The Shrine

Woohoo!

I almost voted "Whig" as a goof.

I always thought that in the US whigs = Republicans.

Speaking of republicans, I am surprised they have two votes, I thought we only had one of those types here.

I'm a republican since there is no Centerist.

Which one is the closest to God-Emporer?

The Seeker wrote:I always thought that in the US whigs = Republicans.

Speaking of republicans, I am surprised they have two votes, I thought we only had one of those types here.

Um, the whigs haven't existed in America since I believe the late 1800s. From my brief wiki'ing of them this morning, they named themselves after the British Whigs (who were an anti-monarchist group) because of their opposition to Andrew Jackson, who I imagine was probably throwing his weight about in the presidency at that time.

And the 'Pubs are up to four now. Surprised? I think we may be seeing the same thing that happens at the polls...take prepolling numbers and add 1-2% for the Republicans, because many of them don't talk much in populist forums, but they WILL be at the polls...

Barret: No, you're right, I didn't really include a "political moderate" option. I tried to reflect the major U.S. parties as well as a few other ideals.

Ish: Repub...

<i>(Mental clears his throat)</i>

Uh, I mean, there's no such thing in as balanced a political system as we have in America.

I replaced Whig with Moderate, if you didn't mind, Mental. That probably explains a lot of the Republicans there.

Honestly, I'm not real keen on having too many "liberals" here, because we tend to all agree with each other all the time. Of course, I've been on a board where I was in the minority with all of the right-wingers, and it's not very fun because they don't seem to listen to reason.

Here, I may be able to sway peoples' opinion in an argument, or *gasp* change my own. I think it has more to do with people's willingness to have good information and education on an issue, rather than political afflication. The admin of the board also works here at the NOC, and I've never seen ANYBODY more apt at trying to win an argument, rather than actually get any information out of one. At least online I have a better chance at that, since I'm much better at written debates than verbal ones. Beyond that, he's very annoying to talk to.

SineSwiper wrote:I replaced Whig with Moderate, if you didn't mind, Mental. That probably explains a lot of the Republicans there.

I do mind. Put it back. I put some humor in this poll for a reason. And what did you plan to do about the votes that were already cast?

SineSwiper wrote:Honestly, I'm not real keen on having too many "liberals" here, because we tend to all agree with each other all the time.

You don't have any control over that.

SineSwiper wrote:Of course, I've been on a board where I was in the minority with all of the right-wingers, and it's not very fun because they don't seem to listen to reason.

Or your definition thereof...

SineSwiper wrote:Here, I may be able to sway peoples' opinion in an argument, or *gasp* change my own. I think it has more to do with people's willingness to have good information and education on an issue, rather than political afflication. The admin of the board also works here at the NOC, and I've never seen ANYBODY more apt at trying to win an argument, rather than actually get any information out of one. At least online I have a better chance at that, since I'm much better at written debates than verbal ones. Beyond that, he's very annoying to talk to.

I do agree that the "willingness to have good information and education on an issue" part is quite key, though I disagree about the feasibility of unbiased education on issues to a greater extent than we already do in this country...I mean, hell, we get voter pamphlets in the mail a good bit before our elections, at least in California, and honestly I really think they're pretty darn good.

Well, I thought the whigs became the republican party. I really don't know more than a few scraps about American politics before 1990 though.

Yeah, you're right, Seeker, and nobody voted for the Whig party (on this poll), so at least that part of it is okay. Sorry, Mental. Wasn't trying to usurp your poll.

Apology accepted.

It wouldn't hurt to put my funny option back in my poll though.

lol, one moderate... Obviously i lean right, but i like to think that i am openminded to most issues and decide for myself, sometimes it even aligns with lefties.

look, the poll's fucked up now...if the moderate option had been in there earlier, i think many people would have chosen it...

and the thing is...when you go to the polls, there's not an "American Moderate" party. Sine, being the admin doesn't give you the right to alter my posts without asking me...even if you do have the power to do it.

