Asymmetrical Information

I guess what I don't undertsand is why anyone whose concern is taxes would prefer Republicans. Wasn't it Milton Friedman who said to spend is to tax? As Mankiw and so many others on the right have noticed Bush did not cut taxes he simply deferred them. In fact he raised future taxes with the increases in Medicare spending.

I assume you've see the Arnold Kling proposal

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100506C

Vote for whoever you want, but be sure to vote.

As I said at the debate I was in last night: who does the average American fear more--the FBI or the IRS? The local zoning board, or the NSA? What does he fear more: the ten commandments on the wall of his child's school, or having the new addition to the house disallowed by the zoning board, the EPA, or the Americans with Disabilities act? On what does he spend more time: preparing his taxes, earning the money to pay for them, and arguing with the various tax authorities about what he owes . . . or checking for roving wiretaps?

Awesome.

Only criminals have anything to worry about these violations of civil liberties. If the NSA/FBI/CIA/IRS/whomever wants to creep through all my bank accounts, wants to audit my IRA and income tax statements, wants to listen in to my cellphone converations with our day care provider, feel free. My life is an open book. I just don't want the government to tell me that I can't finish that construction project in my yard. They can stand just outside my yard and watch our every move to their heart's content.

In the end, neither party is for small or less intrusive government. Politicians didn't go through all that effort to get elected just to sit there! They want to rule, they want to impose their will, often with good intentions, on other people. They want to make sure you don't eat the wrong foods or make a mistake with your retirement funds or sleep with someone you shouldn't or accept a wage they think is too low.

Historically, I would tell people "If I were gay, or single with a casual attitude about birth control, I would certainly vote Democrat. Running my own business, though, I have to vote Republican." Democrats have historically done far more than Republicans to make an entrepeneurs' life miserable. And succesful business people know that they are the evil milch cow that must fund the Democrats "compassion"

Today, though, this crappy set of choices has gotten worse. Democrats are much more likely nowadays to meddle in your personal life -- you've got the food nazis and the smoking nazis and Democrats have been right up there with Republicans supporting the failed war on drugs and silly crusades against video game violence. And Republicans have given up on excersing any control over government spending or regulatory expansion. They've effectively given up on free trade, and have failed to follow up on any of the libertarianish initiatives (e.g. social security reform) they promised in their election campaigns. All we get is a new Berlin Wall on our southern border.

Glad to see I am not the only protest voting for Democrats on the national level this year. It won't make a bit a difference where I live in the state of Idaho, but you never know.

So do any of you who are voting for the straight Democrat ticket as a "protest" try to support more free-market candidates in the primary? Like the Club for Growth? Do you plan on voting against RINOs, or also against Republicans who really favor reduction in taxes and spending (there are some). How do envision your protest vote making this country better off in the long run?

PJ O'Rourke made a similar argument when he asked: what do you spend more time on: worshipping idols your neighbors abhor, or using your credit card?

But in fairness, building codes and zoning come from a different part of the govenrment than tax and securities law. I don't know of any reason to think that Republican county councils are better about building permits than Democrats.

Coyote nailed it; "...neither party is for small or less intrusive government."

The way I see it, voting to make my life better makes about as much sense as praying that those darks clouds up ahead don't rain on me. Voting and praying don't do anywhere near as much good as working, studying, taking care of my family, and wearing a raincoat. I may at some point resort to voting and/or praying, but only if all else fails.

Elections like this (and the difficulty of realigning coalitions in a two-party system) are why we ought to have a multi-party legislature via Proportional Representation.

(which is not the same as a Parliamentary system, before somebody predictably makes the mistake of confusing them)

However, I will do so because our feckless, spendthrift Republican congress deserves to lose, not because I think the Democrats deserve to win.

I don't get this, and never have. "Deserving" has nothing to do with anything. There are two parties. One of them is, in your opinion, relatively better than the other. Therefore, you will vote for that party.

Why not just say that?

BTW - I enjoyed the "debate" last night - the part of it I saw, at least. You have far more patience than I ever would. I thought it was a bit funny that they stuck everyone way in the back among the stacks of textbooks - it didn't make for the easiest place to view the event. They didn't have a nice area for such things such as the Union Square B&N 4th Floor?

You'll send the same message by just staying home... Like me, in a swing state...

Isn't this just a variation on the :"If you're Really a Nader-ite, vote "Democrat"" ?

And, "Vote "Democrat", so "you don't "throw away" your Vote."" ?-- Themes(?)

The belief that there are operative differences between (D) & (R) belongs in the same book where one would find the story of: "Jack & The Beanstalk", and other favorites of the same genre`.

To the poster, above, who submits: "My life is an open book, for all to see...only "those breaking the Law have anything to Fear..."---Why are you posting in the "anonymous"?

Alternatively, I'd like to see run-off elections.
Then people would feel a lot more free to vote for third party candidates, knowing that they'd still get a chance to choose between the top two vote getters. I wonder how the 2000 and 2004 elections would have looked then. There wouldn't be any argument about, for instance whether Nader cost Gore the election.

I guess what I don't undertsand is why anyone whose concern is taxes would prefer Republicans. Wasn't it Milton Friedman who said to spend is to tax? As Mankiw and so many others on the right have noticed Bush did not cut taxes he simply deferred them. In fact he raised future taxes with the increases in Medicare spending.

Correct that spending = taxes. However, some of think that Democrats would have (had they been in power) spent far more on, e.g., prescription drugs, than did the Republicans. Indeed, if you look at their plan, it was far more expensive than Republicans. So if I weigh the relative levels of spending, at least on prescription drugs, the Republicans are relatively better.

"Libertarian Democrat" is as oxymoronic as "Libertarian Republican". However, until now, Democrats didn't try to lie about their libertarianism, or lack thereof, to get my vote.

It seems crazy, but here in Montana, the Democratic senatorial candidate is running on a platform of limited government and fiscal responsibility whereas the Republican is saying (almost literally) "Re-elect me because I'm really, really good at bringing home the Pork."

I don't doubt for a moment that the Democrat is lying, but this still shows how low the Republican Party has sunk!

It comes down to whether you believe rhetoric or actions. The fact of the matter is that the centrist wing of the Democratic party (e.g. Bill Clinton) will spend less than the crazies running the Republicans these days. How long are people going to fall for the trick of lowering taxes while raising spending? You've got to pick one and, as someone pointed out upthread, it's not too common for government to lower spending. Might as well pick the party that's not going to take us into debt to do it.

The belief that there are operative differences between (D) & (R) belongs in the same book where one would find the story of: "Jack & The Beanstalk", and other favorites of the same genre`.

Okay, everybody who thinks that we'd be in Iraq if Gore were elected in 2000 raise your hand. Now everybody who thinks government would have been bigger overall if Gore had won raise your hand.

Ok, no hands? Vote Democratic.

fact of the matter is that the centrist wing of the Democratic party (e.g. Bill Clinton) will spend less than the crazies running the Republicans these days.

Two points:

1) How much will the crazies running the Democrats these days spend? I note in passing that Bill Clinton is not currently occupying any elective office.

