How Did The Democrats And Republicans Choose Their Positions?

[m52nickerson]

If you watch different sources of media, you can tell the difference. I haven't watched mainstream cable news(other than PBS) in years, because it's all bs, look at how CNN called the VP debate for Paul Ryan, when it wasn't clearly the case.

So are commenting on something you have not watched in years?  Lets think about that for a second.

CNN and its commentators called it for Ryan.  That is called an opinion.  MSNBC called it for Biden, CBS and NBC did not outright call the debate but talked about how Biden dominated on foreign policy and did a overall better job that Ryan had in getting major points across.

How is the avenge joe suppose to run for office if he's barely able to keep a roof over his head, and the only people in this country that run office seem to have a shit load of $$$ money laying around. If you don't have connections to the big shits in this country, you're nobody. If we had some decent campaign reform this could change, but until then that's a fucking fantasy

They start local that is how.  No it is not easy, but it is possible.  Even more so now with the internet being a good way to get yourself out there.  Jimmy McMillan comes to mind.

[nickiknack]

I've seen enough clips to know how downhill it has gone, The 24 hour news cycle is more opinion than fact, with fluff thrown in. That's not news, or facts, and that is what people are feed day in and day out. Turn on BBC America, turn on PBS, and you're get news, with little opinion.

[Undecided]

ltfred, you made this argument:

The theorem isn't really operative in the US context, is it? One party is a little to the right of the median voter, and the other is far to the right of the median voter (but better organised, more effective propagandists, ect). In fact, policy views have little impact on American voting pattern (ref; what's the matter with Kansas?).

I want to elaborate on the following later statements.

There's voters and there's people who stay home and don't vote.

In the political realm non-voters might as well not be part of the country.  A person can protest, scream and yell all they like but unless they vote those elected to office will not care. 

I think that the theorem remains applicable: the two-party system represents the median voter, not the median citizen.

It's true that a majority of the U.S. leans to the left on issues like, e.g., healthcare and same-sex marriage (although sometimes the truth of this statement tends to "fluctuate" with the wording of the poll). However, people who lean to the left are less likely to be active in politics—and to vote—and conversely unlikely voters are more likely to lean to the left.

These people believe that their vote doesn't matter because no matter what they do, nothing seems to change. Ironically, if they all voted (and if politicians *knew* they were going to vote), the inclusion of their preferences would shift the median to the left, which would be exactly the drastic revision of the political landscape that they want so badly to see.

Some numbers

Also how do you except people to vote, if all they see in politicans is two sides of the same coin?? Because I know many people IRL and online, that see politicans in that light. I don't blame them, because I know first hand how to be jaded as fuck, that's why I've had it with the 2 mainstream parties more or less.

But the two major parties are not the same. Because they exhibit different positions, ultimately everybody is better represented by one than by the other. The nature of the voting system then dictates that each person vote for this major party, rather than vote for a minor party or not vote at all.

[TheReasonator]

Would it really be the median voter?

What if you have opinions on all issues but realistically you will only vote on one of them?

Or more complex let's say you consider all of them but to varying degrees.

Wouldn't "median voter of X issue" be more accurate and wouldn't that shift in complex ways depending on what your party has as the other issues?

[m52nickerson]

I've seen enough clips to know how downhill it has gone, The 24 hour news cycle is more opinion than fact, with fluff thrown in. That's not news, or facts, and that is what people are feed day in and day out. Turn on BBC America, turn on PBS, and you're get news, with little opinion.

Yes there is a lot more opinion thrown in.  Places like PBS, NPR and the BBC are still primarily news sources but even they will have analysts on who give opinion.  Even with that the there are only a few sources that are right leaning.

The only place that right wing opinion dominate is talk radio.  It does because US conservatives seem to enjoy the massive circle jerk that is listening to it for them.  There is not very many left leaning people I know that want that kind of thing.  Most seek out factually news and unbiased opinions.

[Lt. Fred]

ltfred, you made this argument:

The theorem isn't really operative in the US context, is it? One party is a little to the right of the median voter, and the other is far to the right of the median voter (but better organised, more effective propagandists, ect). In fact, policy views have little impact on American voting pattern (ref; what's the matter with Kansas?).

I want to elaborate on the following later statements.

There's voters and there's people who stay home and don't vote.

In the political realm non-voters might as well not be part of the country.  A person can protest, scream and yell all they like but unless they vote those elected to office will not care. 

I think that the theorem remains applicable: the two-party system represents the median voter, not the median citizen.

Three points:

1) You've mixed up cause and effect. The reason lefties don't vote is that the Democrats don't give a shit, not the other way around.
2) It's stupid for a political party to assume that sort of voting behaviour is fixed, just like it's stupid to assume any voting behaviour is fixed. If you're leftier, you will get more lefty votes.
3) Democratic policy is still to the right (or at least not to the left of) the median VOTER as they currently exist. The median voter believes in Medicare, a 60+% majority can't be explained away by low lefty turn-out. Nevertheless, the Democrats do not.

[TheReasonator]

ltfred, you made this argument:

The theorem isn't really operative in the US context, is it? One party is a little to the right of the median voter, and the other is far to the right of the median voter (but better organised, more effective propagandists, ect). In fact, policy views have little impact on American voting pattern (ref; what's the matter with Kansas?).

I want to elaborate on the following later statements.

There's voters and there's people who stay home and don't vote.

In the political realm non-voters might as well not be part of the country.  A person can protest, scream and yell all they like but unless they vote those elected to office will not care. 

I think that the theorem remains applicable: the two-party system represents the median voter, not the median citizen.

