The "Tea Party" Thread

[KipWellsFan]

Couldn't disagree more. Look at the coalition governments European countries have to make majorities out of 5 or 6 parties, you end up with 25-30% of the population dictating policy as opposed to our 50%+1.

 

Not that there can be 2 or more viable parties in America to begin with. Structurally its impossible.

 

Umm, I think you're wrong about coalitions. The only country I know that has a coalition government in Europe is Germany (I'm sure there are others). In 2005, the coalition was between the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats and they won 70% of the vote together. And in 2009 the Christian Democrats are now in coalition with the more conservative Free Democrats and they won almost 50% of the vote together.

 

By definition, coalitions tend to represent more of the voters, not less than a non-coalition government. For example, in Canada the Liberal Party had esssentially absolute control sans coalition for 11 years after attaining between 38% and 41% of the vote in three straight elections.

Edited November 10, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[NorthSideSox72]

Couldn't disagree more. Look at the coalition governments European countries have to make majorities out of 5 or 6 parties, you end up with 25-30% of the population dictating policy as opposed to our 50%+1.

 

Not that there can be 2 or more viable parties in America to begin with. Structurally its impossible.

I don't know where you are getting any of this.

 

The governments in European countries come to better compromise specifically because they have 5 or 6 parties with seats at the table. Because 20% can't pass anything, but two or three of those can. That means the majority of moderation gets a more real say, instead of the gutters of two parties doing so.

 

And as for it not being structurally possible, I think that is only partially true. There are significant barriers. But it was only 5 or 6 cycles ago we had a 3rd party Presidential candidate who had a serious shot of winning, and may have, if he hadn't stumbled over himself on a few occasions. The possibility is there.

 

[KipWellsFan]

I don't know where you are getting any of this.

 

The governments in European countries come to better compromise specifically because they have 5 or 6 parties with seats at the table. Because 20% can't pass anything, but two or three of those can. That means the majority of moderation gets a more real say, instead of the gutters of two parties doing so.

 

And as for it not being structurally possible, I think that is only partially true. There are significant barriers. But it was only 5 or 6 cycles ago we had a 3rd party Presidential candidate who had a serious shot of winning, and may have, if he hadn't stumbled over himself on a few occasions. The possibility is there.

 

We don't have as much money in Canadian Politics and the system is totally different but in Canada it is almost a tradition that after a conservative party has been in power a long time, and tries to hug the center too long, it is replaced by a more right wing party. So I could see these Tea Party absolutists being a factor.

 

EDIT: see my post above Northside

Edited November 10, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[jasonxctf]

there is a true danger in having too many political parties in our currently designed system.

 

you get 3rd party candidates, many of which don't have primaries. So you get say 35 candidates on a ballot to run for Governor of a State.

 

If 32 of these draw a significant amount of votes away from the Major 2 and you get 1 Fringe 3rd Party who is uber-radical, say the KKK Party, you could have a race where in the popular vote counts...

 

KKK Party= 4%

Democrat= 3.9%

Republican= 3.9%

The remaining 32 parties (2.75% each)

 

Now, this would certainly be a stretch, but its mathematically conceivable. Certainly at a local or state level.

 

From a Presidential standpoint, probably not due to the requirements of getting on a Ballot in all of the states. (just ask Ralph Nader about that)

 

Also, imagine a debate with 35 participants. (all within 2% of each other in polling)

[NorthSideSox72]

there is a true danger in having too many political parties in our currently designed system.

 

you get 3rd party candidates, many of which don't have primaries. So you get say 35 candidates on a ballot to run for Governor of a State.

 

If 32 of these draw a significant amount of votes away from the Major 2 and you get 1 Fringe 3rd Party who is uber-radical, say the KKK Party, you could have a race where in the popular vote counts...

 

KKK Party= 4%

Democrat= 3.9%

Republican= 3.9%

The remaining 32 parties (2.75% each)

 

Now, this would certainly be a stretch, but its mathematically conceivable. Certainly at a local or state level.

 

From a Presidential standpoint, probably not due to the requirements of getting on a Ballot in all of the states. (just ask Ralph Nader about that)

 

Also, imagine a debate with 35 participants. (all within 2% of each other in polling)

That's not a 3rd or 4th party scenario, that's Russia circa 1994 scenario, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[bmags]

the countries in europe also have completely different legislatures. As much as people want to jump down duke's throat for everything, his opinion really isn't that controversial. A lot of people agree with it. A third party just sort of sounds nice, but a lot of times third parties that gain traction are completely reactionary - see the hardline anti-immigrant parties erupting in Europe. Realistically, America does have coalitions WITHIN the parties. As hard as it is for some highly-esteemed posters to understand, the democratic party is a good example. You have the progressive caucus, the blue dogs, environmentalists, and then dumb-asses whose only role is to cheer on war. And then you have the same in the republican party, with less catchy names. BUt, you used to have the northeastern republicans, social conservs. etc.

 

With the way our congress is set up, a 2 party system is much more practical, and realistically, the country is pretty well represented.

[Balta1701]

One of the remarkable things about a lot of parliamentary systems as well is that they tend to naturally consolidate towards 2-3 parties as-is, because otherwise, they wind up so fractured that the country becomes ungovernable. The case to imagine is the Kucinich led party getting 5%, the Dems/Reps each getting 44-46%, and the Palin party getting 5%. Whichever side "won" the most votes can't form a government without the partiticipation of one of the extremes, and that gives the small group substantial negotiating power. The more parties you have, the worse that can get, and so naturally there tends to be some gravitation towards stable, longer-term parties in a lot of those countries with time.

[bmags]

One of the remarkable things about a lot of parliamentary systems as well is that they tend to naturally consolidate towards 2-3 parties as-is, because otherwise, they wind up so fractured that the country becomes ungovernable. The case to imagine is the Kucinich led party getting 5%, the Dems/Reps each getting 44-46%, and the Palin party getting 5%. Whichever side "won" the most votes can't form a government without the partiticipation of one of the extremes, and that gives the small group substantial negotiating power. The more parties you have, the worse that can get, and so naturally there tends to be some gravitation towards stable, longer-term parties in a lot of those countries with time.

 

exactly.

[NorthSideSox72]

One of the remarkable things about a lot of parliamentary systems as well is that they tend to naturally consolidate towards 2-3 parties as-is, because otherwise, they wind up so fractured that the country becomes ungovernable. The case to imagine is the Kucinich led party getting 5%, the Dems/Reps each getting 44-46%, and the Palin party getting 5%. Whichever side "won" the most votes can't form a government without the partiticipation of one of the extremes, and that gives the small group substantial negotiating power. The more parties you have, the worse that can get, and so naturally there tends to be some gravitation towards stable, longer-term parties in a lot of those countries with time.

Only partially true. Lots of countries have more than 2 parties with significant seats, and do just fine. The US happens to be one that settled into 2 parties long ago, and has stayed there.

 

and honestly, that had worked OK, until about 10-12 years ago. The dynamics of the US House and Senate changed dramatically in multiple ways since then, and its exposing the weaknesses of a 2 party system in a big way.

 

[lostfan]

Right now in Israel, the Prime Minister's party technically lost the election, but the party that got more votes isn't running the government because they couldn't put a coalition together.

[Rex Kickass]

I would argue third parties in the US don't succeed because they shoot too high too fast. Attract attention in local races, then state assembly and senate races, then Congressional races, etc.

 

Running someone for President when you don't have a chance in hell doesn't get you any more popularity than youd already have. It just gets you a lot of debt.