2) Bill Clinton faced a Republican majority in Congress for 3/4 of his term. Any possibility that that might have restrained his spending a teensy bit? I seem to recall something about single-payer health care from 1993 that was not, shall we say, a model of fiscal restraint.

I'm curious why people like Megan, Paul, or anyone really, bother to vote. Surely you know that your vote won't affect the outcome of an election. The hour or so of your time it takes to vote is worth in excess of $100. Do you believe your return on voting will exceed that? Since it can't be economics that motivates your behavior, what is it?

I have nothing but respect for Mark Thoma (I took a class from him once, he's a very good professor), but: "I believe that, for the most part, the people in government are well-intentioned and dedicated." is a damn silly thing to believe.

Jane,

I can hardly fault your decision to vote against the current Republican leadership in the most pronounced way possible, although I'm not sure how votng Democratic will encourage them to shift to a less interventionist stance. That said, as a fellow New Yorker, I'm not really sure how, our nominally Republican mayor aside, the Democrats are somehow more libertarian on non-economic issues than the Republicans. Which party is pushing hardest to ban smoking? Which party is most eager to control our diets? In New York, which party do you have more to fear from in terms of removing libarary books: the Republicans taking away that satan-worshipping Harry Potter, or the Democrats taking away that racist Huckleberry Finn? Which party is more inclined to tell you what you can do to defend yourself? Which party is more likely to be hostile to even the idea of home schooling? I mean you can cite abortion or gay rights, but isn't that kind of a straw man in New York? How likely is the hard-core anti-libertarian right to even be a viable factor in state politics?

New York is a cesspit. It is only thanks to NJ that it is not the most corrupt state in the North East.

To the poster, above, who submits: "My life is an open book, for all to see...only "those breaking the Law have anything to Fear..."---Why are you posting in the "anonymous"?

I'm not. I'm posting in the "Paul" with an e-mail address to boot. If you do enough work, you can find out everything about me.

Go to it.

I'd like to see run-off elections. Then people would feel a lot more free to vote for third party candidates, knowing that they'd still get a chance to choose between the top two vote getters.

Not me.

You get one vote. Just one. You don't get to pick multiple candidates just to make sure that your one vote for that fringe candidate doesn't empower the one guy you most certainly do NOT want to see, win. The whole point of having an "all or nothing" election, is that almost 50% of all votes will be wasted. We all understand that going in, those are the rules of the game.

It seems crazy, but here in Montana, the Democratic senatorial candidate is running on a platform of limited government and fiscal responsibility whereas the Republican is saying (almost literally) "Re-elect me because I'm really, really good at bringing home the Pork."

Ted Kennedy has been saying this very thing for years. How do you think the alcoholic murderer keeps getting elected?

Okay, everybody who thinks that we'd be in Iraq if Gore were elected in 2000 raise your hand.

(no hands raised)

Now everybody who thinks government would have been bigger overall if Gore had won raise your hand.

(raises both hands, holds them high)

I'm voting Republican specifically because we are in Iraq. I am so happy that Saddam is in a courtroom and his rapist sons are dead. That is going to pay so many dividends so many years/decades from now, that it is litterally worth everything we have spent in blood and treasure.

I'm curious why people like Megan, Paul, or anyone really, bother to vote.

It is my civic duty. If I don't vote, then I don't count.

Surely you know that your vote won't affect the outcome of an election.

Surely you don't know that to be true.

New York is a cesspit.

I don't know about that. EMPTYpit is more like it. It is much smaller population wise than it was 10 years ago. That can't be a good thing for the New York state economy.

New York is a cesspit. It is only thanks to NJ that it is not the most corrupt state in the North East.

Okay, that was hysterical.

"Surely you know that your vote won't affect the outcome of an election."

Surely you don't know that to be true.

Why don't I know that to be true?

Paul: The whole point of having an "all or nothing" election, is that almost 50% of all votes will be wasted. We all understand that going in, those are the rules of the game.

The whole point of IRV is that while throwing out almost 50% of the votes might make for an interesting game, it's not a good way to create a representative government. Note that new democracies hardly ever copy our system. Even ones we help set up, like Iraq.

BTW, do support IRV for single-seat races like executives. I advocate PR for legislatures.

Paul:

I don't know about that. EMPTYpit is more like it. It is much smaller population wise than it was 10 years ago. That can't be a good thing for the New York state economy.

That's just not true. New York State has about 700,000 more residents then it did ten years ago.

See:
http://www.empire.state.ny.us/nysdc/StateCountyPopests/nyscomp05.pdf

Alienated? Maybe the Hillary ball cap with the miniskirt.

Why don't I know that to be true?

Because you don't know how I vote or where I vote. You don't know how civic minded I am in getting other people to vote like me. You don't know that my vote wont count. You are only speculating.

Don't do that.

The whole point of IRV is that while throwing out almost 50% of the votes might make for an interesting game, it's not a good way to create a representative government.

It is the BEST way to create a representative government. All the fringe issues that only matter to small percentages of people, will be utterly disregarded (as they should be.) It is not the responsibility of good government to worry about every little thing. When those small issues become BIG ISSUES that affect each one of us, then those issues are incorporated into the two major parties and their platforms. We are heading in that direction with illegal immigration, but it took a long time to get there.

Note that new democracies hardly ever copy our system. Even ones we help set up, like Iraq.

Well, nobody is perfect.

That's just not true. New York State has about 700,000 more residents then it did ten years ago.

I stand corrected Kate. Thank you for that link, good information. I wasn't aware that New York has birthed almost 1,000,000 babies in the last 10 years, but it shouldn't surprise me. As I said earlier, nobody is perfect.

The only figure I was considering was the -308,669 number, net migration. I think that is one of the highest (if not the highest) negative migration numbers for any state in the country.

fling93: The whole point of IRV is that while throwing out almost 50% of the votes might make for an interesting game, it's not a good way to create a representative government.

Paul: It is the BEST way to create a representative government. All the fringe issues that only matter to small percentages of people, will be utterly disregarded (as they should be.) It is not the responsibility of good government to worry about every little thing. When those small issues become BIG ISSUES that affect each one of us, then those issues are incorporated into the two major parties and their platforms

By that argument, a one-party system (ala PRI in Mexico or the KMT in Taiwan) would be better than a two-party system. Only issues that matter to everybody will get implemented.

On that note, here are just a few problems with a two-party system:

1) Non-fringe groups beyond the largest two are marginalized (note the underrepresentation of women and minorities and moderate libertarians).

2) The two parties act like an oligarchy and can collude to exclude issues that hurt them both (e.g. corruption, electoral reform, campaign finance).

3) The two parties are subject to the hotelling principle and will position themselves close to the center just across from each other, leaving relatively little distinction between the two (note that neither one really supports limited government or leaving Iraq or ending the War on Drugs).

4) Coalitions are formed between groups with major incompatibilities (e.g. labor unions and environmentalists), and it is difficult for the coalitions to change and adjust to different situations.

5) The parties have an incentive to poach issues from each other to try and win voters without losing their base, resulting in even more inconsistent platforms that force voters to hold their noses and choose the lesser of two evils.

6) Negative campaigning works very well when you have only one opponent to smear (when you face multiple opponents, negative campaigning hurts you).

