April 25, 2008 by Craig
I don’t much like quoting myself, as it seems immodest — but in this particular case I like what I wrote on another site well enough that I’ll violate that principle.
Marco and I enjoy political discussion, and on occasions that we end up on opposite sides we generate some good debate. There’s lots of good stuff in this thread (and in many others on his blog; I recommend subscribing). Here’s part of what I just posted:
[Voters] are not so much Republicans/Democrats as voters who have a personal laundry list of issues, each with a position and a priority. Since your voting options are extremely limited (two viable options at best), you choose the one who you hope will serve your interests best.
…
Many (most?) people do not always consider current [political party] policies when placing their votes — they just see the party name, think “they’ve felt the way I do in the past; they probably still do”, and mark their ballot. The parties can exploit this by shifting their actual behavior one way or another to acquire additional voters / influence while still (undeservedly) retaining their core.
I’ll go on to add that this condition is far worse in a lot of other parts of the world than it is in the U.S. or Canada. Latin America seems to be particularly bad. Laura has described Costa Rican voters as voting strictly for their “chosen” party over multiple generations (i.e.: your family votes for party X so you do too). Paraguay just ended a 61-year reign; Mexico had the same party in power for over 70 years. These happen in the context of war, poverty, and famine. At least in the U.S. you can be sure that bad economic times mean a power shift.
We do mostly agree on that. Parties are composed of what are supposed to be compatible planks. Unfortunately what is compatible to me (pro-choice, pro-gun) is incompatible to a lot of other people–so the parties wind up losing constituents unless they hit the single-issue (I won’t vote Huckabee because he’s anti-choice no matter how pro-gun he is).
As such, yeah: the system is inefficient. Things may be changing in some ways. This year the taste of having a say in the primaries may change the way they happen in the various states. We may also see more credibility for double-tickets if Hillary and Obama wind up together.
-Marco
Comment by Marco — April 25, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
> Unfortunately what is compatible to me (pro-choice, pro-gun)
Exactly: there’s a lot of incompatibility (hypocrisy?) in the ideologies of both mainstream parties. “Anti-abortion” is also known as “pro-life”, but scratch a pro-lifer and you’ll often find a pro-death-penalty and pro-war person too.
The only parties that seem to have a (relatively) consistent set of policies (outside of “because my god says so”, which is a whole other can of worms) are the “fringe” parties. The Libertarians are great examples: they start from the central premise of “mind your own business” and then craft every resulting stance in that light. Look how successful that’s been. :-\
Comment by Craig — April 25, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Yeah, because they start at “first principles” … and then stop there–despite all logic or even common sense. The Libertarians sound good to college kids and tax-avoiders. So does anarchistic syndacalist stuff.
-Marco
Comment by Marco — April 25, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
True, but on the other hand the mainstream parties are hardly paragons of logic or common sense either.
Comment by Craig — April 25, 2008 @ 1:41 pm