You've got the group of people who will vote republican no matter what, and the group who will vote democrat no matter what. The swing voters will choose the one that seems sane and reasonable.
You've got the group of people who will vote republican no matter what, and the group who will vote democrat no matter what. The swing voters will choose the one that seems sane and reasonable.
That’s how it should be, but unfortunately not. Winner takes all favors a two party system, and it’s difficult for moderates to win a nomination because primaries are dominated by the base. Even if they were to run as an independent, they lose lots of potential votes from those fearful of throwing it to the other side.
We really need rank choice or some type of proportional voting rather than winner take all, which is how many other countries do it. Also, having more than two parties means rarely will any one party have a majority, meaning you have to form a coalition and be willing to make some compromises.
Ask John McCain.
That was the argument for supporting HRC and she face-planted. The last 60 years of neoliberal social policy and the immiseration it has brought are a testament to the failures of moderate liberalism. Trump won because people have a sense of that, but he only changed the rhetoric, not the policies. Biden sought "calm," and has made some efforts of marshaling state power in a way similar to FDR, but fundamentally he is a moderate liberal, and the long-run results will be more of the same.
three is a party wrote:
That’s how it should be, but unfortunately not. Winner takes all favors a two party system, and it’s difficult for moderates to win a nomination because primaries are dominated by the base. Even if they were to run as an independent, they lose lots of potential votes from those fearful of throwing it to the other side.
We really need rank choice or some type of proportional voting rather than winner take all, which is how many other countries do it. Also, having more than two parties means rarely will any one party have a majority, meaning you have to form a coalition and be willing to make some compromises.
This ^
Related - It is odd that we frown upon/despise one-party countries (China, etc.) and hold ourselves up as some sort of beacon of freedom when our nation is "owned" by just two parties who have installed rules that make forming a serious competitor 3rd party nearly impossible.
Every election with no primary...
You get killed in the middle.
Unfortunately political movements are always far to one side or the other, but never in the middle where most people live.
Im pro vaxx but anti mask
I'm pro choice but pro death penalty
I'm fine with gun ownership, but fine with stiff penalties for crimes committed with a firearm.
Im fine with gay marriage, but this trans stuff is absolutely ridiculous.
Im pro legalization of weed
Im against racial set asides as some kind of make up for past grievances.
Im even fine with schools business and private clubs only being open to certain members. If you want to open a business that only employees Chinese Lesbians go for it! More power to you.
I think everyone should pay some taxes so you do have some skin in the game.
I could even be talked into some form of UBI if we also got rid of some of the other welfare programs.
Ranked Choice Voting... look it up.
Also we need MORE political parties to force more compromise between the extremes.
Centrists are wishy-washy, flip-flopping, unprincipled, neither-here-nor-there chicken hearts who choose the middle because they think it's safest.
Generally being in the middle means they're surrounded by people who hate them, and they deserve it. They're garbage! Sleazeballs like McCain.
And Hillary! Gawd what a sleazeball. People see right through them, lying out both sides of their mouth, trying to look like they agree with everyone.
three is a party wrote: Also, having more than two parties means rarely will any one party have a majority, meaning you have to form a coalition and be willing to make some compromises.
That's what we have.
The Democrat party is a coalition of socialists, and green partiers, and rich wonderful people, and feminists, and government and education employees, and black people, and upper middle class progressives, and those on public assistance, and...
The Republican party is a coalition of rednecks, and Christians, and country clubbers, and libertarians, and social conservatives, and the downwardly mobile, and middle middle class, and all the deplorable bitter clingers in flyover country, and...
Don't know if it'd be any better or any different if all had their own parties and had to decide which coalition to join instead of which of two parties to join.
I have disagreements on some issues with the party I vote with, and it might be nice to have a party that more closely aligns with my beliefs, but in the end my party would have to make compromises to join the coalition so it all ends up being the same.
There isn't really any such ideology of centrism - it just takes whatever ideas it likes from the left or the right. The main priority of people who identify as centrist seems to being seen as sensible. But 'sensible' isn't a policy.
Centrism also appears to be very close to totalitarianism because anything can be justified as being "practical at the time". It might might sound appealing initially to have someone willing to do whatever is necessary but people with no ideological constrains are usually the dangerous ones.
