Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 10:31:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years  (Read 3040 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« on: June 05, 2012, 09:48:35 AM »

What's wrong with polarized political parties? The Dem coalition up until the 1980s didn't make any sense for public policy, and the trade of a lot of conservative southern Dems for a smaller number of liberal and moderate northern Republicans is very good for coherence of policy, if bad for "polarization."

The major problem we have is that our parties now operate like a parliamentary system but our institutions (notably, the senate) haven't evolved to reflect that. A smaller problem is how local elections get tainted by association with the federal parties which distorts the process so no Republican can get elected to local government in D.C. and no Dem in Texas.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2012, 10:20:40 AM »

Centrists still have a place because you define whether a party wins or not. Only the conservatives can sort of get to 50% in an election (liberals can't) and that's in special cases where they then overreach and get thrown out. Parties have to decide for themselves how they woo centrists.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2012, 10:27:27 AM »

Centrists still have a place because you define whether a party wins or not. Only the conservatives can sort of get to 50% in an election (liberals can't) and that's in special cases where they then overreach and get thrown out. Parties have to decide for themselves how they woo centrists.

My experience on even "advanced" partisan sites, like above mentioned DKE and RRH, goes contrary to your logic - no one likes to hear unpleasant things about themselves, even if you agree with them in other cases. I was banned twice on one site and once on another (with logic being "you irritate too many people here and don't play by the rules") simply for disagreeing with majority rather often))). So i didn't noticed big "wooing")))))

Forget commenters on the Internet. That doesn't count.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2012, 10:35:40 AM »


Forget commenters on the Internet. That doesn't count.

Then look at present day american politics. With centrist  politicians almost permanently attacked by "activists". The only difference being - from the left in Democratic case, from the right - in Republican

Our institutions make it impossible for either party to carry out its agenda except under extraordinary circumstances like the 6-month period when the Dems had 60 senators. Frustration breeds resentment.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2012, 10:54:06 AM »


Our institutions make it impossible for either party to carry out its agenda except under extraordinary circumstances like the 6-month period when the Dems had 60 senators. Frustration breeds resentment.

Then why it's different in Germany, UK and Canada?

It's completely different in the UK. Governments there can be very effective.

Canada has the complicating factor of Quebec nationalism, without which things are quite effective.

Germany has a system that discourages powerful parliamentary majorities, presumably there's a preference for consensus over strong government because of the history.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2012, 11:02:41 AM »

Right. That's why we need to seriously scale back or eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and yes, I'll support that when the GOP takes the chamber this fall or in 2014.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2012, 02:42:51 PM »


Forget commenters on the Internet. That doesn't count.

Then look at present day american politics. With centrist  politicians almost permanently attacked by "activists". The only difference being - from the left in Democratic case, from the right - in Republican
Dubya had no problem carrying out his agenda.

Our institutions make it impossible for either party to carry out its agenda except under extraordinary circumstances like the 6-month period when the Dems had 60 senators. Frustration breeds resentment.

Actually, Dubya did hit the wall on most everything except for tax cuts and war. His Social Security initiative crumbled immediately.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2012, 08:43:29 AM »

But in the US the voter does not expect to vote for a party, they expect to vote for a person. Their party affiliation is an important attribute, but not the only one. For an incumbent in a general election the voting record and constituent service is more important than the party. An incumbent who played the part of the loyal opposition voting against all major initiatives of the majority would not last except in the most solid partisan districts. In a 55-45 district that just won't do.

This does not seem consistent with the last three congressional elections.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.