Wow, 4 Republicans here, huh? That's gotta be a record percentage for an online forum (non-church, that is :-)

Oh, like this poll even matters.

More Socialists than Democrats? Must be all of the blasted Canadians! Damn commie bastands! j/k

Where my Dems at? Eh? Come on, the Republicans are winning! Ewww... :shock:

I'm trying to figure out who other than Flip and Barret is a staunch Republican here. Like I said, it's weird for an online forum with mostly 20 somethings to be mostly heavy in Republican. Unless an old fogie is voting multiple times :-)

/raises hand

*shrug* What can I say, I grew up in Alaska of all places. Not that I'm a hardcore believer, but to say my enviroment and upbringing (my dad listened to a ton of talk-radio) didn't have an influence on me would be disingenuous.

Well, here's another thing...my experience is that the Democratic party in the U.S. is more fragmented and divisive than the Republican party. For instance, I consider my views to be more Green than anything else at this point in my life, so that's how I voted on this poll, but I have so far in my life mostly voted Democratic, because the Greens haven't been able to muster up enough presence yet at state or national levels to have a serious chance of winning. I may start following races more closely and casting "votes of confidence" if I don't believe strongly in the Democrat who is running and I do believe in the Green party candidate. My mother usually votes Democratic these days but is registered as an independent voter. My father also usually votes Democratic but has voted for Green party candidates I believe.

The Republicans that I know though...that just wouldn't fly with them. The tack is usually "Get behind a Republican candidate early and support him strongly," in my experience, and I really do think the concept of party loyalty figures much higher for Republican voters. I mean, I don't have much direct experience with this, but it's growing, and the Republicans I've known have tended to be VERY loyal to their party - sometimes to the point where I wonder if the individual candidate matters as much.

So there are 4 Republican votes listed on this poll, and only 2 Democratic votes...but also 2 Green votes that I would strongly not be surprised to see go Democratic, and 2 "Moderate" votes which I would almost be willing to bet will fall more often on the Democratic scale as well. I sort of would guess that that's the way it is with the Democratic party - divisive, fragmented, squabbling, but boy do I like them better than the current crop of Republicans.

I'd probably agree with whoever said that the Canadian presence on this board might account for the Socialist votes, given the nature of the Canadian medical system (and the tax system too from what I've heard).

I'm Canadian, my province is run by a "Socialist" party, I voted moderate.

Zeus wrote:I'm trying to figure out who other than Flip and Barret is a staunch Republican here. Like I said, it's weird for an online forum with mostly 20 somethings to be mostly heavy in Republican. Unless an old fogie is voting multiple times :-)

I am republican, though I tend to keep my opinions to myself overall.

I think just about all the wealthy countries in the world have public healthcare. The US is one of the exceptions. But yeah, in general most countries are evolvolving towards a system which is semi-socialist semi-capitalist. Of course I picked socialism though, look at my avatar =P

I'm a registered Socialist, because the Democratic Party has been pissing me off, even though I usually vote for them anyway. Their weak candidates have been pissing me off lately. Both parties have lost touch with the public and resort to bullshitting their way to victory. Here lately the Republicans have been improving their methods of bullshitting quite a bit, and winning the gulible public over.

The best way to defeat bullshit is bigger bullshit or the truth. Unfortunately, 99% of the time our parties pick the former rather than the latter. I'll still waiting for my Bulworth candidate...

The problem you guys have down there is that the vast majority only believes in a 2-party system. You have the centre-right (Democrats) and the far right (Republicans). Only the Green party is on the left at all but Nader is seen as a joke to most people. It's not like you have much choice. Our left party (NDP) has at least won a province in the past (Ontario) and gets invited to debates. They still don't really stand a chance (the Bloc Quebecois, the separatist group, gets a much larger piece of the pie than they do), but at least they get representation on a national level.