If the country moves leftwards or rightwards do centrist politicians move with them to maintain their position in the center? Generally people prefer leaders with convictions rather than ones that move around or do whatever they think is popular.
three is a party wrote:
That’s how it should be, but unfortunately not. Winner takes all favors a two party system, and it’s difficult for moderates to win a nomination because primaries are dominated by the base. Even if they were to run as an independent, they lose lots of potential votes from those fearful of throwing it to the other side.
We really need rank choice or some type of proportional voting rather than winner take all, which is how many other countries do it. Also, having more than two parties means rarely will any one party have a majority, meaning you have to form a coalition and be willing to make some compromises.
This may be true on the Republican side, but the opposite is true on the Dem side. The moderates control the DNC and are vicious in contesting primaries when there is a progressive candidate that has a chance. In Ohio, Nina Turner ran for Martha Fudge's seat. She was pretty much a shoe in, but the DNC funded a moderate candidate and launched a scorched earth primary campaign against Turner. Turner narrowly lost. Same thing happened in the Rio Grande Valley when Jessica Cisneros challenge Henry Cuellar, a moderate anti-abortion Dem. Cisneros polled well against Cuellar and then the DNC flooded the campaign cash, giving Cuellar a narrow win.
But the main problem with the idea that moderates by definition should get the most votes is that politics has shifted entirely from questions of policy to being a lifestyle brand that is all but devoid of any serious policy objectives. For all Trump's bluster, he only got through tax cuts. He couldn't even get an Obamacare repeal because he was a jerk to McCain. This is largely because neither party has any intention of following through on any program that would provide people with a significant change in their material conditions. The parties have just become two sides of the same coin. Republicans are largely representatives of the privately held businesses. The local trucking company, the jet ski dealership, etc. Democrats are largely representatives of the professional class and the publicly traded companies who have leadership that are socially liberal. Neither side has any intention of doing anything to upset the current economic order. Thus, elections end up being about wedge issues like CRT and immigration, of which neither party really cares about.
It would be fascinating to see what would happen if a centrist Democrat and a centrist Republican formed a unity ticket? Two governors, one from each party campaigning on a platform of common sense initiatives that meld establishment ideas from both parties. They flip a coin to decide who is at the top of the ticket and then swap places for a re-election campaign.
It would be a long shot but, it might bring both parties to their senses and severely curtail the influence of the fringe activists in both.
Lowest Common Dominator wrote:
It would be fascinating to see what would happen if a centrist Democrat and a centrist Republican formed a unity ticket?
Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate and McCain seriously considered it.
political guy wrote:
You've got the group of people who will vote republican no matter what, and the group who will vote democrat no matter what. The swing voters will choose the one that seems sane and reasonable.
You’re right, the problem is the swing voters are only 10% of the votes or so. So they decide who wins the election, but that 10% alone can’t pick their own person.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
political guy wrote:
You've got the group of people who will vote republican no matter what, and the group who will vote democrat no matter what. The swing voters will choose the one that seems sane and reasonable.
You’re right, the problem is the swing voters are only 10% of the votes or so. So they decide who wins the election, but that 10% alone can’t pick their own person.
By swing I mean true swing voters. Like me. In my 4 presidential elections I’ve voted Democrat twice and Republican twice. Most people say they are an independent swing voter but they vote for the same party for 20+ years. Sorry to break it to you, if you only vote for one party you’re not independent and you’re not a swing voter.
A centrist won the last election
Tatar... wrote:
There isn't really any such ideology of centrism - it just takes whatever ideas it likes from the left or the right. The main priority of people who identify as centrist seems to being seen as sensible. But 'sensible' isn't a policy.
Picking and choosing things you like from the left and the right sounds smart and what most people probably do. Why be for every policy the party stands for if you don't believe in the policy?
GEICO wrote:
Related - It is odd that we frown upon/despise one-party countries (China, etc.) and hold ourselves up as some sort of beacon of freedom when our nation is "owned" by just two parties who have installed rules that make forming a serious competitor 3rd party nearly impossible.
Oh that's why we frown upon China's political system, because of the one party thing? Not because it's an authoritarian, communist state with little regard for human rights? The more you know!