The Wingnut Singularity

[Free Soviets]

The GOP has been developing this direction since the late 60s rather than since 9/11. The statr was with Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats move to the GOP, and that realignment. The sexual counter-revolution of the 70s also added to movement conservatism. The Neocon attempt to hijack it has basically failed.

what fascinates me is how much damage the slaver scum were able to do when they switched parties. they blocked a hell of a lot of good from getting done during their time in the post-reconstruction democratic party (which was utterly their own thing). but they were always in a bit of a rearguard defense against the populists and progressives who quickly consolidated their gains in the party. i mean, al smith nearly got an anti-kkk plank into the platform way back in 1924. but as soon as they were tempted to really join the republican party, rather than just take part in the conservative coalition, they were the ones actively taking over and controlling the agenda.

[Vousielle]

As it is the Democratic party stretches from left to center-right, while the Republicans keep moving right. This is primarily why I'm willing to bank on a Democratic victory this go-round.

[DaWoad]

Third party candidates never get elected. He might as well vote Democratic, it would have the same effect.

Not with that attitude. In Canada, Jack Layton used to be third party but made it to 2nd place last election.

The value of all votes at a collective level depends on what the average voter does at an individual level. Saying "that vote would have the same effect, so I may as well not vote for X party" is like saying "my vote won't have much effect, so I may as well not vote at all."

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

[Farnhamia]

Not with that attitude. In Canada, Jack Layton used to be third party but made it to 2nd place last election.

The value of all votes at a collective level depends on what the average voter does at an individual level. Saying "that vote would have the same effect, so I may as well not vote for X party" is like saying "my vote won't have much effect, so I may as well not vote at all."

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

It isn't the Electoral College that keeps minor parties minor, it's their obsession with the presidency. And the fact that they invariably run wingnuts.

[Sulfar]

Not with that attitude. In Canada, Jack Layton used to be third party but made it to 2nd place last election.

The value of all votes at a collective level depends on what the average voter does at an individual level. Saying "that vote would have the same effect, so I may as well not vote for X party" is like saying "my vote won't have much effect, so I may as well not vote at all."

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

It's the first time that the Greens got a seat in the House of Commons, sir (Blair Wilson doesn't count). And there was 4 parties including the Bloc, it just got decimated in the last election.
Also, the NDP has been brought to official opposition because of Quebec, and I'm willing to be as a Quebecer myself that the NDP won't get as much seats as in May 2011, since Jack Layton is gone

I don't think it's entirely because of the electoral college.

[DaWoad]

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

It's the first time that the Greens got a seat in the House of Commons, sir (Blair Wilson doesn't count). And there was 4 parties including the Bloc, it just got decimated in the last election.
Also, the NDP has been brought to official opposition because of Quebec, and I'm willing to be as a Quebecer myself that the NDP won't get as much seats as in May 2011, since Jack Layton is gone

I don't think it's entirely because of the electoral college.

well if you think about our system compared to theirs, it takes a lot less to get a seat in the house of commons than it would to get 50% +1 of the vote in a state?
To get a seat in the house of commons you basically just have to run an effective campaign targeting about 100 000 ish people whereas winning over a whole bloody state . .. .
I'm never quite sure what to call the bloc given that, outside of quebec, you can't vote for it :\

[DaWoad]

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

It isn't the Electoral College that keeps minor parties minor, it's their obsession with the presidency. And the fact that they invariably run wingnuts.

er, can you explain a little more?

[Farnhamia]

It's the first time that the Greens got a seat in the House of Commons, sir (Blair Wilson doesn't count). And there was 4 parties including the Bloc, it just got decimated in the last election.
Also, the NDP has been brought to official opposition because of Quebec, and I'm willing to be as a Quebecer myself that the NDP won't get as much seats as in May 2011, since Jack Layton is gone

I don't think it's entirely because of the electoral college.

well if you think about our system compared to theirs, it takes a lot less to get a seat in the house of commons than it would to get 50% +1 of the vote in a state?
To get a seat in the house of commons you basically just have to run an effective campaign targeting about 100 000 ish people whereas winning over a whole bloody state . .. .
I'm never quite sure what to call the bloc given that, outside of quebec, you can't vote for it :\

The Electoral College only comes into play in electing the President. Everything else is simple majority, right on down to the local level. To get a seat in the House of Representatives all you have to win is a specific congressional district, not the whole state. That's the same for state legislative offices, too.

