Republicans dumb as a post, here's proof!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Because when you have two parties whose leadership seems to like to polarize then 90% of Americans are left with no good choices.

I have to say, I'm with Lurch on this one--the problem is that the two party system tends to lead to a lack of choices for the electorate. Compounding this is the constant gerrymandering of congressional boundaries to the point where even though large swings take place in the public mood, 90% of incumbent members are completely safe.

In my view, two things tend to polarize the electorate--the two-party system, which leads people to self-identify with political parties, and the fact that politics is nearly always a zero-sum game in the US, which raises the stakes for single issue voters across the spectrum.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have to say, I'm with Lurch on this one--the problem is that the two party system tends to lead to a lack of choices for the electorate. Compounding this is the constant gerrymandering of congressional boundaries to the point where even though large swings take place in the public mood, 90% of incumbent members are completely safe.

In my view, two things tend to polarize the electorate--the two-party system, which leads people to self-identify with political parties, and the fact that politics is nearly always a zero-sum game in the US, which raises the stakes for single issue voters across the spectrum.

We have 4 mainstream parties here and I still feel like I've got nobody to vote for.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

We have 4 mainstream parties here and I still feel like I've got nobody to vote for.

Well, this could easily turn into a lengthy civics discussion--but part of the reason for that is probably that you don't have 4 legitimate choices. Effectively, most Canadians live in a two-party system, for voting purposes--the first-past-the-post system doesn't lend itself particularly well to 3 or 4 way races, at least not at a local level. There might be 4 or even 10 candidates on the ballot, but because only 2 have a realistic chance in any given riding, that limits people's choices somewhat. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but Calgary isn't one.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, this could easily turn into a lengthy civics discussion--but part of the reason for that is probably that you don't have 4 legitimate choices. Effectively, most Canadians live in a two-party system, for voting purposes--the first-past-the-post system doesn't lend itself particularly well to 3 or 4 way races, at least not at a local level. There might be 4 or even 10 candidates on the ballot, but because only 2 have a realistic chance in any given riding, that limits people's choices somewhat. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but Calgary isn't one.

Actually in Calgary there's only one choice. I've said it before, Saddam Hussein could get elected to the HOC if he ran in Calgary and put "Conservative" under his name.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually in Calgary there's only one choice. I've said it before, Saddam Hussein could get elected to the HOC if he ran in Calgary and put "Conservative" under his name.

True enough. I held my nose and voted Liberal, but even then I knew I was throwing my vote away....

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

True enough. I held my nose and voted Liberal, but even then I knew I was throwing my vote away....

That's why I voted Green. Well actually, I believe in a lot of the Green Party's policies but I voted for them especially in hopes they keep getting the funding. And they will since they got over 2% of the vote again.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have to say, I'm with Lurch on this one--the problem is that the two party system tends to lead to a lack of choices for the electorate. Compounding this is the constant gerrymandering of congressional boundaries to the point where even though large swings take place in the public mood, 90% of incumbent members are completely safe.

In my view, two things tend to polarize the electorate--the two-party system, which leads people to self-identify with political parties, and the fact that politics is nearly always a zero-sum game in the US, which raises the stakes for single issue voters across the spectrum.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems what both of you have said only strengthens my view. When the leadership of both parties is borderline extreme, it leaves Americans with even less of a choice. If both parties come back to the middle there is more overlap and the 90% become the swing voters rather than the 10% extremists.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems what both of you have said only strengthens my view. When the leadership of both parties is borderline extreme, it leaves Americans with even less of a choice. If both parties come back to the middle there is more overlap and the 90% become the swing voters rather than the 10% extremists.

You're not missing anything--but I wasn't as clear as I could have been on one particular: in my view, the electorate is not polarized because there's a lot of ideological spread between the parties. In a way, both parties generally attempt to construct "big tent" platforms that appeal to both their extreme wings and their larger, centrist bases. In reality, there's not that much difference between them, except for their stances on "hot button" issues like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, etc.--and arguably those issues are not particularly relevant to governance in any case.

My point was that the electorate is polarized because of the two-party system--and because of the gerrymandering that results in a regionalization of party-specific power. It's not about ideology--it's about the geographical and class distribution of party support, and the fact that losers get nothing in the American political system. The way I see it, they could be called "The Demublicans" and the "Republicrats," and the electorate would still be polarized. Just my opinion, though.