Pacific Standard is running an article that suggests that the tendency for the current ruling party to lose House or Senate seats in mid-term, has little to do with politics or the loss of faith in the party in power.
Citing an article by Lynn Vavreck, a Professor at UCLA, research of voters switching their allegiance in midterms found about 6% for either party actually switched. Usually this means the ruling party loses more votes to switching because 6% of a big number is more than 6% of a smaller number. But that isn't typically enough to cause House or Senate seats to change hands.
However, the same study indicated the ruling party voters tends to play hooky in midterms at a much higher rate (28% in recent years) compared to the other parties (17%).
So congressional seat losses are due more to boredom and over confidence of the ruling party than any actual dissatisfaction and voter revolt.
Midterms typically show 20 percent lower turn out than presidential elections, and it's been that way for decades. The moderate voters tend to sit out midterms, leaving the contest to more polarized voters.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by prospectacle on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:41PM
They create a caricatured, good vs evil view of political parties, and they close people's minds to the complex questions and range of possible positions on any given issue.
In reasonable voters who see the problem, a two party system creates a sense of apathy and defeatism ("Why bother voting when they're all the same?"), and for members of the ruling parties, it makes compromise into a weakness, and dishonest slander into a virtue.
Over time a people internalise this system and believe it to be the only, or even the best way a democracy can work. Discussing these flaws therefore becomes as pointless as complaining that plate-tectonics causes earthquakes and volcanoes.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:02PM
I do agree with this view. Here in South Carolina, the two party system means being a Democrat has no value in the state or local elections. Being predominantly republican, voting for a democrat typically is a losing vote. I still cast it, but there is not sense of vested interest other than exercising my franchise. Even sadder, I cannot even consider "helping" the republican party for the choices (again, speaking for SC) are either extreme zealotry found in the Tea Party movement or just plain stupidity in the establishment. I have yet to hear one SC republican speak from a traditional republican conservative viewpoint.
That we could have a multi-party system that didn't make my vote all or nothing. And for those who say vote libertarian, Green, or some other is missing the point that the current system makes that worse than a lost vote. Till we can officially most off a two party system we will be stuck voting for the best of the worst and trying to keep the extremists out of public office.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by subs on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:12PM
The two-party system isn't the reason the American political scene is so caricatured, it's a consequence of the US using the worst of all possible ballot systems: first past the post (aka "winner takes all"). It is a system that inevitably, invariably, mathematically over time leads to a two-party system and never ever leaves it (it's dynamically self-stabilizing).
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:00PM
I agree that the two-party syndrome is mostly caused by the voting system that's in place, and that the solution (as simple as it is difficult) is to change to a better type of ballot. There are many options to choose from. Some are better than others, but few are worse than first past the post.
Still I maintain that a two party system, whatever its cause, is a problem in itself. It promotes a bitter and twisted political climate that makes honest debates almost impossible.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @06:44PM
I agree, its the two-party system at fault here, not the lack some flashy voting system-of-the-week someone learned about in a Ted Talk.
In a multi-party system, voters have to get use to the idea that their favorite minority party will, necessarily, have to join coalitions from time to time and issue to issue. Tolerance is nurtured, compromise is respected.
That may come naturally in places like Australia with something like 9 or 10 "non vanishingly small" political parties, but it doesn't come naturally here or even in Canada.
If we weren't so polarized and propagandized into believing that anything my party does is good and anything else is bad, we could probably accommodate more parties. We'd get used to supporting a party that held a few points of view very dear, and formed flexible and changing coalitions on topics that were held less dearly.
If you look at a list of political parties in various countries [nationmaster.com] you will not notice any clearly discernible pattern of "good government" being associated with high or low numbers of political parties.
But once you fall below 5 parties you tend to become more polarized.
Side issue:
Some of the damage was done when Senators became popularly elected, instead of appointed by the States. That was actually a brilliant feature of the original constitution [wikipedia.org]. States mattered. If some group wanted something pushed through congress, they had to sell it to the people of EACH state, rather than bribing one political party.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday July 17 2014, @05:18AM
The problems with the Senators being appointed by the States was corruption where the rich simply bought senate seats so rather then the senator from state A you had the railroad senator. There was also a problem with states not being able to agree to any senator. It was a good idea though as really the upper house needs to be different then the lower house, ideally not elected so they don't have to worry about being re-elected and can give second thought to whatever the lower elected house comes up with.
There are a few problems with the American democratic system. Obvious ones like allowing the politicians to draw electoral boundaries which leads to gerrymandering. All elections held on the same day which leads to people voting one ticket rather then considering all the different positions as well as leading to parties that exist on all levels of government. As a Canadian I find that the weirdest, my municipality has different parties from my province which mostly has different parties from federal and excepting the municipal elections, I usually vote for one candidate rather then a slate. Unluckily our politicians have been studying the American system and incorporating the worse aspects including being fiercely partisan.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 17 2014, @08:31AM
The problems with the Senators being appointed by the States was corruption where the rich simply bought senate seats so rather then the senator from state A you had the railroad senator.
