10th May 2016, 11:01 AM
That's a good point Welty. If the Republican party dissolves after this, there will be no strategic necessity to cling to the democratic party just to keep the other giant beast from winning. It'll go back to a huge host of much smaller parties representing numerous viewpoints, rather than this false dichotomy we're stuck with now.
ABF, I see where you're coming from, but when you ask "what would we replace it with if the current party system went down?" you come across as someone who thinks the entire political system would collapse without these two parties in place. I have a bit more confidence than that. I'm pretty sure our democracy would survive if they both came tumbling down with no other giant parties to fill the void.
When I said some vote based on who they think will win, I wasn't just talking about the "strategic voting" thing, I'm actually talking something a lot dumber than that. There are a large number of voters who literally think voting is about picking "the winner" and being able to say they won, like it's a lottery. It's not strategy to them, it's about not being stuck voting for "the loser". Even in the presidential elections, between exactly two candidates, check the poles. When one candidate or the other starts to get a lead, that lead suddenly swells as a lot of voters switch sides to be on "the winning team". It's completely idiotic, but as you might point out yourself, also has a place in history, where not switching sides to the presumptive winner usually meant you were going to be killed. There are basically no consequences to being on the "losing side" any more, but people still want to "win" the election by picking the one who wins.
ABF, I see where you're coming from, but when you ask "what would we replace it with if the current party system went down?" you come across as someone who thinks the entire political system would collapse without these two parties in place. I have a bit more confidence than that. I'm pretty sure our democracy would survive if they both came tumbling down with no other giant parties to fill the void.
When I said some vote based on who they think will win, I wasn't just talking about the "strategic voting" thing, I'm actually talking something a lot dumber than that. There are a large number of voters who literally think voting is about picking "the winner" and being able to say they won, like it's a lottery. It's not strategy to them, it's about not being stuck voting for "the loser". Even in the presidential elections, between exactly two candidates, check the poles. When one candidate or the other starts to get a lead, that lead suddenly swells as a lot of voters switch sides to be on "the winning team". It's completely idiotic, but as you might point out yourself, also has a place in history, where not switching sides to the presumptive winner usually meant you were going to be killed. There are basically no consequences to being on the "losing side" any more, but people still want to "win" the election by picking the one who wins.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)