political systems
Jul. 9th, 2003 10:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
celticdragonflyOk, here's a discussion about political systems and problems inherent in them that I wanted to post to the Lois list. But apparently some people feel it would be a problem - we typically avoid politics - and I don't want to start a fuss. So I'll put it here, public for once.
Let me start out by saying that I'm discussing the problems of a democratic system with organized parties - primarily a two party system, such as we have here in the US, as I have less of an understanding of how this would come out with more than two parties. I think the problem is inherent in the party system. I am not trying to discuss any particular election, issue, candidate, or party. For the sake of my discussion, it doesn't matter if we're discussing Left/Right, Democratic/Republican, Whig/Tory, BigEnder/LittleEnder! For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use Left/Right (alphabetical order, please note)
So in discussing an election recently, Karl mentioned to me that it's usually the more dedicated activist types of the Left/Right that run the party and dominate the party primaries, and end up picking a Candidate X that meets what they want, and they tend to be at the far end of the Left/Right. I can see that yes, it probably would be the more dedicated activist types that would run the party, as the more moderate people who didn't care as much probably have other things they'd rather do with their time.
But this leaves a major problem. You end up with Candidate X who has won the Left/Right party primary (say for the sake of argument for President). Candidate X has to be pretty far to the Left/Right for the more dedicated activist types to have approved. So what happens when it's time for Pat Q. Voter to make him his/her mind?
Well, the ones that consider themselves part of the Left/Right are likely to be thinking something like "Well, Candidate X is a lot farther to the Left/Right than I'm comfortable - but the alternative is this other candiate who is way over on the Right/Left, and I'm even less comfortable with that." And they vote for him, wishing they had a better option.
Then there's the moderates, or middle of the road types, or unaligned, or swing voters. They're probably looking at the situation thinking "Darn it - Candidate X is way over on the far Left/Right, and I'm really not comfortable with that. And Candidate X1 is way over on the Right/Left, and I'm not happy about that, either. Darn it, why does it always come down to the lesser of two evils? Why is there never a candidate I feel good about?" And they pick, wishing they had a better option.
So then Candidate X ends up elected, and the regular party types are not that happy, the opponent party types are unhappy, the swing voters are unhappy. And you know, I bet even the dedicated activist types are, by then, looking at Candidate X and saying "Candidate X had to make too many compromises to get the moderate votes - we don't really trust X anymore."
So you end up with a President (or whatever) that almost NOBODY is happy with. It seems that the system as it now is pushes things that direction.
Karl commented that this affects voter turnout, and that in an election with more choices than usual, voter turnout goes up significantly. I found this interesting. Might explain the bit in the Bujold books with Beta's president, Steady Freddy and "I didn't vote for him". We only hear this in a couple of cases, but it sounds like a cliche, so we tend to assume that there's a lot more. Maybe it was a really low turnout election - after all, "I didn't vote for him" doesn't necessarily mean "I voted for his opponent".
Anyway, I find the whole concept terribly depressing. Possibly it's been obvious to everyone for ages, and I just am politically naive.
Anyway, I'd welcome comments and such. (But please, let's not go into political details on particular parties, candidates, issues. I don't want to go there.)
Let me start out by saying that I'm discussing the problems of a democratic system with organized parties - primarily a two party system, such as we have here in the US, as I have less of an understanding of how this would come out with more than two parties. I think the problem is inherent in the party system. I am not trying to discuss any particular election, issue, candidate, or party. For the sake of my discussion, it doesn't matter if we're discussing Left/Right, Democratic/Republican, Whig/Tory, BigEnder/LittleEnder! For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use Left/Right (alphabetical order, please note)
So in discussing an election recently, Karl mentioned to me that it's usually the more dedicated activist types of the Left/Right that run the party and dominate the party primaries, and end up picking a Candidate X that meets what they want, and they tend to be at the far end of the Left/Right. I can see that yes, it probably would be the more dedicated activist types that would run the party, as the more moderate people who didn't care as much probably have other things they'd rather do with their time.
But this leaves a major problem. You end up with Candidate X who has won the Left/Right party primary (say for the sake of argument for President). Candidate X has to be pretty far to the Left/Right for the more dedicated activist types to have approved. So what happens when it's time for Pat Q. Voter to make him his/her mind?
Well, the ones that consider themselves part of the Left/Right are likely to be thinking something like "Well, Candidate X is a lot farther to the Left/Right than I'm comfortable - but the alternative is this other candiate who is way over on the Right/Left, and I'm even less comfortable with that." And they vote for him, wishing they had a better option.
Then there's the moderates, or middle of the road types, or unaligned, or swing voters. They're probably looking at the situation thinking "Darn it - Candidate X is way over on the far Left/Right, and I'm really not comfortable with that. And Candidate X1 is way over on the Right/Left, and I'm not happy about that, either. Darn it, why does it always come down to the lesser of two evils? Why is there never a candidate I feel good about?" And they pick, wishing they had a better option.
So then Candidate X ends up elected, and the regular party types are not that happy, the opponent party types are unhappy, the swing voters are unhappy. And you know, I bet even the dedicated activist types are, by then, looking at Candidate X and saying "Candidate X had to make too many compromises to get the moderate votes - we don't really trust X anymore."
So you end up with a President (or whatever) that almost NOBODY is happy with. It seems that the system as it now is pushes things that direction.
Karl commented that this affects voter turnout, and that in an election with more choices than usual, voter turnout goes up significantly. I found this interesting. Might explain the bit in the Bujold books with Beta's president, Steady Freddy and "I didn't vote for him". We only hear this in a couple of cases, but it sounds like a cliche, so we tend to assume that there's a lot more. Maybe it was a really low turnout election - after all, "I didn't vote for him" doesn't necessarily mean "I voted for his opponent".
Anyway, I find the whole concept terribly depressing. Possibly it's been obvious to everyone for ages, and I just am politically naive.
Anyway, I'd welcome comments and such. (But please, let's not go into political details on particular parties, candidates, issues. I don't want to go there.)