THe blog Flopping Aces has this attack on the recent decision of the Nevada Tea Party to get itself on the ballot and run a candidate for U.S. Senate. The logic of Flopping Aces is familiar; the same argument has been repeated in other publications for decades. The writer assumes that all voters already have a pre-determined ideology, and he also assumes that campaigns do not change the minds of any voter.
Therefore, this line of thinking says that it is always a mistake for two parties that both represent the same ideology to ever be on the ballot, because they will split the vote of that ideological bloc.
In reality, social science research shows that only a minority of voters have a pre-determined ideology that determines their votes. Furthermore, such research shows that having a third choice can sometimes help one of the other two choices that is most similar to the third choice.
“Predictably Irrational”, a recent best-seller by Dan Ariely, features research in which someone is confronted with three choices, and must choose only one. If two of the choices are quite similar to each other, but one of those two is obviously superior to the other similar one, then that superior choice gains an advantage, in its competition with the choice that is different from the other two.
The Nevada Tea Party campaign for U.S. Senate may have the opposite effect of what Flopping Aces predicts. The Nevada Tea Party candidate might make some persuasive points about public policy, which would influence the thinking of some voters who didn’t have any particular ideological disposition. Then, in the voting booth, that voter might be moved to vote for the Republican nominee, because he or she perceives an agreement with both the Republican and the Tea Party candidate, and feels the Republican nominee is the superior choice between those two. Yet without the Tea Party campaign, the voter have missed the exposure to those ideas, and might have voted for the Democrat.
More or less control freak government stuff — for about 6,000 plus years of recorded history ???
Something new in the 2000s ???
P.R. to really show ideology — and nonpartisan A.V.
How many nations manage to survive with 3 or more parties winning P.R. seats ???
Actually most advanced democratic nations have three or more parties and survive quite nicely, thank you.
Two party rule is a USA exclusive phenomena in advanced nations.
Third parties are typically crushed in the USA by an unusual show of consensus by Reps and Dems.
The reason why most advanced democratic nations have three or more parties is because most advanced democratic nations also have proportional representation in their parliaments. In the U.S., with a winner-take-all district-based system of representation, there’s a tendency to cohere around two parties because only one person can win in any given election. It’s perfectly logical, given the realities of how elections are set up in this country.
I know a “tea party” has been set up in Fla and Nev. Any other states where a party by that name is trying to get on the ballot?
So it is a winner take all. With three parties, the winner might win with 33.5%, more likely 40% vs the present structure with two parties, that requires 51%. Either way, isn’t it a “winner take all” ?
# Babcock Says:
February 18th, 2010:
“most advanced democratic nations have three or more parties and survive quite nicely, thank you.
Two party rule is a USA exclusive phenomena in advanced nations ……”
………. as is Congress [instead of Parliaments]
………. as is the inches and pints [non metric]
………. as is Federal Funny Money [not central bank]
………. as is 194 foreign military bases
………. as is non voters in Guam, DC, PR, VI
Yet these people that are starting up this party are no saints at all.
I already posted a few items here-
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/02/13/tea-party-expects-to-appear-on-nevada-ballot-in-2010/#comments
-That seems to indicate these people may have a hidden agenda.
Another thing, their petition may be open to legal question: on the last page the wrong person signed as their secretary!
Even though the article is Pro-Two Party system, I wouldn’t be defending this ‘Tea Party’, Richard, because the info on their leaders seems to raise a lot of red flags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
See the list of CIVILIZED regimes with P.R. — unlike the BARBARIAN STONE AGE U.S.A. national and state/local regimes with minority rule gerrymanders.
Folks can look up each regime and see how many parties elect legislators via P.R.
The lack of P.R. knowledge in the U.S.A. is due to the BARBARIAN public schools involved in nonstop brainwashing of the public about minority rule gerrymanders from age zero — thus the evil mess in the U.S.A. — about ready to have an economic collapse due to accumulated deficits.
The idea of creating another ambiguous center/right political party when other suitable parties (IAP & LP)already exist and are trying to build themselves up illustrates the true lack of imagination, or perhaps a hidden agenda to co-opt the real freedom movement.
The idea of creating another ambiguous center/right political party when other suitable parties (IAP & LP)already exist and are trying to build themselves up illustrates the true lack of imagination, or perhaps a hidden agenda to co-opt the real freedom movement.
= I’m thinking the same thing myself!
When you have plurality voting you are almost always stuck with a two party system.
The plurality system leads to disasters like the 2000 election. If all states had had a two-round system Nader would have got a much bigger vote in the first round and Gore would have beaten Bush in the second round. Both parties would have made overtures to Nader voters between the first and second rounds.
From the rangevoting.org link shown above:
(…)
IRV leads to stifling 2-party domination, whereas delayed runoff encourages the formation of many stable political parties, offering voters more choices. Why does that happen? Regardless of why that is, it is hard to dispute: all the IRV countries listed above are 2-party dominated in their IRV seats, whereas 21-23 of the delayed runoff countries listed above have multiparties. And this is true despite the fact most of these delayed-runoff countries have strong presidents (unlike the IRV countries), a factor that normally would enhance 2-party-domination. Is the goal of that pro-IRV group we alluded to, to destroy USA’s third parties?
link
http://rangevoting.org/HonestRunoff.html
Under plurality voting you are almost always stuck with a two-party system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
… Duverger’s law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that “The double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartismâ€[1]
The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law†or principle. Duverger’s law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.
(…)
NV allows constitutional amendments via initiative and referendum. So the public can-if the will is present- destroy the existing duopoly without going through the legislature.
So here’s what you do if you want viable “third parties†in NV:
1. Elect one house of the legislature by PR. If you actually have one or more party members voting on budgets and stuff people will take you seriously. Instead of as a source of amusement.
2. Elect major executive offices, US Senate and US House by two-round majority (i.e. runoff) elections. Eliminates the “spoiler effect” and the kind of scenario that convulsed FL in 2000. Don’t go for instant runoff-it just reinforces two-party domination.
“stealing votes” and “spoiler” are terms which only have some validity when you have 100% voter turnout. No one wants to address the fact that a plurality, if not a majority, of elibible voters stay home each election day resulting in “none of the above” winning nearly every election. It comes down to the fact that if you can’t get people to vote for your candidate, maybe you have the wrong candidate. But in our “victimized” society its always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it?
Mr. McLaughlin seems unaware that it is the professional
Victimologists (and their allies) who are in charge. That was true under W as well.
What planet does Tommy live on?
ICR: I’m actually agreeing with you. It has been true for a damn long time. The victimologists are on all sides – the ones in charge and the wannabe’s. Its always someone else’s fault.
Hi, Like Abe Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people ALL of the time, and all of the people SOME of time, but you can not fool ALL of the people ALL of the time!” I love Abe..