7) Power is more concentrated, making it easier for one party to obtain too much control and become corrupt.

Under a multi-party system, fringe issues get only fringe representation (or less, as most implementations of PR have a minimum cutoff, say 5%). Just as they should. A fringe given no political voice whatsoever is more likely to pursue non-political avenues.

But moderate libertarians like Jane Galt and myself are not fringe, and yet we are excluded anyway.

A few more that occurred to me:

8) The spoiler effect (Perot helping Clinton, Nader helping Bush).

9) To avoid the spoiler effect within the party, both parties resort to a primary system that is staggered geographically for the purpose of inducing potential spoilers to drop out early. This means voters in later primaries receive less representation than those in earlier ones (violating the principle of one person, one vote).

10) Coalitions with major incompatibilities (see 4) are forced to nominate compromise candidates that offend none of their disparate constituent groups but who are liked by nobody (Bush and Kerry).

Instant runoff voting is a wizard idea... right up to the point where you imagine the voters in Palm Beach trying to work it.

The Democrats will, I expect, get a fair number of libertarian votes this election, including mine. But it will be a vote of protest against the various sins of the Republican party, not a conversion to the notion that sexual freedoms are the only ones that really matter

Nicely put!

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't see things like taxation as just as much a human rights issue as restrictions on freedom of speech. I guess it just depends on what you're used to -- people who are used to restricted freedom don't tend to think of that missing freedom as something they're entitled to.

By that argument, a one-party system (ala PRI in Mexico or the KMT in Taiwan) would be better than a two-party system. Only issues that matter to everybody will get implemented.

There is two parties because not all issues should be implemented. Both parties do not always agree on every issue. I vote Republican because I want us to stay in Iraq (and I wouldn't mind invading Iran.) Others may feel very differently about the Middle East, and there is a party that speaks for them, the Democrats. (If they were behind the war effort they wouldn't have thrown poor Lieberman under the bus.) But the important issue is spoken for, one for it and one against it.

1) Non-fringe groups beyond the largest two are marginalized (note the underrepresentation of women and minorities and moderate libertarians).

So? Everyone is marginalized to one degree to another. There is not one party or one politician that speaks for me on every issue, nor should there be. Some of the things that interest me aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

2) The two parties act like an oligarchy and can collude to exclude issues that hurt them both (e.g. corruption, electoral reform, campaign finance).

3 parties could do that. 4 parties could do that. Giving polical power to fringe groups does not prevent this.

3) The two parties are subject to the hotelling principle and will position themselves close to the center just across from each other, leaving relatively little distinction between the two (note that neither one really supports limited government or leaving Iraq or ending the War on Drugs).

They position themselves closer to the center because they want to be elected. But there are tremendous differences. Democrats want to raise taxes, Republicans don't. Republicans want to end Roe vs Wade, Democrats don't. Democrats want to take away the second ammendment, and the Republicans prevent that. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Democrats prevent that.

Fringe groups are out on the fringes. Their issues are very localized and irrelevant to the majority of people. I voted for Ross Perot, twice. I did that because I hate that we have even one penny of Federal Debt that we owe (primarily) to ourselves. I think that is nonsense because you and I wont be paying for that debt, our children will. But there are not enough people in the world that think the way I do about this, so I am on the "Fringe" on this issue. And subsequently, there is no political voice for me on this one issue.

So be it.

And for the record, the Democrats were only behind the war in Iraq when it was politically conveinent (and the polling was high.) They have (for the most part) switched sides and are choosing to demonstrate that they want out, let Iraq sink or swim on it's own.

We've been here before, Saigon 1975.

4) Coalitions are formed between groups with major incompatibilities (e.g. labor unions and environmentalists), and it is difficult for the coalitions to change and adjust to different situations.

That is called politics.

5) The parties have an incentive to poach issues from each other to try and win voters without losing their base, resulting in even more inconsistent platforms that force voters to hold their noses and choose the lesser of two evils.

That is also called politics. If you take the "politics" out of "government", you have something called a Dictatorship. I actually know people who want this, but they mask their feelings by saying they want a "benevolent Dictatorship." What they are really saying is that they don't think certain people are smart enough to have the right to vote or decide how they should be governed.

We've been here before, Moscow 1917.

But moderate libertarians like Jane Galt and myself are not fringe, and yet we are excluded anyway.

You are not excluded. Certain individual issues that you may see as vitally important might not reach the legislature, but I'm sure that other things that are important, are. Government can not be all things to all people. All government is, is other people telling you what to do. When you have a grief with society, you want something stopped or started, and no one seems to want to listen to you (or maybe one person doesn't want to listen to you), often times that person will look to government to step in and tell other people what to do (do things your way.) So you vote for people to do your bidding. If you don't have anyone who speaks for you on something that you think is vitally important, then maybe it is you that needs to change your way of thinking?

Paul: Everyone is marginalized to one degree to another.

Yes. My point is that a multi-party system would lessen this.

fling93: 2) The two parties act like an oligarchy and can collude to exclude issues that hurt them both (e.g. corruption, electoral reform, campaign finance).
Paul: 3 parties could do that. 4 parties could do that.

The more parties there are, the harder it is to coordinate. True in economics. True in politics. And in our diverse society, we'd end up with a lot more parties than 4. The Republicans would split into at least three parties: social conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and the military hawks. The Democrats would split into many more: labor, environmentalists, feminists, social liberals, socialists, consumer advocates, etc.

None of which, by the way, are fringe. Well, except the socialists.

fling93: 4) Coalitions are formed between groups with major incompatibilities (e.g. labor unions and environmentalists), and it is difficult for the coalitions to change and adjust to different situations.
Paul: That is called politics.

No, that is called two-party politics. In a multi-party system, it is easier for groups to desert a coalition and form a new one. The system is more flexible and parties are more reactive to their members who call for change. In a two-party system, you are pretty much stuck with your coalition partners and your party you have because the only alternative is either worse, or they won't have you. It is less flexible -- and thus, less responsive to changes in public opinion.

And the parties have a bigger incentive to have ideologically consistent platforms, which means most people will have a party that fits them very well and reflects their views much more closely -- and thus is more representative.

fling93: 5) The parties have an incentive to poach issues from each other to try and win voters without losing their base, resulting in even more inconsistent platforms that force voters to hold their noses and choose the lesser of two evils.
Paul: That is also called politics. If you take the "politics" out of "government", you have something called a Dictatorship.

A two-party system is closer to a dictatorship than a multi-party system due to its oligarchic nature with fewer choices. Poaching issues is not a necessary part of politics. It's just what we're used to because it's an unintended and accidental side-effect of our voting system (the Founders didn't want parties at all, let alone a two-party system -- they simply didn't yet know about Duverger's Law).

Politics is more about negotiation and wheeling and dealing, and you'll still have plenty of that.

Paul: You are not excluded.

Yes I am. My senators and my representatives are all Democrats. They have zero incentive to listen to me. Under PR, there will be libertarians in Congress that would have an incentive to listen to me.

Paul: Government can not be all things to all people.

