What is the problem with American politics?

[Liechenstein]

A arguable but nonetheless interesting point and that is one of the arguments some have made to return Senate elections to State legislators as they were originally.

Then you'd complain about the corrupt state legislatures electing Senators.

Well that was one of the arguments that people made when originally taking it away. Also it is difficult for people to make that point due to the Senators originally representing States or their governments while the people had their own elected body (the House) and elected their State Legislature (and could thus get rid of them or influence the Legislature to care [easier than influencing the Federal Congress]). Regardless of what happens there will be someone unhappy. I honestly don't see this country going back on its current track but, we shall see over time how the cards are played and their respective effects.

[Alien Space Bats]

There are factors that support that. For one, the american system with its preliminaries and whatnot favours the incumbent. While the challenging candidates are busy throwing dirt at each other, the incumbent can just sit around presidently and be above such quarrels. He comes off as more dignified. Nearly all elections favour incumbents for this reason. The incumbent is seen as suitable for the office by virtue of already having it.

I disagree that this is the mechanism whereby most incumbents win reelection.

The problem most challengers have in defeating an incumbent lies in the difficulty challengers have in accepting the earlier election results, seeing the incumbent as legitimate, and then acting on the basis of that knowledge to construct an effect coalition for his or her removal.

More specifically: If you think about any election, it should be clear that the winner has NECESSARILY assembled a coalition sufficient to win REELECTION barring no defections from that coalition. IOW, if <Candidate A> wins office in <Year X>, and none of his supporters abandon him come the next election in <Year Y>, then MATHEMATICALLY he cannot lose in his effort to secure reelection (unless there are a whole lot of new voters who didn't participate in the election last time around. A winning coalition, once established, should be able to continue to win until it is demolished.

Losing Parties NEVER go into an incumbent's reelection campaign thinking about the race in these terms. They always seem to have a hard time believing they lost the last time around, and in the vast majority of campaigns all they want to do is relitigate the last race — a strategy that will almost always produce the same result (i.e., defeat), since most of its "charm" lies in trying to convince the voters that they fucked up last time around. "We had the right idea, the right candidate, and the right platform, but you people just didn't GET it!" is NOT an effective campaign theme (see ASB's First Rule of Successful Campaigning™: "Don't insult people if you want them to vote for you"), yet far too often that seems to be the way challengers try to unseat an incumbent. In particular, it was the (implicit) strategy used by Kerry against Bush ("We Democrats can't believe you people voted for Jar-Jar Bush in '00; please pull your heads out of your asses and try again") and by Romney against Obama ("We Republicans can't believe you people voted for Obummer in '08; please pull YOUR heads out of YOUR asses and try again").

No, a SENSIBLE strategy involves:

1. Recognizing that the incumbent earned the trust and support of enough of the electorate to win last time around.
   
   
2. Understanding WHY the incumbent was able to do so.
   
   
3. Indentifying vulnerable elements within the incumbent's coalition who might be peeled away and aligned behind the challenger.
   
   
4. Making a case in favor of such a realignment, NOT on the basis of the failed arguments of the last campaign, but with full understanding, acknowledgement, and ACCEPTANCE of the choice the target audience made, followed by a cogent argument for why a different choice is called for THIS time around.

Political Parties have a hard time doing this, because they have a hard time admitting that the People didn't agree with them in the last campaign. Part of the problem lies in the fact that those running such campaigns made the opposite choice last time around, so clearly those old (and failed) arguments convinced THEM; that they didn't convince OTHERS is therefore hard to accept ("Why can't EVERYBODY see the world as clearly as I do?!?"), which is why you see so many assertions to the effect that the People "were stupid", "were fooled", voted for the incumbent for superficial reasons or because the incumbent pandered effectively for their votes, etc. These are all less than helpful ways of looking at the previous election, yet invariably they end up becoming part of the basis for the campaign to unseat the incumbent.

The thing is, if your argument didn't work LAST time, it'll probably fail THIS time as well. THAT'S what most political Parties fail to grasp, and it kills them again and again and again and again.

Take '04 as an example: The great issue of the '00 campaign was what to do with the growing budget surplus. Gore wanted to use it to lower the debt and place Social Security on a firmer footing, while Bush wanted to give it back to the public in the form of tax cuts. Bush effectively "won the argument", so all of Kerry's subsequent critiques of Bush's handling of the budget should have been couched in such terms as to ACKNOWLEDGE this fact, using an argument such as this:

In 2000, the American People spoke: They said they wanted most of the surplus we had built up at the end of the last decade returned to them in the form of tax cuts. When they did this, the did not vote to take us back into the era of chronic budget deficits, but rather for an era of balanced budgets, in which lower taxes would be paid for by prudence in spending. What the People did not foresee — indeed, what no one COULD foresee, especially in a world where America appeared to be the last Great Power, was that the actions of a few fanatics would lead us into a costly overseas war.