So, same shit, different day you say?
Having to buy an entire state legislature couldn't be any less expensive than financing a campaign, but it might be more visible in today's world.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday July 18 2014, @05:10AM
As I also said, the States appointing Senators was a good idea which had its own problems. Unluckily direct elections also has problems. Perhaps the best solution would be to allow the States to choose Senators how ever they want. Elect them, appoint them or even have a lottery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:31PM
isn't the reason
Here's 1 big reason.[1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [ca.gov]
If you scroll down past Yuba County to the Statewide totals, it's really depressing.
Barely 1 in 4 registered voters bothered to make the effort to make their opinions known on anything.
In Los Angeles County (the most populous county in the state), it was barely 1 in 6.
In San Bernardino County (the largest county in the USA by land mass), it was hardly any better.
...and there's folks who don't bother to register.
.
I agree with those who note that if a country is truly interested in democracy, they have instituted Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Voting).
USA gov't talks a good game, but in the end it's clear it's all about Oligarchy.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Informative) by Lazarus on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:45PM
Republicans really have evil beliefs and policies, but that's mostly because they've been pandering to crazy right-wing religious extremists for so long that they've driven everyone who's both smart and well-meaning out of the party. The Democrats certainly aren't good, but they're not completely delusional like Republicans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Wednesday July 16 2014, @03:24PM
That's funny. I know some people who say the exact same thing... except they switch the Republican and Democrat stuff around from what you have.
When I hear something like you just said ("Both sides are bad but one side is worse"), I can't help but shake my head. All of those nut jobs in office want you focus on the polarization instead of what they do as individuals. Until we completely stop discussing anything party related and start talking about individuals, the craziness will continue. Start ending the cycle by not saying one party is worse than another. 99% of the politicians (on both sides) are equally as bad: they want to screw the little man so badly that they are willing to destroy our society.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday July 16 2014, @03:34PM
This kind of logic has been used for thousands of years to justify all kinds of terrible evil.
The Simpsons did a great job summing the whole situation up many years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @06:56PM
Here too bespeaks a problem with handling of social issues in America.
Seriously! Stop posting a a reference to a FRIGGIN CARTOON in a serious discussion, and holding that up as a teaching point, while totally failing to realize the whole cartoon was written by people in big media pushing a specific point of view.
You are not 12 anymore. Stop looking for insight in cartoons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:21PM
I'm sorry. I did not realize that it was impossible to make any sort of serious political commentary via a cartoon. For some reason, I was under the impression that we had been making political cartoons in America since the 1750s. Where in the world did a get a crazy idea like that?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:32PM
Even if it were a mature thing to do, you fail to realize how biased your source is [wikipedia.org] yet you seem to suggest to us that is serves as a teaching moment for everyone. Why not simply post a link to the Charter of the Democratic party? It would be more honest.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:48PM
You have jumped to some crazy conclusions, my friend.
I was not holding up the Simpsons as some wonderful bastion of truth and insight in politics. Actually, I disagree with a lot of the political commentary on the show. It's a comedy show. No one should base their political views on any show that exists purely for entertainment. (I also think people who take the Daily Show or the Colbert Report as anything other than entertainment are foolish.) However, that doesn't mean that these various programs are incapable of making valid points once in a while.
One of the REAL problems in politics is when people ignore what is being said and instead attack WHO is saying it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:45PM
Stop posting a a reference to a FRIGGIN CARTOON in a serious discussion
You would like to be taken seriously, but sometimes you're just silly.
Paul Conrad: 3 Pulitzers [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by tynin on Wednesday July 16 2014, @09:39PM
I would argue that all art forms are a perfectly valid medium to spread an idea or thought. Further, you dictating the form a discussion must take makes you appear brutish. Even if the art comes from a source you disagree with, generally that doesn't mean you disagree with 100% of their points. Learning to listen what your opposition presents without bringing your own perceived biases out so quickly might just be helpful for you, as well as everyone else who makes strong declaratives in the realm of opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17 2014, @06:10AM
I agree, "Oblig. XKCD" is the worst of all.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:15PM
Brass collar voters are also dumb.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:56PM
I tend not to vote for incumbents on general principle, unless there is some issue that I actually care about.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @08:11PM
Reminds me of an old sig I saw, probably on the green site:
Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reasons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nishi.b on Wednesday July 16 2014, @11:44PM
I do not believe this is due to "to boredom and over confidence". I am not from the US, but here a lot of people who are disappointed by the party they voted for just don't go to vote in the next election. They don't want to vote for another party, because the other potential winners are even worse in their opinion. In fact in recent vote analyses, it was shown that most of the time when party 1 wins instead of party 2, it is very little about people changing parties, but about party 2 voters not voting at all, being disappointed with their party of choice.