Yes, but a government can be more things to more people when it is multi-party than when it is two-party. Just like two-party democracies are less dictatorial than one-party ones, and one-party democracies are less dictatorial than a dictatorship. There's a whole spectrum of governments to choose from, and ours is a lot further from ideal than it can be and ought to be.

One of the strengths of capitalism is the diverse array of consumer choice we are presented with, which exerts tremendous market forces on producers to match consumer preferences. The same can be true for the political market.

Paul,

you posit: "...that it is litterally worth everything we have spent in blood and treasure.",
and: "I want us to stay in Iraq (and I wouldn't mind invading Iran.)".

Please tell me you're posting from Iraq...

fling93, seriously, nice lists.

The more parties there are, the harder it is to coordinate. True in economics. True in politics. And in our diverse society, we'd end up with a lot more parties than 4. The Republicans would split into at least three parties: social conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and the military hawks. The Democrats would split into many more: labor, environmentalists, feminists, social liberals, socialists, consumer advocates, etc.

And then they'd all get back together again and form two groups. And how would this alliances be formed? The same way they are today. Allow me to quote Bill Whittle:

I contend that there is a single litmus that does indeed separate the nation and the world into two opposing camps, and that when you examine where people will fall on the countless issues that affect our society, this alone is the indicator that will tell you how they will respond.

The indicator is Responsibility.

Political Correctness, Deconstructionism, Trans-National Progressivism, Liability mania, Crime and Punishment, Terrorism, Welfare, Gun Control, Media Bias, Affirmative Action, Abortion, Education Reform, Social Engineering –- all of it –- will divide people according to their idea of Responsibility.

I suspect that there are really only two schools of political thought, and these are based on competing theories of how the human creature is constructed.

Again, a caveat about the ever-changing quicksand about labels. But with that said, it appears that people we generally group as ‘the left’ are convinced that society is responsible for pretty much everything that happens in our lives, that group responsibility trumps individual responsibility because they see the forces of the group –- culture, history, economic background –- as overwhelming determinants to individual outcome.

Those on the other side see individual responsibility as the final arbiter of human behavior. The United States of America is, without question, the most individual-centric nation in the history of the world. We have enshrined in the structure of our culture impressive guarantees of individual freedoms, and because of that, we see an enormous spectrum of behaviors –- some noble, others... shall we say, ‘colorful,’ and some completely vile and disgraceful –- that are the natural outcome of allowing people a great deal of personal freedom. Such a society will produce a US Constitution, a Bill of Rights, a Voyager probe…and unlimited episodes of COPS and The Jerry Springer Show.

Your splinter groups and their individual issues all deal (more or less) with Responsibility. So, there is a natural tendency to start leaning in one direction or the other.

Two parties are all you need. You can break them all up, but they will all get back together if they want to get anything done (or if they want to stop someone else from getting something done.)

Please tell me you're posting from Iraq...

Not right now.

Are you saying that only people who have been to Iraq are allowed to have an opinion?

Paul: And then they'd all get back together again and form two groups.

No, the difference is when the coalitions form. In a two-party system, they are formed when the parties are created, and that's that. In a multi-party system, they are formed and reformed every time the legislature votes. For example, the libertarian conservatives will align with the social liberals on social issues but on the social conservatives on the economic issues.

The result will be legislation that much more closely aligns with public opinion. Note, the percentage of registered libertarian Republican is much higher than elected Republicans. Likewise, the percentage of elected Democrats who support law firms is much higher than the percentage of registered Democrats who would support them.

This is because Democrats are stuck voting for Democrats, no matter if their reason for being a Democrat isn't the same as the guy they're voting for. Ditto for Republicans. This means less accountability.

Paul: Your splinter groups and their individual issues all deal (more or less) with Responsibility.

These aren't splinter groups. These are coalitions separated into their constituent parts that never fit together that well to begin with.

Your one-dimensional "responsibility" view of the political spectrum is a vast oversimplification. There are many themes that run through both parties; responsibility is just but one ideal. You may prioritize it at the top, but not everybody does. Others will more highly prize fairness, or technological advancement, or equal opportunity, or sustainability, or economic growth, or security. Or liberty. All the parties will deal more or less with all of these ideals -- not just responsibility -- in different ways and with differing levels of priority. This is true whether you have two parties or many parties.

fling93,

Many of the factors you point out are features of our political system, not bugs. The very point of our system is to encourage prevent some of the things you are arguing for. Much of your argument stems from a specific distaste for comprimise. I can't speak for anyone else, but from where I'm sitting comprimise is a good thing. Under the system you're proposing, for instance, the voice of libertarianism itself wouldn't be moderate libertarians like you or Jane, but the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists that represent the most ideologically pure of the libertarians. Likewise, the face of the Christian conservatives would be more Pat Robertson than Pat Roberts. The list goes on. The two-party system's genius itself is that it forces all parties involved to decide what they can live with, rather than what they believe is the way things ought to be.

Paul,

Opinions stated in the first-person that are as "Gung-Ho' as yours? Yes, Definitely.

Further, those that are not willing to put themselves in harm's way should, respectfully, refrain from "trumpeting" the grandeur of that that is only purchased at the greatest cost.

That many about feel free to chant for others to spill their blood for their(the chant-ors)ends, strikes me as a Psycho-Social pathology.

(please note, for clarity, I'm not necessarily including yourself in the above group.)

Whoops, got the wrong KansaS Senator. Should have been Brownback, rather than Roberts (althought that doesn't work as well rhetorically).

Bill Dalasio: Under the system you're proposing, for instance, the voice of libertarianism itself wouldn't be moderate libertarians like you or Jane

I wouldn't agree. Right now, the Libertarian Party (aka the barking moonbats) is the voice of libertarianism. Note that another side-effect of the plurality voting system is that it marginalizes third parties who have no hope of winning over moderate voters.

A multi-party system would moderate third parties because increasing your support from 5% to 10% would now make a difference in the number of seats you win. Right now, it means the difference between 0 and 0.

Mark Hoffer,

Then are you willing to play the role of martyr in the name of peace?

Bill,

How does that follow?

fling93,

Because the fractured governments of italy, and elsewhere are exactly what we should emmulate.

Our government sucks. But it is the best in the world. The problem is with us the voters. Those people just didn't get into office by seizing power. We voted them there are are too blinded by our ideologies to vote for the other guys to get rid of whoever is in power.

I'm with Jane. Vote for whoever is NOT in Washington. If they do a crappy job, in a few years vote for the next guys. A couple of election cylces later and we'd have someone who actually listened to the voters.

The two-party system's genius itself is that it forces all parties involved to decide what they can live with, rather than what they believe is the way things ought to be.

Thank you Bill.

(me) "Are you saying that only people who have been to Iraq are allowed to have an opinion?"

(Mark) "Opinions stated in the first-person that are as "Gung-Ho' as yours? Yes, Definitely."

Then I reject you and your ideas entirely. You are wrong. Definitely. Anyone can have an opinion on anything (gung-ho, or ho-hum) without experiencing it. Neither you nor I get to decide how people should think (or if they have the right to think) about things that they are or are not personally involved.

Go to Hell Mark.

"...strikes me as a Psycho-Social pathology"

"Go to Hell"

Paul, thanks for making it obvious.