Yet here we are at war, and it does not appear that we will be back at peace any time soon. Can we afford to pretend that no war is going on, that this war isn't costing us billions each year, and that these billions are having no effect on our budget or our National debt? No, we cannot. We should have rolled back the cuts when we realized that we'd be sending our military into harm's way, in order to be able to sustain the conflict without driving our Nation back into debt again. But it's not too late for us to do that; we can still repeal those tax cuts, fix the problem, and then finish this war. Once it's over and our fiscal house is once more in order, we can then reconsider cutting taxes again.

The value of this approach is that it doesn't reject the last election; rather, it AFFIRMS it. It doesn't say to Bush supporters, "You were wrong." Rather, it says, "We hear you and accept your choice, but now things have changed; shouldn't you reconsider your decision in light of this?"

The Republicans COULD have done something similar in 2012: Indeed, unlike John Kerry in 2004 (who was seeking to build upon the foundation Al Gore left him in 2000 — a year in which it could be argued that Democrats had actually WON the electoral argument in popular terms [due to the fact that Gore won more of the popular vote than Bush]), Mitt Romney could not hope to win without expanding his base beyond that which John McCain had left him in 2008. Indeed, it should have been obvious that if Barack Obama won the support of all the same people he'd carried in 2008, he'd win reelection without breaking a sweat.

So here's the question we need to ask ourself about the Romney campaign in 2012: What did they do to persuade people who voted for OBAMA in 2008 to vote for Romney in 2012 INSTEAD?

Political analysts and observers are not used to thinking of elections in these terms (i.e., "What do I need to do to get the other guys' supporters to change sides"). They think in terms of their OWN base, their OWN supporters, their OWN strengths, but never in terms of taking voters AWAY from the other candidate. Any sane observer of politics would grasp immediately and intuitively that taking votes AWAY from the incumbent is the only way to keep the incumbent from repeating their success, yet seldom if ever does a challenger actually approach a campaign in this way.

This is why many of us openly wondered if there was ANYTHING Romney could do to be Obama in '12. Obama was elected by supermajorities of blacks, Latinos, Asians, and gays; he won the women's vote by a full 12 points in a Nation where women outnumber (and outvote men); he did very well among young voters, who both turned out and voted for him in great numbers; and he enjoyed a greater level of support among registered Democrats (who outnumber registered Republicans Nationwide) than most recent Presidential candidates, suffering minimal defection to McCain.

So what did Romney do to win back women? What did he do to appeal to gays and minorities? What did he do to win over young voters? And what did he do to try and persuade registered Democrats to bolt their Party and vote Republican?

The answer to all of these questions is "little or nothing". Romney spent the entire campaign speaking to his base, rallying the same voters who cast their ballots for McCain in '08. Those 59,950,323 voters had given McCain 45.60% of the popular vote; yet as impressive as that is, it's not as good as 50.01% — which has to make any sensible observer wonder how on Earth Mitt Romney thought that would be ENOUGH.

Consequently, Mitt Romney won the support of 60,932,235 votes, and increase of 981,912 votes over McCain's tally. That's an increase of 1.64% in absolute terms — pretty good for a year in which overall turnout went down. It's likely that few if any McCain voters failed to vote from Mitt Romney as well, which means that Romney did indeed achieve his objective: He won over the people who voted for John McCain, and who were that group most heavily predisposed to support him in the first place. Bravo!

<slow golf clap>

The thing is, it still wasn't a majority: It was only 47.15% of the vote. Obama didn't get all 69,499,428 of HIS 2008 supporters to vote for him again in 2012; he only got 65,917,258 votes, or 3,582,170 less. Maybe a few of those people voted for Romney, but most — never motivated to SWITCH SIDES by any positive appeal on Mitt Romney's part — simply stayed home. Those who went and voted, however (being 94.85% of Obama's 2008 base), were still enough to win the race for Obama.

And that illustrates why incumbents win: If you don't give someone good reason to change their vote, you're relying on them simply changing on their own. With a minimal effort and no real counterargument, the incumbent can probably keep them in line. And why not? They voted for that same candidate last time around; without any good reason to change, why shouldn't they vote the same way again and again?

