Elections.

[Technosoul]

Why do you think the last election, and the upcoming elections appear to be such close calls? In the past we had some clear cut landslides. Now it seems almost 50-50 as polls lean a tiny bit one way. How can we have representation for all the people if 48 percent do not like the one representing them? Should we have two Americas and each half can have thier own Presdent? Fat chance of that happening.

But anyway, why do both parties seem to have the same amount of people as the other one?

Any ideas about that?

[tusaki]

The theory is that in a 2 party system, both of the parties will adjust their policies so to attract as many voters as possible. Let's say you put all of the issues on a left/right graph. There is a golden middle. 1 party sits a little on the left of the golden middle, the other a little on the right. This way, both attract as many voters as possible. The idea is that no matter who wins, the ideas of the majority are always somewhat supported. This could explain the 50/50 elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

The two-party system's defenders argue that it produces more stable governance than multiparty systems, because coalition is highly unlikely to occur with two parties dominating. it keeps 'undesirable' extremist parties out of power, like the British National Party (which most Brits perceive to be racist) in the United Kingdom. uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies are non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly; though there is some controversy as to whether this is an advantage. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents suggest that it enhances stability while allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential. it gives a more transparent choice to voters: coalitions are created internally before the election rather than externally after it; it is easier to judge whether an elected government has delivered its promises since it cannot blame component parties' diversity for failure. the dynamics of a two party system drives both parties' policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining distinctive enough to motivate their core support. and even that two party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, are less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars. Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of the two-party system argue variously that: stability is not desirable in itself. the two-party system produces stable governments, rather than stable democracy, and the latter is what should be desired. two-party systems are not intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, which has a multi-party system through proportional representation. The two-party system is also criticised for the following flaws: Candidates are motivated to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party) and staking out only those positions that are necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent and not constructive or beneficial to citizens. If the opposition party is weak, a dominant-party system may develop. Debate in the assembly of the country can often be adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to important legislation, especially reforms, being blocked that may be beneficial for the country. The system is more easily corrupted by campaign contributions since there are fewer players to donate to. In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party's platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics' minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a "Republicrat." The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the "biggest pile of votes wins" system) are also criticised because: Most electors are forced to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice. Smaller parties will be unrepresented: they will not receive a number of seats in the country's assembly that reflect the number of votes received for them (and therefore the amount of support for them). Some argue that this is undemocratic, as citizens who vote for small parties should be represented fairly. Smaller parties often represent unconventional or 'alternative' (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of this ideology. It can be argued that in a democracy, all ideologies should be fairly represented. Larger parties will benefit from being overrepresented; some argue this is undemocratic.

[Scribbler1]

It could also be that the elections are rigged from the start.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that regardless of the mood of the country the votes are almost always around 50-50 with a miniscule portion of the vote going to "third parties". The two parties seem to be deliberately run in direct opposition to each other (to give each political side a favorite) yet they seem to change very little of the way things are run when they get a majority in Congress. When the public is angry about something, they are always appeased by some "feel good" yet meaningless legislation or other change which one side take the credit for, while anything bad is always blamed on the other. This can only be accomplished when the "good" and "bad" parties are essentially equal in size, giving the appearance that YOUR side fought the good fight to bring goodness and niceness to the country in spite of the nasty old "bad" party.

Plus, as I've often said, who REALLY knows which votes are cast for which candidate? When you speak with other Americans, most will complain about the government, but they seem to keep the same people in power every time. Are the majority of Americans THAT STUPID (as I believe), or are the Democrat and Republican parties really both sides of the same coin? When you screw up as often as our fearless leaders do, the chance is good that eventually the people might just wise up enough to replace you, unless you ensure your continued power by cooking the books on election day.

They CAN rig the whole process, because they ARE the process, and it would be stupid to NOT use everything at your disposal to guarantee your survival.

[castille]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, It could also be that the elections are rigged from the start. Doesn't it strike you as odd that regardless of the mood of the country the votes are almost always around 50-50 with a miniscule portion of the vote going to "third parties".

No, it does not strike me as odd.

In most stable countries, this generally happens. Mainstream parties represent mainstream thought, while "third parties" generally focus on extremist thought.

Those of you who know history might remember that the few times when people DID flock to the "third parties" was during times of instability. Even in Weimer Germany, people still supported the mainstream party (SDP), although a good portion did support the third parties (NSDAP or the Nazis, KPD, etc).

[Technosoul]

I sometimes think that people vote for the best escape goat, they want someone kinda stupid as a leader because then they do not have to be responsible for all their own problems as they can point the finger at the leader. If they voted in a really smart guy or woman as President and had bright minded people in Congress, and if they ran the government smoothly and put forth the right policy then who could we blame for our personal budget missmanagment, or how we allowed things to go downhill in our own nieghborhood by not getting involved in the community?

However, the idea that both canidates are trying to be middle of road moderates has brought them too close to give voters much of a gap to pull them totally towards the far side they are on their self. For example both canidates say their think the war in Iraq is justified but they differ a little bit on how they would have conducted such a war. So those who just don't think the war was okay have no one to vote for. We have the vice President agreeing with Kerry about gays, that it should be left up to local states, where as Bush wants to take federal action. So if Republicans cannot agree with each other about a topic then how important is it that democrats might agree with Dick and not George? It is still like just one party where members have different opinions about some of the smaller details but stand united in oneness, what's up with that? It would confuse voters.

Roy Masters (radio talk show host) once said "show me a 5o-50 marriage and I will show you a hen-pecked man"... hmmmm?

Show me a 5o-5o Congress and I will show you a President that cannot be in charge. I think that might have something to do with it, we do not really think a canidate can take charge of the head-of-household because we want both opinions to agree. If pop wants a green car and mom wants a red car they end up with a yellowish brown car, a middle-color no one really liked.

I don't know, my observation might be a little abstract for some readers here. Trying to please everyone can make them all mad at you for taking sides.

Technosoul.

[Bob]

A FIX FOR THE ELECTION SYSTEM THE 51% SOLUTION

"Elect" means, to choose. And people naturally like to choose between two things, at least finally. Maybe it is childish and maybe it is practical, but it is more natural than choosing between a dozen things right off the bat.

We live in a binary universe in many, many ways, so it is natural for people to divide that way. Those who argue for a multi party system, are asking for trouble and they mostly get it.

I don't consider Germany to be very stable. Only the presence of American troops occupying them to this very day, keeps them stable, as far as I can see.

It the perpetual malcontents that want more voices heard. To satisfy them I think the Constitution could be amended to include a primary in which all parties could run, and a general election in which just two would run.

One reason this was not done is that the first GW didn't want any parties at all, and so made no provision for their running in elections as such.

This amendment would give all the blow-hards and crazies a chance to debate, and appear, and be noticed to their hearts content, without disturbing the fundamental basis of our stability and success.

Say in September we would have this primary, debates and all, and then put it out of our mind as we steamed toward November with the two surviving parties. It would stimulate all kinds of interest of people who now CLAIM bitterly they are left out of the system.

I call this my 51% Solution, and have heard of no one who has ever proposed it. All Federally elected people would also run in this same primary. Thus, no one would ever be elected with less than 50% plus one. This should satisfy a lot of incessant complaining over nothing.

This solution is used in countless states and localities, Mayors typically, and there is no reason it couldn't work nationally.