[Farnhamia]

It isn't the Electoral College that keeps minor parties minor, it's their obsession with the presidency. And the fact that they invariably run wingnuts.

er, can you explain a little more?

Sure.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646074#p8646074
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646250#p8646250

[Sulfar]

It's the first time that the Greens got a seat in the House of Commons, sir (Blair Wilson doesn't count). And there was 4 parties including the Bloc, it just got decimated in the last election.
Also, the NDP has been brought to official opposition because of Quebec, and I'm willing to be as a Quebecer myself that the NDP won't get as much seats as in May 2011, since Jack Layton is gone

I don't think it's entirely because of the electoral college.

well if you think about our system compared to theirs, it takes a lot less to get a seat in the house of commons than it would to get 50% +1 of the vote in a state?
To get a seat in the house of commons you basically just have to run an effective campaign targeting about 100 000 ish people whereas winning over a whole bloody state . .. .
I'm never quite sure what to call the bloc given that, outside of quebec, you can't vote for it :\

The Bloc is (was? 4 seats now) a party. It has been the Official Opposition once
And yes, I agree with you. I'm just saying that normally, even with the third parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives pretty much control Parliament.

[Fnordgasm 5]

What happened to the reasonable, intelligent Republicans? I know they exist, I've seen them on this forum and on the TV, yet they all seem to have fallen silent. I look across the pond and I don't know whether they're just not getting heard or if they are keeping their heads down because I just don't see them. It appears that their party has been stolen from them and it doesn't appear that they are doing anything about it. Is it the media? Are they not giving any time to these people? How did it come down to Gringrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum?

[Free Soviets]

What happened to the reasonable, intelligent Republicans? I know they exist, I've seen them on this forum and on the TV, yet they all seem to have fallen silent. I look across the pond and I don't know whether they're just not getting heard or if they are keeping their heads down because I just don't see them. It appears that their party has been stolen from them and it doesn't appear that they are doing anything about it. Is it the media? Are they not giving any time to these people? How did it come down to Gringrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum?

i suspect that for the big names and those whose incomes are directly tied to the conservative movement machine, keeping their heads down seems like the only reasonable course of action. numerous figures in otherwise good conservative standing have been drummed out of the movement for even minor bits of apostasy. and i mean that in the sense of losing long-held electoral seats or positions at movement propaganda organs and policy organizations. if you want a job with the conservatives, you don't want to piss off the base or come out against the base's candidates. because what if they win?

[Ashmoria]

There is no alternate conservative party for him to vote for, obviously.

Ever heard of the Libertarian party? Or the Constitution party?

the libertarian party is only good on paper (if you ignore stupid stuff like the gold standard and alternate currencies)

teh constitution party is only for theocrats.

[Fnordgasm 5]

What happened to the reasonable, intelligent Republicans? I know they exist, I've seen them on this forum and on the TV, yet they all seem to have fallen silent. I look across the pond and I don't know whether they're just not getting heard or if they are keeping their heads down because I just don't see them. It appears that their party has been stolen from them and it doesn't appear that they are doing anything about it. Is it the media? Are they not giving any time to these people? How did it come down to Gringrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum?

i suspect that for the big names and those whose incomes are directly tied to the conservative movement machine, keeping their heads down seems like the only reasonable course of action. numerous figures in otherwise good conservative standing have been drummed out of the movement for even minor bits of apostasy. and i mean that in the sense of losing long-held electoral seats or positions at movement propaganda organs and policy organizations. if you want a job with the conservatives, you don't want to piss off the base or come out against the base's candidates. because what if they win?

It seems to me that the best thing for the US is if Santorum won the nomination and then lost to Obama because then the Republicans might realise that this quest for "ideological purity" is harming them. I worry that when Romney wins the nomination and loses to Obama it may force the Republicans further to the right or even worse, persuade some to pursue "2nd Amendment Solutions".

I suppose there's also a chance of Romney winning the election but I can't imagine what the repercussions of that happening are. I just can't separate the man himself from the right-wing demagoguery he's been spouting to win this nomination.

All this drama makes me kinda appreciate Britain's politicians better.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

Ever heard of the Libertarian party? Or the Constitution party?

the libertarian party is only good on paper (if you ignore stupid stuff like the gold standard and alternate currencies)

teh constitution party is only for theocrats.

That could be said about any party. We're not sure until we try.

