. A mixture of opinions on each of those issues.

Look what I found on another thread:

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm

That should answer most of your questions with respect to the candidates.

Einherjar, thank you very much for the information and especially for the web links. I have found them very helpful for everybody who wants to understand the political stance of both presidential candidates. Now the picture is clearer to me. I am impressed that being a Norwegian, you happen to know so many aspects of American politics.

Now I would like to address my question to those Americans who are going to vote for either Mr.Bush or Mr.Kerry. It is not entirely about promises that were expressly given by the candidates. I am just wondering what PEOPLE are expecting and want to be done, changed and otherwise preserved if each of the candidates is elected president. If somebody consciously chooses to not vote, I will also appreciate if they can give their reasons for doing so.

What percentage of Americans usualy go to the polls?

Many thanks to all those who will take time to answer.

The American political scene has always been dominated by two political parties, but they have not always been the ones we have today. The Whig party was replaced in the mid 19th century by the Republican party - the Whigs slowly declined and died while the Republicans grew rapidly, mostly over the issue of slavery which they opposed, Since our civil war our politics has been dominated by Democrat and Republican parties, but there have been, and still are several other very small Parties - Socialist, Libertarian (for many years we even had a Communist Party, but it never got many votes).

Thirty years ago the party organizations themselves selected their candidates. Increasingly the states have public elections at which any voter who declares himself to be a member of one party or the other can vote in the "primary" election to select the party's candidates. A subsequent election determines the wimmer. This system has diminished the power of the official party organizations but still leaves us with two principal alternatives from which to choose.

Our system is a derivative of the British tradition - not very abstract, but practical and adaptable to evolutionary change. The French have been a bit more abstract and have sought a rather high degree of logical perfection in the design of their system. I note however that they are now on their sixth republic and constitution, while ours persists.

Ourt system is very disorderly and when viewed up close appears to be - and truly is - full of defects. However in the large it has worked well. One of its saving features is the division of power between President, Congress, and Judiciary. The more energy government expends fighting within itself, the less harm it can do the public. Americans are oddly patriotic, but at the same time very suspicious of their own governments.

How do the evolving attitudes of Russians towards their new and still evolving politicasl system compare to those described here? Our histories couldn't be more different, and yet we have much in common - both huge countries on opposite sides of the Western World with diverse populations and a strong sense of our individuality.

Bookmark for later. Welcome to A2K SerSo!

Never heard about American Whigs before. This is why I like A2K: one can always find something new and interesting. Who were they beside the other parties?

Eastern Germany used to have many parties (Christian Democrats etc.). I even heard there are parties in North Korea. I have no intention to compare USA with these regimes, I only mean any group can be called a party, but a real political party is the one that is able to be in power.

On the other hand the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not a party in the proper sense. I would say it was a government institution or a political instrument.