Are moderates at a political disadvantage?

[harvey1]

I was reading how Hillary Clinton was booed by fellow liberal democrats because she is not in favor of a timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. Some in her party feel that she is trying to stay moderate for the general election, and thereby just assuming the Democrat nomination is a given.

This has me thinking about the state of being a political moderate. Why don't we have a moderate party and then have relatively extreme Democrat and Republicans have their own party? Does this example of Hillary Clinton suggest that more extreme views dictate the party platform even though there are more moderate voters than relatively extremist views? Is there something evolutionary behind this phenomena? Does it apply on a wider scale toward religious views, or anywhere the terms liberal, conservative, and moderate labels apply?

[McCulloch]

How is it that anyone expects such a system to be properly representative of the views of the voters?

But the system wasn't imposed on the voters, it was chosen by the voters. We can have as many parties as we want, the American voter has chosen a two-party system by supporting, with few exceptions, candidates from those two parties.

It is somewhat nieve to assume that this is what the voters prefer. No, this is what is favoured by a system where for the most part winner takes all. Is there any possibility that a party that receives, for example, 15 percent of the support of the voters would have any representation or power? In the Executive Branch - No. In the Judicial Branch - No. In the Legislative Branch - Senate - No, House - Perhaps, but certainly less than 15% of the seats.
The structure of the representative democracy shapes how political parties are successful.

[Cathar1950]

In the USA It seems that candidates are the best that money can buy.
If the ones with power and money don't support them they usually don't get supported for the obvious reasons, no money.
I don't know how much we can trust grass root organizations. Popular backing can also be dangerous. Nothing is worse then a mob spirit.
Religious movements often miss many of the disenfranchised as well as those outside the belief system. I think some kind of lotto would be nice. Then you would see people use money to get out of serving.

[Cephus]

It is somewhat nieve to assume that this is what the voters prefer. No, this is what is favoured by a system where for the most part winner takes all. Is there any possibility that a party that receives, for example, 15 percent of the support of the voters would have any representation or power? In the Executive Branch - No. In the Judicial Branch - No. In the Legislative Branch - Senate - No, House - Perhaps, but certainly less than 15% of the seats.
The structure of the representative democracy shapes how political parties are successful.

Of course they prefer it, that's how they vote! There's nobody with a gun at the voting booth telling you who to vote for, you're just as free to vote for the Greens or Libertarians as you are for the Republicans or Democrats. You can vote for Mickey Mouse if you really want to. And if those parties or individuals get the majority of votes, they win. There is nothing that stops Americans from voting Democrats and Republicans out and voting 3rd party candidates in. They just DON'T!

The problem is that 3rd parties are largely one-trick ponies. They have one talking point that they feel passionate about, but mostly don't have a comprehensive plan for what to do if they ever did get into power. Why do they think people are going to vote for them if they inspire no confidence?

[McCulloch]

The problem is that 3rd parties are largely one-trick ponies. They have one talking point that they feel passionate about, but mostly don't have a comprehensive plan for what to do if they ever did get into power. Why do they think people are going to vote for them if they inspire no confidence?

The problem with 3rd parties in the USA is that the system is structured in such a way as to minimize the chance that they will ever have any power or influence. Therefore they attract only idealists and single issue proponents. This is not the case in other democracies.

[juliod]

There is nothing that stops Americans from voting Democrats and Republicans out and voting 3rd party candidates in.

Ah, but there is. It's those billions of corporate dollars. A third party, particularly one that doesn't take corporate money, can't even buy TV time to get people's attention.

Corporations rule US politics. They give to Republicans over Democrats at a ratio of between 3:1 and 5:1, depending on industry, but the Democrats are still 100% dependant on them. Hence we have two parties with essentially identical platforms, narrowly aligned with corporate interests.

I vote Green.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Ah, but there is. It's those billions of corporate dollars. A third party, particularly one that doesn't take corporate money, can't even buy TV time to get people's attention.

Those billions of corporate dollars could just as easily support third parties if they wished to though. It's the fault of third parties if they are not earning a following among Americans, including those in charge of the corporate purse-strings.

Sounds to me like a whole lot of whining that nobody likes them, which frankly is true because their platforms simply do not resonate with the American voter. And that's exactly why they lose.

[MagusYanam]

Those billions of corporate dollars could just as easily support third parties if they wished to though. It's the fault of third parties if they are not earning a following among Americans, including those in charge of the corporate purse-strings.

Sounds to me like a whole lot of whining that nobody likes them, which frankly is true because their platforms simply do not resonate with the American voter. And that's exactly why they lose.

I think you're only catching a piece of the problem here. Part of it is the money; part of it is the voters. But I think a lot of it is the entire 'winner-takes-all' voting system we currently have. It creates antagonism between parties with similar platforms but dissimilar followings (like the Republicans and the Progressives at the turn of the century, or the Republicans and the Reform Party, or the Democrats and the Greens). The Green platform resonates fairly well with me (except the entire legalising marijuana thing), but I still vote Democrat. Why? Because I know that's the best way to advance within the system we have the causes I think are worthwhile, even though the Greens also advance those same causes.

If we could tweak the structure of Congress and its relationship to the executive office so that party-coalition governments were viable, it would help represent a far wider swathe of the American people than the current structure does.

[Cephus]

I think you're only catching a piece of the problem here. Part of it is the money; part of it is the voters.

No, all of it is the voters. Corporations, or the people in charge of the purse strings, are simply voting with their checkbooks and supporting those parties which best represent their views and needs, just like any individual voter does. If 3rd parties want more money, they need to earn the respect and support of the people with the deep pockets.

[McCulloch]

Corporations, or the people in charge of the purse strings, are simply voting with their checkbooks and supporting those parties which best represent their views and needs, just like any individual voter does. If 3rd parties want more money, they need to earn the respect and support of the people with the deep pockets.

emphasis added
That all depends on whether you wish to have a democracy or a plutocracy.

[juliod]

Corporations, or the people in charge of the purse strings, are simply voting with their checkbooks and supporting those parties which best represent their views and needs, just like any individual voter does.

Reality check: Corporations don't have rights.

DanZ