Challengers routinely refuse to aggressive go after an incumbent's supporters, largely because they can't believe the incumbent really gave those supports any good reason to back him in the first place. But people DO have reasons for voting the way the vote, and so — unless those challengers are prepared to actively try and change their minds in a respectful way ("Yes, I understand AND RESPECT why you voted for <Candidate A> last time around, but I'm going to ask you to change your vote this time, and HERE'S WHY..."), they cannot hope to win.

And because they can't believe their side got rejected in a fair race last time around, one in which the voters considered their choice on the merits, they just can't approach those voters in a sensible way and win them over the second time around (or the third, or the fourth, or...).

[Resawa]

There's only two **cking parties
Of course, after carful research I decided the only party I come close to supporting is the modern Whigs, I still think having more major parties would help

[Farnhamia]

There's only two **cking parties
Of course, after carful research I decided the only party I come close to supporting is the modern Whigs, I still think having more major parties would help

Okay, well, how would you go about creating another major party? And what does that mean, major?

[Shilya]

There's only two **cking parties
Of course, after carful research I decided the only party I come close to supporting is the modern Whigs, I still think having more major parties would help

Okay, well, how would you go about creating another major party?

In a "winner takes it all" system, you can't. Every third party dies because voters feel like they throw their vote away if they vote for them. You would need a system that grants seats in parliament according to fractions of votes total. It's possible to combine that with a "I want this local representative" attitude, fill up half and half.

[Resawa]

There's only two **cking parties
Of course, after carful research I decided the only party I come close to supporting is the modern Whigs, I still think having more major parties would help

Okay, well, how would you go about creating another major party? And what does that mean, major?

Major to me means being able to have the same publicity as the democrats and republicans.
And there are plenty of other parties that could become big, I just know how.

[Resawa]

Ie Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Green Party are all moderately large

[Divair]

Ie Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Green Party are all moderately large

They're so big that they hold no seats in Congress, no governerships, and a whole THREE state Congress seats.. out of 7.5 thousand.

Hmm, ok.

[Resawa]

Ie Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Green Party are all moderately large

They're so big that they hold no seats in Congress, no governerships, and a whole THREE state Congress seats.. out of 7.5 thousand.

Hmm, ok.

This is what I mean, they could be big, but they simply arn't as big as the big two

[Divair]

They're so big that they hold no seats in Congress, no governerships, and a whole THREE state Congress seats.. out of 7.5 thousand.

Hmm, ok.

This is what I mean, they could be big, but they simply arn't as big as the big two

No, they can't be big. Gerrymandering and strategic voting prevent it.

[Farnhamia]

Okay, well, how would you go about creating another major party? And what does that mean, major?

Major to me means being able to have the same publicity as the democrats and republicans.
And there are plenty of other parties that could become big, I just know how.

Publicity is purchased. There's plenty of money around, let them go out and convince people to give them some.

[Resawa]

Major to me means being able to have the same publicity as the democrats and republicans.
And there are plenty of other parties that could become big, I just know how.

Publicity is purchased. There's plenty of money around, let them go out and convince people to give them some.

I never said it wasn't those parties faults
Just that they don't have that publicity and they should
I'd join one of these and do it myself, but, as I said, I hate all of them

[Shilya]

Major to me means being able to have the same publicity as the democrats and republicans.
And there are plenty of other parties that could become big, I just know how.

Publicity is purchased. There's plenty of money around, let them go out and convince people to give them some.

Obama had, in '12, campaign donations worth a billion dollars. Plus the support of established media.

Good luck getting even close to matching that.

[Brcm]

The tax system has to be changed, quickly followed by budget issues.

[Farnhamia]

Publicity is purchased. There's plenty of money around, let them go out and convince people to give them some.

Obama had, in '12, campaign donations worth a billion dollars. Plus the support of established media.

Good luck getting even close to matching that.

I never said it would be easy.

[Shilya]

Obama had, in '12, campaign donations worth a billion dollars. Plus the support of established media.

Good luck getting even close to matching that.

I never said it would be easy.

... I guess I had that coming.

Still, the support for the ruling two parties is pretty overwhelming. It would require an enormous feat to go against this establishment and succeed.

[Farnhamia]

I never said it would be easy.

... I guess I had that coming.

Still, the support for the ruling two parties is pretty overwhelming. It would require an enormous feat to go against this establishment and succeed.

What can I say? I think the minor parties ought to think small and locally, work up to getting someone elected to the House. There ought to be one seat somewhere that's vulnerable. Also, this: viewtopic.php?p=17738426#p17738426

[Ostroeuropa]

Obama had, in '12, campaign donations worth a billion dollars. Plus the support of established media.