The NDP and Green Party here both increased their number of votes by quite a bit in the last federal election.Because we have a minority government, they'll play an important part in the politics. The Bloc, I think they are moving away from seperatism now, and moving more towards a Quebec representation party. They believe that the provinces should have more power, and the federal government less power. To an extent I agree with them simply due to the nature of the province system. I think the only province in the country that would really dissagree is Ontario, and possibly Manitoba.

Considering how both countries have the same electorial system (Plurality), I'm surprised that you guys can get away with it. Mathematically, that kind of system will eventually pull towards a two-party system. Nader's be trying to hark the whole third party, but he doesn't realize that the only way to change the political party orders is to change the voting system.

We need a ranked voting system to encourage third parties, such as instant-runoff voting or range voting. Actually, I think range voting (where you simply score as many people as you want between 1-10) would be the least confusing to the public.

Of course, all of this is a fucking wet dream because both parties don't want to change their fucked up system. Hell, we've had major problems with the electorial college and they still haven't voted that damn thing out.

SineSwiper wrote:Considering how both countries have the same electorial system (Plurality), I'm surprised that you guys can get away with it. Mathematically, that kind of system will eventually pull towards a two-party system. Nader's be trying to hark the whole third party, but he doesn't realize that the only way to change the political party orders is to change the voting system.

We need a ranked voting system to encourage third parties, such as instant-runoff voting or range voting. Actually, I think range voting (where you simply score as many people as you want between 1-10) would be the least confusing to the public.

Of course, all of this is a fucking wet dream because both parties don't want to change their fucked up system. Hell, we've had major problems with the electorial college and they still haven't voted that damn thing out.

It is interesting...I was reading in the Wiki that there's even a named political science "law" that a "first-past-the-post" voting system (vote for only one candidate and a specified majority of the vote wins, like we have in America) naturally leads to a two-party system. I'm really interested in this "range voting" idea, do you have any links on it?

I don'tt hink that's the case. It seems to be the opposite trend in most countries that began as a two party system (most notably those in Europe) and have moved into a multi-party system.

Not that I'm a political science major, but I'll tend to believe the Wiki over you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Interesting, I was reading the Wiki article on range voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting) and I was wondering if a normalized range voting system could be used to minimize tactical voting. (On the topic of non-first-past-the-post systems.)

So, something like the following: If there are three candidates and I can rate them each from one to ten, if I rate one of them a ten and the others a three and a two respectively (let's assume I don't think it's a particularly thrilling set of potential leaders), my vote is going to be ten strong all told - but if someone votes one candidate a ten, another a nine, and another a one (we'll assume partisanship or something on this particular ballot), their vote will be twenty strong all told. However, if each of our scores is normalized (that is, divided by the maximum number of votes), we'll each be weighted equal to each other. Of course, this tends to reduce to really ranking the candidates against each other, but I feel like that's what ends up happening anyway.

Hmmmm. My intuition says it might work...sigh...but I have a feeling there may be a lot of people in this country with not much chance of understanding the idea of a normalized range vote. I think people should at least be able to understand their voting system.

Probably the best way to fix problems like that would be to use a limited range, like 1-5, instead of a wider range like 1-10.

As far as the mathematics involved with two-party systems and our plurality voting system, it's just common sense that it will eventually end up as a two-party system. Not only that, but it's very hard to start a third party. As soon as one gets started, people start shouting about the Spoiler Effect, which kills the party shortly after, or in the case of Whigs, kills the OTHER party, when the other people join.

In this situation, people cannot afford to be a part of the minority party, because the minority always loses in an election.

The problem with your counter-argument, Mental, is that Duverger's law only refers to nations using FPTP electoral systems. My argument states Canada and most European nations have been experiencing decentralization; the UK is the only European nation that uses the FPTP system. Canada also uses the FPTP system, but somehow is also expieriencing decentralization among its parties; an example which serves to discredit Duverger's law.