Letters to the Editor
-
Really
If you are surprised that the Republicrat Senate is passing this bill, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past 200 plus years.
-- RyanHartman
Another person who doesn't understand the American electoral system. You can't have three parties here. The founders wanted no parties at all but they didn't realize the system they devised ensured two parties only.
Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system.
The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law” or principle. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties.
How and why it occurs
A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.
The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.
The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered less than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization[1]...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
And unless Canada gives up proportional representation, it will be stuck with numerous parties, another set of nightmares in and of itself, which is why the founders sought to avoid the factionalism they saw tearing Europe apart. We could change it but it would only be worse until we have public campaign financing. Money is money, no matter how many political parties you have.
-
Feinstein amendment fails
57 voted in favor, including somewhat surprizing votes from Obama (for even showing up) and crossovers from Hagel, Specter and Craig.
-
Maybe...
...if y'all did something more than just posting comments on a web site, this wouldn't have happen.
Thank you, blogs, for your illusion of action.
-
Why are we so afraid of terrorists?
Why are we running like scared little sheep from the possibility of terrorism? Yes, the 9/11 attacks were bold and horrific, but the money being spent to defend ourselves and the even greater cost to our nation is far beyond the damage inflicted.
The United States has suffered a number of terrorist incidents over the years without destroying the Republic.
Terrorists succeed not because of their ability to hurt us but because of our over-reaction to it.
The American people are stronger than that and our government should reflect that strength instead of pandering to our deepest fears.
-
Repulsive Bond
One of the most difficult parts about following these debates in the Senate has been having to see and hear the repulsive Kit Bond so often.
-
Is that you, Jonah?
You can just move that pantload right out of here.
It may come as a surprise to you that these blogs are a way of sharing information among people who are very involved on a number of levels. But that's okay, go ahead and think that posting is all we do.
See you at The Hague.
-
Republicans / Conservatives would say...
The ones I know would say, "George Bush is allowed to break the law and order others to break the law because he's our Republican President."
I'm pretty well ready to give up at this point. More than half the politicos in the US believe that the Republicans can commit any crime they like and get away with it; but no one believes that of the Democrats.
fucking IMPEACH already!
I'm already regretting saying too much on these boards. From now I'm it's Anonymous for me. I fully expect to be detained one day and see all those postings printed out in my interrogation cell.
-
Feingold/Webb sequestration is failing miserably
35-62
The Dodd/Feingold stripping of immunity will be up next. Obama is still there.
-
Sweet Jeebus!
Salazar voted aye on 3979 Feingold/Webb. He voted with Obama?
Someone look, quick! Has the sky fallen?
Dodd/Feingold on immunity up now. This is gonna be painful.
-
The country is anyway screwed
The country is anyway screwed beyond repair, as corporates have fully taken control.
With election costs beyond the reach of common man, senators and congressmen are forced to take money from large corporates.
Its a never ending cycle, and it does not matter which party is in power.
It takes a courageous president steps up and forces congress to rewrite campaign funding law and limits bans any campaign funds of any kind. Next step would be taking $5 from each tax return filed and distribute that money equally to prospective candidates who want to run.
This will make honest senators to be elected.
But then, when corruption has reached beyond normal levels, then such an change is beyond the thinking.