Good luck getting even close to matching that.

I never said it would be easy.

We do not choose to do this because it is easy, but because it is hard.

[Shilya]

... I guess I had that coming.

Still, the support for the ruling two parties is pretty overwhelming. It would require an enormous feat to go against this establishment and succeed.

What can I say? I think the minor parties ought to think small and locally,

Locally is always much easier to pull off - the more local, the less the party matter and the focus switches to the individual. There, a staunch republican might vote for a democrat simply because he knows that the guy is alright.

work up to getting someone elected to the House. There ought to be one seat somewhere that's vulnerable.

Here's the problem. On federal level, parties matter. A lot. Both parties have their core voters that ALWAYS vote for them. What matters in elections are the people between them, the switching voters, and usually they aren't enough to win the vote. If any incumbent is unliked, then the general voter consensus is to vote him out, not another one in, and that works by uniting on the biggest challenging candidate.

Also, this: viewtopic.php?p=17738426#p17738426

Very good points... for close calls. But doesn't adress the inherent problems of a winner-takes-all system.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

A combination of the above.

Plus the media & government are oligarchies.

[Seperates]

*snip*

Once again, ASB, you explain American politics better than most Harvard professors of politics. Seriously, why aren't you teaching in academia?

[Alien Space Bats]

There are places where one major Party or the other does not compete. The most obvious example are Republicans, who appear allergic to running for election in urban areas.

If you really want to see your third Party take off, then, arrange to run in one of these places. Offer an alternative to the Democratic candidate in a deep blue city, or an alternative to the Republican candidate in a deep red rural area. As I noted earlier, third Parties CAN emerge under a FPTP system if they focus on a particular segment of the populace (eg., urban voters) or a particular region (eg., the Mountain West).

That said, I will repeat what I said earlier: It is EXTREMELY unlikely that there would be less gridlock or that the U.S. political system would work better if we had more than two major political Parties; more likely than not, we would simply end up with gridlock at an even more profound level.

[Farnhamia]

What can I say? I think the minor parties ought to think small and locally,

Locally is always much easier to pull off - the more local, the less the party matter and the focus switches to the individual. There, a staunch republican might vote for a democrat simply because he knows that the guy is alright.

work up to getting someone elected to the House. There ought to be one seat somewhere that's vulnerable.

Here's the problem. On federal level, parties matter. A lot. Both parties have their core voters that ALWAYS vote for them. What matters in elections are the people between them, the switching voters, and usually they aren't enough to win the vote. If any incumbent is unliked, then the general voter consensus is to vote him out, not another one in, and that works by uniting on the biggest challenging candidate.

Also, this: viewtopic.php?p=17738426#p17738426

Very good points... for close calls. But doesn't adress the inherent problems of a winner-takes-all system.

Bernie Sanders of Vermont was elected to the House as an independent in 1988, the year that Ronald Reagan ate Walter Mondale's lunch. And it need not be the House right away, there are 50 state legislatures. My point is, you have to build from below, not just go for the brass ring of the White House.

ASB doesn't address the FPTP system because there's very little chance of that being done away with. Of course, if you want to concentrate on that issue instead of getting people elected, that's your right but I doubt it will be very satisfying.

[Conservative Idealism]

The problem is that two increasingly similar and increasingly totalitarian political parties are dominating the public interest, causing American citizens to either raise their voices more or leave either party in shame at a growing rate of speed.

Meanwhile, various corporations, most media sources, and the federal government are collating and effectively consolidating their interests and infringing upon the freedoms of the individual (about half of which, surprisingly, don't actually matter all that much). This is making people angry; the people who care about this sort of stuff are shouting about it while the vast majority of people (the ones who don't care) are complaining about all of the shouting.

So, uh. Yeah. Not good.

[Farnhamia]

The problem is that two increasingly similar and increasingly totalitarian political parties are dominating the public interest, causing American citizens to either raise their voices more or leave either party in shame at a growing rate of speed.

Meanwhile, various corporations, most media sources, and the federal government are collating and effectively consolidating their interests and infringing upon the freedoms of the individual (about half of which, surprisingly, don't actually matter all that much). This is making people angry; the people who care about this sort of stuff are shouting about it while the vast majority of people (the ones who don't care) are complaining about all of the shouting.

So, uh. Yeah. Not good.

So, uh, what do we do? Shoot the hostage? No, wait, that's a movie.