Because the fractured governments of italy, and elsewhere are exactly what we should emmulate.

Interestingly enough, our government does best when it is fractured, with different parties heading the executive and the legislature. Also, most European democracies such as Italy are parliamentary, which means a weak executive (although that also looks pretty good from our current situation). But I think Europe's main problems are caused by their culture, not their political systems.

And the main problem with our voters is apathy. A big reason for voter apathy is having two bad choices.

fling93,

I'm not so sure I agree with you. I'm thinking you're identifying only members of the third parties as part of the constituencies. I'd posit that there are a lot more "small l" libertarians in the Republican party than there are libertarians in the Libertarian Party. I think, to a major extent, the need to maintain a broad coalition keeps them "small l". As they start aligning with the barking moonbats under your model, what becomes the incentive to moderate their views?

Mark Hoffer,

How does that follow?'

Actually, quite simply. If only those who are willing to experience the horrors of combat should be allowed to advocate for war, it would follow that only those who are willing to experience the horrors of victimhood at the hands of opponents should be allowed to advocate against it. Consequence for consequence.

Ack, I missed a good point:

Bill Dalasio: The very point of our system is to encourage prevent some of the things you are arguing for. Much of your argument stems from a specific distaste for comprimise.

I don't have a distate for compromise. Compromise and coalition-building are actually more essential in a multi-party system than a two-party system. To get anything passed, you will need votes from other parties.

I suspect you hadn't yet seen this comment before you wrote yours. The main difference isn't the amount of compromise. It's when compromises are necessary. In a multi-party system, most of it occurs after elections. In our system, most of the compromise occurs before elections.

I think this administration is a good example of why the latter doesn't work very well. It's hard to enforce compromises when you don't need a mandate to wield the power of a mandate.

Bill Dalasio: I'd posit that there are a lot more "small l" libertarians in the Republican party than there are libertarians in the Libertarian Party.

I would agree. But which do most people identify as the voice of libertarians?

Bill Dalasio: the need to maintain a broad coalition keeps them "small l". As they start aligning with the barking moonbats under your model, what becomes the incentive to moderate their views?

Similar intra-forces will apply within the Libertarian Party as currently apply within the Republican Party. Right now the Libertarian Party will get more media attention if they say outrageous things and poll at 1% than if they moderate their views and poll at 5%. Once the poll numbers translate into actual seat results, they gain an incentive to appeal to as many people as possible. At this point, the barking moonbats will basically be stuck between the choice of living within a moderate libertarian party and having a say within it, or breaking off and running the risk of failing to reach the threshold where they gain a single seat. So they will have less leverage within the party than the small-l's.

Okay, I have social events to attend, so I will resume this tomorrow morning.

Karl Popper pointed out that we can't vote in the guy we want, because he's probably not running. But we can vote out the guy we don't want. That is, we rarely can vote "yes" but we can always vote "no," and sadly, that is almost always appropriate. Like Jane and a lot of small-L libertarians, I'm often torn between voting for the lesser of two evils, or protest voting for a third party candidate. I will continue to do the latter in some situations, but I'm through doing the former. I don't want to affirm someone who is doing a poor job - even if I think the alternative will be worse. I can vote against him/her next time. If we all did that, eventually politicians would begin to think they should change their ways. Of course, what I do has zero connection to what everyone else could theoretically do, but it makes me feel as though I'm doing what I can. And that's what voting's for as much as anything.

Bill,

With these two phrases: "Opinions stated in the first-person that are as "Gung-Ho' as yours? Yes, Definitely.

Further, those that are not willing to put themselves in harm's way should, respectfully, refrain from "trumpeting" the grandeur of that that is only purchased at the greatest cost.

I think I make myself clear as to what it is I'm taking issue with.

Statements, such as "Paul"'s go far, to myself, anyways, beyond the mere advocation of a "position". To me, bloodthirsty cries, such as his, should, indeed, be backed by his willingness to step into the breech.

Jane,

Why on earth would you vote democrat because republicans haven't been sufficiently republican on fiscal issues? I can understand if you didn't vote (i.e. low turn-out of the republican base). I can understand even more if you and every other disaffected libertarian either vote for the libertarian candidate or pick some single person to write in as code for "I would have voted republican if you idiots weren't so profligate".

But why on earth would you cast votes for people who want to raise taxes and spending as a signal that the republicans were spending too much. How on earth do you want the republicans to figure out that that's what your votes for democrats mean?

I understand that you want to send a signal. That makes complete sense. I just don't understand how you expect the signal that you're trying to send will get correctly interpreted. I mean, if the democrats win, shouldn't that mean that republicans should move further to the center? E.g. make the prescription drug benefit even bigger, raise taxes and spending, etc?

Can you explain the signaling mechanism whereby voting for democrats will push the republicans further from the center, rather than closer to it?

No, the difference is when the coalitions form. In a two-party system, they are formed when the parties are created, and that's that

When the Republican Party was formed, it was the party of black civil rights, forcible affirmative action, centralized economic planning, higher taxes, restrictions on states' rights, and high protectionist tariffs.

So what was that you were saying about "the parties are created, and that's that"?

Further, those that are not willing to put themselves in harm's way should, respectfully, refrain from "trumpeting" the grandeur of that that is only purchased at the greatest cost.

Sheesh -- what a poseur.

We have a paid military. Anyone in it who doesn't want to fight who I want, when I want can fuck off and stop spending my tax money.

That many about feel free to chant for others to spill their blood for their(the chant-ors)ends, strikes me as a Psycho-Social pathology.

Here's a fine example, graciously(not) proffered by "Dan": "We have a paid military. Anyone in it who doesn't want to fight who I want, when I want can fuck off and stop spending my tax money."

Here's betting that "Dan" is, also, well-acquainted PFE's "little blue pill".

But why on earth would you cast votes for people who want to raise taxes and spending as a signal that the republicans were spending too much.

Dems raise spending less than Republicans. Times have changed. Get with it.

"Only criminals have anything to worry about these violations of civil liberties."

How do you know they are criminals? Statistically, most people who are accused of crimes are in fact guilty. But not all. We've had lots of incidents of innocent people being imprisoned as terrorists. One recent example is that Canadian who got sent to Syria to be tortured. Even in ordinary cases, innocent people get convicted. Look at the Central Park jogger case. Look at the DNA cases where the DNA proved the quy who was convicted couldn't have done it.

Personally, I don't trust bureaucrats to make good judgments on who is a terrorist, especially not in the present hysterical climate. Anyone who rejects habeas corpus and other procedural rights for people accused, repeat accused, of terrorism is subverting principles that the Founding Fathers thought important

And by the way, the Founding Fathers didn't intend to restrict those rights to Americans. They believed in the rights of man, a bright shining ideal that we ought not abandon in exchange for a problematic increase in security

Re: dems vs. republicans and spending

Does anyone if republicans have raised spending if we remove the iraq war and afghanistan and general war on terror from the picture?

JA,

Odd. I recall when Bush was pushing through his medicare drug benefit idea, Dems were mostly bitching that it didn't cost enough (if, granted, not with that language).