Three points:

1) You've mixed up cause and effect. The reason lefties don't vote is that the Democrats don't give a shit, not the other way around.
2) It's stupid for a political party to assume that sort of voting behaviour is fixed, just like it's stupid to assume any voting behaviour is fixed. If you're leftier, you will get more lefty votes.
3) Democratic policy is still to the right (or at least not to the left of) the median VOTER as they currently exist. The median voter believes in Medicare, a 60+% majority can't be explained away by low lefty turn-out. Nevertheless, the Democrats do not.

What about people who believe in universal health care but want to vote for Romney anyways because they dislike abortion or teh gay?

[m52nickerson]

1) Lefties could vote for other parties, like the Green party.
2) Until the parties see a change in voting behavior they will not change.
3) You are wrong because you are looking at a single issue and low voter turnout for lefties can explain why the parties are to the left and right of the median voter and not the median citizen.

[TheReasonator]

1) Lefties could vote for other parties, like the Green party.
2) Until the parties see a change in voting behavior they will not change.
3) You are wrong because you are looking at a single issue and low voter turnout for lefties can explain why the parties are to the left and right of the median voter and not the median citizen.

Number 1 is a good point.

If enough people come out and vote BUT they are voting Green instead of for Obama, especially if as a result Obama lost this would encourage the Democrat Party as a whole to shift its policies to the left. Though if he lost there could be a backlash of people wanting to avoid third party voting in the next election making it safer for the Democrats to move to the right. If he won but just barely and even lost a few states due to the Green vote then you'd see the Democrats sliding their platform further left.

[ironbite]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ironbite-you think the Green Party matters...how adorable.

[Undecided]

1) Lefties could vote for other parties, like the Green party.
2) Until the parties see a change in voting behavior they will not change.
3) You are wrong because you are looking at a single issue and low voter turnout for lefties can explain why the parties are to the left and right of the median voter and not the median citizen.

Number 1 is a good point.

If enough people come out and vote BUT they are voting Green instead of for Obama, especially if as a result Obama lost this would encourage the Democrat Party as a whole to shift its policies to the left. Though if he lost there could be a backlash of people wanting to avoid third party voting in the next election making it safer for the Democrats to move to the right. If he won but just barely and even lost a few states due to the Green vote then you'd see the Democrats sliding their platform further left.

This never happens. In the U.S.'s winner-takes-all system, voting for a minor party is the same as not voting, because minor parties can't win. Because voters for minor parties are essentially excluded from consideration, voting for a minor party actually makes it less likely that one's preferences will be reflected in government. Occasionally, voters neglect to take other voters' preferences into consideration, resulting in the spoiler effect. As for your example, you'll recall that Ralph Nader was a spoiler in Florida in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.

[m52nickerson]

This never happens. In the U.S.'s winner-takes-all system, voting for a minor party is the same as not voting, because minor parties can't win. Because voters for minor parties are essentially excluded from consideration, voting for a minor party actually makes it less likely that one's preferences will be reflected in government. Occasionally, voters neglect to take other voters' preferences into consideration, resulting in the spoiler effect. As for your example, you'll recall that Ralph Nader was a spoiler in Florida in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.

That is all well and good when it comes to the President.  Everything else, federal, state, and local are winner by simple majority votes.  The Green party does have a number of members in local governments.

[Lt. Fred]

It's virtually impossible for a poor third party to win a single seat in a single-member electorate system. It can only happen if for some reason they get a lot of media attention or due to some other freak accident like a high-profile candidate (eg: Florida, 2000). This is why nobody BOTHERS to vote for them. The 'do something for me to win my vote 'effect works just as well if you don't vote at all, so why bother?

I also note that m52nickerson is basically arguing that political parties don't (shouldn't?) try to win elections. Right.

Moving on to more serious people:

What about people who believe in universal health care but want to vote for Romney anyways because they dislike abortion or teh gay?

A good point. So the Democrats should take a position somewhere to the left of the median American on gay marriage (which they have) and somewhere to the left on abortion (again, yep) and somewhere to the left on health insurance...

Hmmm.

[m52nickerson]

It's virtually impossible for a poor third party to win a single seat in a single-member electorate system. It can only happen if for some reason they get a lot of media attention or due to some other freak accident like a high-profile candidate (eg: Florida, 2000). This is why nobody BOTHERS to vote for them. The 'do something for me to win my vote 'effect works just as well if you don't vote at all, so why bother?

The whole argument is that he people on the left that don't vote at all because they don't like the Dems could vote Green, or some other party.  So while it might be hard for a third party to win a Senate seat, they could very well win a House seat, and have won local elections.  It is not impossible.

I also note that m52nickerson is basically arguing that political parties don't (shouldn't?) try to win elections. Right.

...and when did I say that?

[Lt. Fred]

It's virtually impossible for a poor third party to win a single seat in a single-member electorate system. It can only happen if for some reason they get a lot of media attention or due to some other freak accident like a high-profile candidate (eg: Florida, 2000). This is why nobody BOTHERS to vote for them. The 'do something for me to win my vote 'effect works just as well if you don't vote at all, so why bother?

The whole argument is that he people on the left that don't vote at all because they don't like the Dems could vote Green, or some other party.  So while it might be hard for a third party to win a Senate seat, they could very well win a House seat, and have won local elections.  It is not impossible.

Your response is refuted in the section you responded to.

I also note that m52nickerson is basically arguing that political parties don't (shouldn't?) try to win elections. Right.

...and when did I say that?
[/quote]

2) Until the parties see a change in voting behavior they will not change.

Certainly an interesting case to make.