In The Two Party System, Things Matter

[Kathianne]

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/the_sickly_deification_of_obam.php


In Focus: The Sickly Deification of Obama
February 8, 2008 8:59 AM
He can't see through lead, and he never, ever lies. Superman's cool, too.

Barack Obama may be someone worth voting for, but his supporters seem to think he’s more than that — much more. What is it about the Democratic candidate that has everyone “ascribing superhuman characteristics to him, as though he were Savonarola awaiting the flame?” asks Michael Weiss.

by Michael Weiss

See if you encounter a creepier political paragraph this election season:


For a long time now, I have listened to [people who don’t support Barack Obama] with forbearance and with a sense of duty — not to some principle of open debate or of the inherent merit in the free exchange of even meritless ideas, but rather out of obligation to the candidate whose cause I champion.

Thus does the novelist Michael Chabon admit in the Washington Post that the only reason he listens to opposing views is out of drooling deference to the man who would be president of the United States.

Read the entire op-ed for yourself and tell me if there are any coherent reasons for why Obama is the best candidate, much less evidence that Chabon is the go-to guy on ideas bursting with merit. All I come away with is a parade of nostrums and what Irving Howe once called a “dithyrambling” style founded on sheer emotion. (Apparently, Ayelet Waldman, Chabon’s wife, is just as over the moon about Barack, which has this useless skeptic wondering if she’d throw Michael and the kids under the bus to save the Moshiach from the South Side.)

What is it about Obama that has otherwise sensible people ascribing superhuman characteristics to him, as though he were Savonarola awaiting the flame?

....

[Yurt]

this is why we need another party, this two party system is going to, if not already, ruined this country.

[MtnBiker]

The electoral college pretty much establishes a two party system.

[Yurt]

The electoral college pretty much establishes a two party system.

how so?

[MtnBiker]

Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth.

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.


Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party.

In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government.



http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

[Pale Rider]

this is why we need another party, this two party system is going to, if not already, ruined this country.

This Presidential election cycle ruined it for me. I'm done with the republican party. I've seen enough. I'm registering Independent.

[Dilloduck]

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php


In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movement-----

That quote from your link gives me the creeps---it implies that an impassioned and transitory party would be bad. Hell it could be revolutionary !! Since our two parties, the money and the media are all in bed with each other, any third party victory would certainly HAVE to reflect the will of the people at that time. Are they claiming we can't handle it or the we are just stupid?

[Yurt]

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

thanks. good information. changed my view on the EC

[MtnBiker]

That quote from your link gives me the creeps---it implies that an impassioned and transitory party would be bad. Hell it could be revolutionary !! Since our two parties, the money and the media are all in bed with each other, any third party victory would certainly HAVE to reflect the will of the people at that time. Are they claiming we can't handle it or the we are just stupid?

I believe the claim is that if a third party won it would need to do so by appealing to many voters in many states, effectively becoming a dominate party in a two party system.

[5stringJeff]

I believe the claim is that if a third party won it would need to do so by appealing to many voters in many states, effectively becoming a dominate party in a two party system.

Essentially, that's correct. Our first party system was the Federalists (Adams, Hamilton) and the Republicans (Jefferson, Madison). The Federalists lost public support after the Hartford Convention in 1815, which made the Republicans the only national party for a while. But the old Republicans morphed into the Democrats (beginning with Andrew Jackson), and the anti-Democrats forged the Whig Party, forming America's second two-party system. The Whigs fell apart, and the new Republican Party, formed in 1856, took its place, creating the third (and longest running) two-party system.

For a new "third party" to be successful, it would either have to supplant an existing party, as the new GOP did, or one of the existing parties would have to implode, as the Federalists did. I think it's possible, though unlikely, that a new small-government/conservative party could take the place of the GOP, given its leftward leanings.

[pegwinn]

Beware the other extreme. Too many parties. Nothing gets done and the deals are very convoluted between them to accomplish anything. See Greece, India, and the Phillipenes as examples.

[Dilloduck]

Beware the other extreme. Too many parties. Nothing gets done and the deals are very convoluted between them to accomplish anything. See Greece, India, and the Phillipenes as examples.

Are you suggesting that our current 2 parties are accomplishing anything other than making sure they retain power between themselves and surpressing anyone who thinks outside of the 2 party box ?
There must be an alternative.

[pegwinn]

Are you suggesting that our current 2 parties are accomplishing anything other than making sure they retain power between themselves and surpressing anyone who thinks outside of the 2 party box ?
There must be an alternative.

Of course not. Where did you get that idea? My point was that while extra parties in the game would be good, beware too much of a good thing. Sheesh.

[Dilloduck]

Of course not. Where did you get that idea? My point was that while extra parties in the game would be good, beware too much of a good thing. Sheesh.

Sorry Peg----got carried away with my disdain for the powers that be---something's gotta give. These candidates suck and I haven't even had a chance to throw in my 2 cents. Same old shit.

[pegwinn]

Sorry Peg----got carried away with my disdain for the powers that be---something's gotta give. These candidates suck and I haven't even had a chance to throw in my 2 cents. Same old shit.

No worries. Our Primary is still almost three weeks away.

[Kathianne]

It's not just the electoral college where all things are not equal. And it's not just the Republicans that threaten self-destruction:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3763


How I Could Quit The Democratic Party
by: Chris Bowers
Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 22:27

I am a Democrat. I am my own local precinct captain, and I hold a seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee. Over the past four years, I have helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats. I believe in the primary process and intra-party democracy as a means of resolving disputes within the American center-left coalition. I believe in endorsing whoever wins the majority support of the rank and file, no matter who that person may be, as long as it is the result of democratic deliberation within the coalition. The reason I do all of this is because I believe the Democratic Party is an essential institution that the American center-left must utilize in order to have all of its diverse voices heard and, after those disputes are resolved internally, to provide a united front against conservatives on the electoral stage.

With all that said, I also agree with this:


"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Donna Brazile told CNN this week. Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate.

If the institution that exists to resolve disputes within the American center-left does not operate according to democratic principles, then I see no reason to continue participating within that institution. If that institution fails to respect democratic principles in its most important internal contest of all--nominating an individual for President of the United States--then I will quit the Democratic Party. And yes, I am perfectly serious about this.

If someone is nominated for POTUS from the Democratic Party despite another candidate receiving more poplar support from Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, I will resign as local precinct captain, resign my seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, immediately cease all fundraising for all Democrats, refuse to endorse the Democratic "nominee" for any office, and otherwise disengage from the Democratic Party through all available means of doing so....