Kerry, during his campaign, promised to rain in spending, or at least not raise spending faster than taxes on rich people, except for a few categories such as medicare and a few other huge programs (IIRC, military?) which comprise most of what the federal government spends money on.

Where are all of these slash-spending democrats? When did they transition from complaining about the Bush tax cuts to saying that he didn't go far enough, and we need to cut spending to match? Can you cite any relevant democrats saying that we need drastic and permanent cuts in federal spending?

The closest thing to fiscal conservatism I can recall hearing out of a democrat is that we need to raise taxes to match our spending.

fling93: No, the difference is when the coalitions form. In a two-party system, they are formed when the parties are created, and that's that
Dan: When the Republican Party was formed, it was the party of black civil rights, forcible affirmative action, centralized economic planning, higher taxes, restrictions on states' rights, and high protectionist tariffs. So what was that you were saying about "the parties are created, and that's that"?

Okay fine, the parties change. But very slowly, And not because of coalition shifting or efforts for reform from registered voters in the party, but because of poaching of issues from the other party when they perceive a political opportunity (#5 in my list). For example, the Democrats are in the process of trying to poach the national security and limited government issues from the Republicans -- not because they actually believe in these things, but because they think they can win over some Republican voters in the next election without alienating too much of their own party.

This results in the inconsistent platforms that I mentioned. Over time, some of them may work their way out as some members defect to the other party. But this is an extremely slow process compared to a multi-party system because parties have to do much less to retain members when there's only one alternative.

Mark E Hoffer,

I'm not seeing the bloodthirstiness in Paul's statements. Where did he say the more casualties the better? What I read (and agree with fwiw) is that the long-term results are (likely to be) worth the cost. That's a very different statement, and if I were the one making it and having it twisted by you, I'd probably engage in vituperation, too.

Maybe I misunderstand what you really want, but from here it looks like this: if the good guys can never do anything if it costs even a (relatively speaking) small number of casualties, then the bad guys will have free reign and the casualties will be more, not fewer, Indeed, that fairly describes Sadaam's tenure as dictator, doesn't it?

Kirk,

(From)Paul,

: "...that it is litterally worth everything we have spent in blood and treasure.",
and: "I want us to stay in Iraq (and I wouldn't mind invading Iran.)".

You ask: "Where did he say the more casualties the better?" At the minimum, any "invading" of Iran would entail greater bloodshed than that we've already witnessed. Is War the only option we have for dealing with Iran?

Past that, I'm not sure I understand the 2nd part of your post, and it's query.

Voting for Democrats is interpreted as an endorsement of the ideas of the left. Rational people do not look at voting results as endorsements of the ideas of the losers.

fling93 on October 6, 2006 2:24 PM,

I kind of like our system of making coalitions before the elections.

You thus get to vote for the government you will get. Which may be less satisfying than voting for the government you want but is a more reliable predictor of government behavior.

Unfortunately you are making a very large mistake. Putting democrats in power is no joke. They are not to be trusted on security, the budget or any other thing that you care about.

It's like burning down your house because you don't like the curtains.

They will roll back dubya's tax cuts, throw us right into a recession and run like scaled apes from Iraq.

The budget deficit is now running at 1.9% of GDP which is the lowest it's been since the late 1980's.

If you want to vote libertarian, then vote libertarian but don't sulk like someone who's gotten turned down for a date.

But why on earth would you cast votes for people who want to raise taxes and spending as a signal that the republicans were spending too much. How on earth do you want the republicans to figure out that that's what your votes for democrats mean?

It’s really simple. During the 1990’s when we had a government shutdown which, Democrats succeeded in blaming the “Gingrich Republicans” who paid a price electorally (not enough to lose power but enough to send a message). The result was in 2000, Republicans decided to co-opt Democrats with “compassionate conservatism” which lead to Governor George W Bush becoming the nominee as the “anti-Gingrich” which lead to No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, etc.

Jane and others who wish to “send a message” to Republicans by voting for candidates who are advocating even higher levels of spending. Naturally of course if Republicans should lose the House they will take away from this the message that by voting for candidates who advocated higher levels of spending, the public was saying loudly and clearly that they really want lower levels of spending. And just to make sure that it’s clear to everyone, they’ll target the House of Representatives especially because even though it’s generally been the better of the two Houses of Congress when it comes to spending (even more so when compared to the levels of spending demanded by House Democrats), this will make it even more clear that what the public really wants is lower levels of government. Because of course when you have Senate that wants to spend more than the House, the best way to lower spending is to elect people who want to spend even higher levels in the House.

Frankly I’m baffled why you find this so confusing.

spending? and dude
Clinton had a budget surplus. There are ways to calculate the budget that make Clinton have a deficit, but those ways make the Republican deficits so much worse that the Republicans don't use them in their current budget.
Since the Southern Republicans wiped out the Southern Democrats, the pork fest is Republican. Bush's domestic expenditures have been going up faster than Clinton's. This is why Bush got almost as many votes as the Democratic candidates in both elections. Pork wins votes and Bush understands that very, very, well.

M Simon: I kind of like our system of making coalitions before the elections. You thus get to vote for the government you will get. Which may be less satisfying than voting for the government you want but is a more reliable predictor of government behavior.

You get to vote for the government you will get with multi-parties as well. Changing coalitions doesn't change the government (except in parliamentary systems where you need a ruling coalition to appoint a PM). The representatives stay the same.

The difference is that they aren't incentivized to ally with as big a group over and over again on every issue just due to loyalty. This means you can't pass laws based on just having more people on your team (and a team that poorly mirrors the electorate, remember). Instead each issue gets argued on its merits from a wider variety of positions.

Especially useful because the legislators will also be more representative of the positions held within the electorate. Making the debate mirror the debate within our society more closely. Furthemore, as more voters will be more engaged when they have better representation, more voters will actually participate in this debate.

Thorley Winston: Jane and others who wish to “send a message” to Republicans by voting for candidates who are advocating even higher levels of spending. Naturally of course if Republicans should lose the House they will take away from this the message that by voting for candidates who advocated higher levels of spending, the public was saying loudly and clearly that they really want lower levels of spending.

Remember, in a multi-party system, voters wouldn't have to play a game like this. They could send a clear message for lower spending by just voting for the parties that really support lower spending consistently (there would be more than one, because there are both liberals and conservatives who want this).

And furthermore, unlike a two-party system, one party wouldn't have majority power and thus have the incentive to maximize this power via expanding the government.

M.Simon: Which gives me the choice between someone who brags about how he is going to make the federal government even bigger, and someone who says he'll make it smaller, BUT IS LYING.

Smaller government is not a fringe idea. In the only national election we have, the last candidate to credibly campaign for smaller government and lose was Barry Goldwater 42 years ago, and his rather extreme smaller government ideas didn't do as much damage as the one area where he was for an expanded federal government role - he was for fighting in Vietnam like we intended to win, which the Johnson campaign and the press managed to twist into claiming he would start a nuclear war. (OK, maybe having an Air Force bomber general who actually thought he could win a nuclear war for his VP candidate wasn't such a good idea.)

