[thechat] Hiding from Elections Now

Matt Warden mwarden at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 02:18:52 CDT 2008


On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 AM, erik mattheis <zero at gozz.com> wrote:
> I was responding to your statement that "since they didn't register
> according to the new regulations in McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform,
> these groups of a few local mothers making signs in their living rooms were
> fined tens of thousands of dollars and ordered to cease their campaign."

My account of the details was not 100% correct, but my point is, as I
stated, that complicated legislation in the political process ends up
supporting the status quo, as new ideas and new entrants are at a
greater disadvantage than they would be if the rules of the game were
made simple.

> Third party candidates do well here in Minnesota - for the last several
> cycles, there's been three top gubernatorial candidates getting within 10%
> of the vote from one another. And the same will be true in this year in our
> Senate race - in fact Barkley could beat both Franken and Coleman.
>
> Why do you figure a third party can do well in MN but few other places? In
> other words, you're claiming the national system is rigged to favor Dems
> aqnd Repubs - if this is true, how does one explain Minnesota? My
> explanation is that Minnesotan voters have an independent veign in them and
> talk of barriers to third party candidates is much over-hyped.

The barriers to third party candidates are great, and the deck is
indeed stacked against them. Third party candidates must work very
hard to even get on the ballot in many states -- especially those that
don't have as easy a process at MN. It typically involves numerous
lawsuits and a crapshoot as to whether the courts come to a decision
in time for it to matter. But these are state laws, and I'm not going
to say that any particular state should have their election laws one
way or another, as I'm not a resident of those states. I am a little
surprised that you think these barriers are over-hyped, when there are
very clear efforts to maximize power at the local level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering This is a clear example of
people in power manipulating the system to remain in power.

I think the evidence of the deck being stacked against third-party
candidates is simply the fact that they don't get access to the
process. If one were to disagree with that, then the implication is
that all third party candidates fail to represent any significant
portion of the people, and that's why they don't get access to the
process. Is there another explanation I'm missing?

In my view the solution is simple: any candidate who is somehow able
to get on enough ballots to theoretically win the election should
participate in the debates.

> Any comment on my assertion that when you have winner-take-all elections as
> opposed to proportional representation, its the method of voting itself that
> tends to favor two dominant parties?

If I understand what you are saying, I would have to agree. People who
are in power want to stay in power, and one way to help with that is
to build alliances. One large alliance is not really an option in a
democracy, so the next greatest level of power would be two large
alliances. The two alliances polarize and then fight for the same
middle "undecided" territory, and in so doing become very similar.
There have been a number of papers on this which explain it much
better than I ever could, but yes it is a natural result of the
process itself. Further, once the alliances are established, the
process is further molded in that direction. There is no need for a
conspiracy; there is only a need for individuals who are in power to
want to remain in power.

But if you completely marginalize third parties and do not allow them
in the discussion, you get a stagnant set of ideas like we have
currently. Lack of diversity in the discourse results in no creativity
and a lot of groupthink. There are a lot of important questions that
do not get asked in the mainstream*. It's unfortunate.


* The only exception is when shit hits the fan like it is currently.
Some of the "wackos" of yesterday get pulled briefly into the
mainstream because some of the things they were getting laughed for
saying start to make a little more sense... until the crisis is
averted and people forget again.


-- 
Matt Warden
Cincinnati, OH, USA
http://mattwarden.com


This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy.



More information about the thechat mailing list