More to the point, though, it would help draw votes (theocrat votes, etc...) away from the Republican party. For example, if Santorum turns out to win the nomination, the Constitution could cite his party animal persona from college to make him out to be insincere in his religious beliefs, etc... so as to convince some of the theocrats that the Constitution party is more trustworthy than Republicans.

[Ashmoria]

the libertarian party is only good on paper (if you ignore stupid stuff like the gold standard and alternate currencies)

teh constitution party is only for theocrats.

That could be said about any party. We're not sure until we try.

More to the point, though, it would help draw votes (theocrat votes, etc...) away from the Republican party. For example, if Santorum turns out to win the nomination, the Constitution could cite his party animal persona from college to make him out to be insincere in his religious beliefs, etc... so as to convince some of the theocrats that the Constitution party is more trustworthy than Republicans.

when the libertarian party stops being crazy im sure it will draw more support.

until then it makes no sense to suggest that people move from the party of crazy to a party of even crazier.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

That could be said about any party. We're not sure until we try.

More to the point, though, it would help draw votes (theocrat votes, etc...) away from the Republican party. For example, if Santorum turns out to win the nomination, the Constitution could cite his party animal persona from college to make him out to be insincere in his religious beliefs, etc... so as to convince some of the theocrats that the Constitution party is more trustworthy than Republicans.

when the libertarian party stops being crazy im sure it will draw more support.

until then it makes no sense to suggest that people move from the party of crazy to a party of even crazier.

Exploring alternative currencies is "even crazier" than today's Republicans? I doubt it.

[DaWoad]

er, can you explain a little more?

Sure.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646074#p8646074
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646250#p8646250

just to be clear, in the states, to get a seat in the house of representatives at a federal level all you have to do is win a congressional district?

[Farnhamia]

Sure.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646074#p8646074
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8646250#p8646250

just to be clear, in the states, to get a seat in the house of representatives at a federal level all you have to do is win a congressional district?

Correct.

[Yootwopia]

when the libertarian party stops being crazy im sure it will draw more support.

until then it makes no sense to suggest that people move from the party of crazy to a party of even crazier.

Exploring alternative currencies is "even crazier" than today's Republicans? I doubt it.

You know what wasn't great?

People being paid in company scrips in the 19th century.

[DaWoad]

just to be clear, in the states, to get a seat in the house of representatives at a federal level all you have to do is win a congressional district?

Correct.

thanks farn . HUuh, okay that makes no bloody sense, you'd think third party candiadates would want to focus local rather than running a race they couldn't possibly win . . . . are there funding incentives for doing things the way they are or something?

[Farnhamia]

Correct.

thanks farn . HUuh, okay that makes no bloody sense, you'd think third party candiadates would want to focus local rather than running a race they couldn't possibly win . . . . are there funding incentives for doing things the way they are or something?

Nope, no funding incentives that I know of. They're just that dumb.

[Wikkiwallana]

except that Canada has had three parties that win seats for quite some time (and then there's the bloc Quebecois). Even our green party has,on occasion, gotten a seat or two at the federal level. This is because we don't have your whole electoral college craziness thing going on.

It isn't the Electoral College that keeps minor parties minor, it's their obsession with the presidency. And the fact that they invariably run wingnuts.

Be fair. Some of them run moonbats.

[Farnhamia]

It isn't the Electoral College that keeps minor parties minor, it's their obsession with the presidency. And the fact that they invariably run wingnuts.

Be fair. Some of them run moonbats.

Truly. And mooncalves, too.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Would it be possible for a right-leaning individual to give an opinion or will it just be shut down with several
"YOU REPUBLICAN, YOU IS TEH STUPID AND EBIL!"


The Republican party is judged for few individuals, not the enitre party. Simply because one does not agree with you doesn't mean they are stupid, radical, or insane. I support Ron Paul, but I'm not going to go out, bang on every door at 4 AM to remind people to vote for him. No, I am going to advocate for him with groups of friends or other people and go vote. Sanotrum, i don't agree with, but I don't consider him a radical, he has some pretty out-there ideas and beliefs, but I'm not going to just be against him because of the things he says. All politicians are flawed. That's our system. Obama, Pelosi, and Biden have made mistakes and said the wrong things, yet there isn't an outstanding hatred of them. There isn't nitpicking on the scale of the ones agaisnt the Right-leaning, or republican individuals.
An arguement without debate is just a statement.

There's a difference between making a mistake and making a policy decision. Obama will occasionally make a mistake, while the GOP's entire platform is wrong.