Since then, the Democrats have only won the Presidency when the Republican candidate nearly matched the Democrat in big government tendencies, either in campaign promises or in a record that contradicted small-government promises. The 1968 & 1972 campaigns were big gov't candidates on both sides, just different ideas on which part of the federal gov't to expand. 1976 was in effect big gov't on both sides again, because whatever Ford believed didn't matter as much as Nixon's record - and Nixon expanded federal power more than the Democrats had thought possible. 1980 & 84, Reagan was clearly for smaller government, but smoother than Goldwater, and he won hugely. Against a Democratic Congress he didn't do more than slightly slow the growth, but it looked like he was trying.

GHW Bush won in 1988 against a very, very much big government Democrat by promising "No new taxes". He broke that promise, otherwise seemed to not be opposed to bigger government and lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton, who was as moderate on the big-government scale as the Democrats have nominated since...I can't remember when. Bob Dole, as much as I respect him as a man, was another big government Republican on his record, and spent half his 1996 campaign promising to put the religious right into your bedroom - that's big government too! In 2000, Gore was certainly big government, although he tried to muddy just how much so, while we didn't actually know that Bush was lying about being for small government. In 2004, we knew about Bush, but Kerry was clearly for even bigger government.

So, it looks to me like an position that is popular enough for most of the candidates in one party to use it as a campaign issue is nevertheless consistently ignored by nearly all the politicians between elections. Then they distort and lie about their record when campaigning for re-election.

As I said, smaller government is never in the politician's best interests - and our two party system gives us politicians that represent their own interests, not ours.

I don't think a Democrat victory will be seen by Republicans as a call for fiscal or ethical responsibility.

That said, I have a similar problem with my own vote this year. I want the Republicans to lose, but I don't want the Democrats to win. Other than a small minority of candidates I actually like, I will probably resort to an anti-incumbent strategy. Or perhaps look at the latest polls and vote for the underdogs to try and make most races close.

Bob Dole, as much as I respect him as a man, was another big government Republican on his record, and spent half his 1996 campaign promising to put the religious right into your bedroom - that's big government too!

Okay I’ll bite, click on my name for a link to the platform that Bob Dole ran on in 1996. Please point to us the specific provision which constitutes putting the “religious right (or anyone else” in your bedroom.”

I agree with all your criticisms about the two party system. Let me give another plus:

It drives politicians to the center.

Politicians want 51% or 52% of the vote. Any higher margin (except in years with serious political imbalance) costs too much.

So the system tends to revert to the center.

I am ginning up my post election plans. I am working on my tactics to pin the Ds with genocide when they do a cut and run in Iraq.

I expect them to repeat their 1975 performance if they win.

"Is War the only option we have for dealing with Iran?"

If someone has looked at all the available options, and decided that it is the option that would result in the fewest dead people in the long run, does it matter whether it's the only option or not?

You can, of course, disagree with his analysis. You might think (for example) the probability that Tel Aviv will wind up shattered by a nuclear bomb without a war now is much less than he does. Or you might esteem American lives so much that you wouldn't trade ten thousand to avoid a nucelar war between Israel and Iran. Or any number of other things. But you have no business claiming that supporting the war option is evidence of a "Psycho-Social pathology".

Sorry Megan, the reason the Dems support the IRS and all such money stuff is Envy.
To such Dems it is essentially "immoral" that the rich are rich -- so the IRS is "just" punishment.

If they can choose between a program that helps the poor without hurting the rich, or one that hurts the rich "in the name of the poor", even if it doesn't help -- they choose the one to hurt the rich.

Voting for Dems is voting for destructive Envy.

Which is the same secret motivation for most anti-Americanism in the world, where they might not want America's enemies to win, but they DO want America to lose. (Isn't this your logic for Reps?)

Dem criticisms against Reps are all too often essentially non-US criticisms against America. And yes, neither Reps nor America are perfect. But American action IS better than the alternatives, like UN resolved Rwanda & Darfur. And the Reps are better than the Dems on global human rights, global and domestic poverty reduction.

Similarly, where were you in supporting better Republican alternatives in the primaries? Or offering yourself as a Rep candidate?

I'll vote Republican in the upcoming election, even though it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Spitzer (gag--business- and capitalist-hating egotist with an obviously teeny weenie) will be crowned Governor no matter what I do.

Hillary's hideous but she's got a lock.

And my so-called Representative, Carolyn Maloney, will be re-elected in a landslide, never mind that she's a moonbat moron filthy rich liberal elitist whose main concern is her status at Upper East Side cocktail parties and oh she cares about the poor dontcha know, she cares so much that she thinks my middle-class, barely-surviving salary subject to total income tax of 44% (yep) should be taxed even more because, y'know, I'm rich. According to Carolyn Maloney.

I'll vote Republican in protest. The Democrats hate me and want me and my country to fail. I won't vote for that. Nope. Never.

Okay fine, the parties change. But very slowly, And not because of coalition shifting or efforts for reform from registered voters in the party, but because of poaching of issues from the other party when they perceive a political opportunity (#5 in my list).

Um, fling... "poaching of issues from the other party" *is* "coalition shifting".

The two major political parties are coalitions of special interests. Those special interests can and do jump parties on a regular basis. I suggest to take a look at the 1980s, when plenty of people who were nominally Democrats -- but who belonged to interest groups that Reagan appealed to -- crossed party lines to support the Republicans. Similarly, protectionist Democrats regularly appeal to conservative, lower-income Southern whites whose jobs are vulnerable to overseas competition. The list goes on and on.

The road to serfdom is paved by Democrat voters who like the plantation provided for them by uber wealthly Socialists. Libertarians have no place on this plantation but knock yourself out pretending Democrats are remotely Liberal.

I'm with East Villager, I'm voting Republican in protest even though it won't make a difference in the Socialist empire state.

And another thing, at least those in the Republican camp offer debate, criticism, and ideas to resolve problems and actually attempt to do something about the issues.

Democrats offer only conformity by emotional blackmail, PC speech and hate thought while Libertarians sort of stay in the middle offering condescending attitude towards both parties as if by staying in the middle they can feel superior above all.

but it might put a little of the fear of God into Republican politicians
The Republicans already have too much of the fear of God in them!

putting Libertarian and Democrat in the same sentence exposes a profound ignorance of the Libertarian ethos. While I fully support a snub of a clearly lost GOP and its long list of worthless spendthrift candidates who have secured their seats through gerrymandering and destruction of free speech (aka McCain/Fiengold), voting Democrat only shifts the last letter after the name and nothing more.

Vote Libertarian instead.

I'm with East Villager, I'm voting Republican in protest even though it won't make a difference in the Socialist empire state.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and... oh, never mind. It won't help.

m simon
I agree with you on two party systems driving politicians to the center.
However, in 1975 it was a Republican in office. In fact, if you look at the troop levels in Vietnam, it was Nixon who cut them. He took office in 1969 and troop levels peaked that year. Furthermore, it takes a long time to turn an army around. He must have told the Pentagon to cut and run on inauguration day, sometime in the afternoon. I would have thought that he would at least have waited a year, but that's not what the troop levels say.
Putting in the draft for middle class collegiate kids (without a veto by Nixon) just in time for our casualty rate to collapse 95% was just symbol, not substance. He had already decided that we were on the way out.
Vietnamisation, leaving the South Vietnamese draftees to fight the war without our troops alongside is sort of like the way that Bush has withdrawn most of our troops to four bases and the green zone in Baghdad.
I do not say whether this is (or that was) a good thing, I just say this is what is happening (and that was what was happening). The casualty numbers are (and were) what they are (and were).

Uh... my last comment was held in moderation and never released. Like all of my other comments, it was respectful in tone and not inflammatory.

Well, I'll repost it later, as I have a copy saved somewhere. It was a response to M. Simon's comment in regards to the two-party system bringing politicians to the center.

fling93: Okay fine, the parties change. But very slowly, And not because of coalition shifting or efforts for reform from registered voters in the party, but because of poaching of issues from the other party when they perceive a political opportunity...
Dan: Um, fling... "poaching of issues from the other party" *is* "coalition shifting".

The difference seems subtle, but is quite significant. It comes down to who makes the first move. If you watch sports, note how baseball is a unique game because the defense (namely the pitcher) makes the first move, forcing batters to react. Whereas most other sports, the offense makes the first move. Also note the importance it plays in chess.

Now, when it comes to coalition shifting in a multi-party system, the first move is made by the interest group who is unhappy with the larger party. Unlike a two-party system, they have a very viable option to leave the party, assuming they aren't so fringe that they would win 0 seats. Note that this will slightly hurt both sides due to the minimum cutoff, so there is a disincentive for this. Nonetheless, small groups have real leverage in proportion to their numbers. Note that, even when split, the two parties can still vote together on the issues that they agree upon, so the registered voters of each party are still represented (and perhaps are better represented).

On the other hand, in a two-party system, it's party leadership that makes the first move when it comes to poaching of issues. They see a political opportunity and change the party platform, not in response to internal demand, but in order to draw voters from the other party (like Democrats trying to appeal to libertarians). This risks alienating members of your own party, but since there is only one other alternative, changing one platform out of many is not likely to be enough to drive them away to the other party. The smaller groups within the party who dislike the change are faced with the Hobson's choice of 1) leaving and becoming an irrelevant third party 2) jumping to the other party which is probably a worse fit 3) grumbling but staying with the same party. They have much less leverage than would be indicated by their numbers. And the party ends up with an even more ideologically inconsistent platform than it already was.

Not really that subtle a difference, if you think about it.

However, in 1975 it was a Republican in office. In fact, if you look at the troop levels in Vietnam, it was Nixon who cut them. He took office in 1969 and troop levels peaked that year. Furthermore, it takes a long time to turn an army around. He must have told the Pentagon to cut and run on inauguration day, sometime in the afternoon. I would have thought that he would at least have waited a year, but that's not what the troop levels say.

It wasn't "cut and run" it was "okay lets win this damn war and go home."

Following the fiasco that was Lyndon B Johnson's "Great Soceity" Administration, it was clear to one and all that we weren't fighting to win, in Vietnam. All we were doing, was pulling our punches, trying to fight a kinder, more gentle war. The result was 58,000 US Caskets and 2,000,000+ NVA and VietKong caskets after that unsustainable Communist offensive known as Tet. So, did we need more boots on the ground after Tet?

F*ck That!

Tricky Dick took a look at what was happening in Southeat Asia in his first few days after January 20th, 1969 (his first day in office) and told General Westmorland and his defense Secratary that they would be scaling back the 500,000+ GIs in Vietnam to about 20,000. By 1970, that was where they were at.

Oh yeah, and they would resume Bombing.

The United States had total and complete Air Superiority in the skies over Vietnam since day one. But LBJ didn't like innocent Vietnamese getting killed, so he pulled out the B-52s. What a moron. Someone should have told LBJ that bombing was working in Vietnam. Bombing always works to win wars. Always. LBJ was just too much of a p*ssy to bomb the Viet Kong and the NVA to the level that Ticky Dick was willing to do. And Dick bombed everything. I mean literally, everything. Nixon carpet bombed the entire country!

He did that for 2+ years. And US casulties went way down in the early 70s. Now we were winning. And the Communists were losing, BADLY. And in 1973, the NVA and the US met in Paris for the Paris Peace accords. We told the Communists we would be pulling out of Vietnam and that they were not to touch Saigon or the Free South Vietnamese. If they so much as sniffed at the South, we would resume the bombing.

1974.

Two, young, Capitalist hating, Republican hating, upstart, Chomskyite, journalists in Washington DC released a Pulitzer story that ended the Nixon Administration. The crook resigned in disgrace and left a Ford with a very difficult situation. Congress's support for the US involvement in Vietnam, ended. There would be no more money for Ford to send in the B-52s to support what was said in 1973 in Paris.

And the North Vietnamese knew that.

So they invaded the South.

And the South got their @sses kicked.

You want to blame anyone for our loss in Vietnam, blame two reporters in Washingon. It was their fault.

Paul, so you blame two reporters in Washington for revealing that the President was a crook, but apparently don't blame Nixon for choosing to be a crook? I thought conservatives were supposed to have a moral compass.

We are the moral compass. That is why we are throwing Foley (one of our own) under the bus for f*cking up, and not defending him the way the Dems defended Clinton for his f*ck ups and Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds for doing far worse than Foley. We are better than that, and I expect poor behavior from Democrats, not Republicans.

I'm not defending Nixon. I'm glad he resigned in disgrace. Tricky Dick may have been a great war time President but he was a liar and a crook. F*ck him. But I also understand that those two jamokes at the Washington Post weren't thinking about what would happen to those 30 million South Vietnamese when they printed their story. They were only thinking about shredding a Republican and their own career. To hell with South Vietnam.

I had three links in the comment, which was probably why it got stuck in moderation. Let me repost it while cutting it down to one link:

M. Simon: I agree with all your criticisms about the two party system. Let me give another plus: It drives politicians to the center.

It does to a certain extent, but not entirely. I covered this in #3 of the list I posted earlier. Primaries will produce candidates from the center of the left and the center of the right. This is not the same as the center of the general electorate. They do then race to the center for the general election, but they aren't actually centrists. They just make centrist noises after they win the primaries. This means we end up with leaders from one side who pull us in that direction followed by leaders from the other side who undo everything the previous side did and then pull us in the other direction. This is an incredible waste of resources.

On the other hand, PR does not produce centrists either. The whole goal of PR is to get a diversity of candidates. Therefore, it would be helpful to counterbalance PR by center-weighting parliament using the Condorcet Method to select centrist chairpeople to mediate between the parties, an idea I found out about at Accurate Democracy (link left out, cuz I think that might've caused the moderation problem -- should be easy to Google).

For a single-seat election, like the President, you can't use PR anyway, which is why I advocate IRV, which does a much better job of selecting a centrist than plurality and addresses the spoiler effect. Condorcet is another possibility, but Condorcet may create incentives for politicians to not reveal political beliefs. But that whole debate is another can of worms.

wkw.. It was Creighton Abrahms who was commander in VN when Nixon took over. A good choice by the military and LBJ, should somewhat reassure us about the ability of our institutions and people, including past Democrats, to rise to the occasion, cf. A Better War.

jonny

Comments are Closed.