The two party system in America USED to be Libertarian and Socialists, but it's since moved towards this twisted idea of Liberals and Conservatives (which are traditionally the same ****ing thing) which happened because of the "whatever" attitude of you spineless hacks. Our system would work if people actually used it to voice their opinions. Speak not of voting, but complain about parties? Vote for no 3rd party, but complain it's useless to vote for them? If libertarians and socialists gained power again, we'd have a nice, comfortable nation where our liberties were exercised within a secure social system, providing for our weak and needy while avoiding personal infringement of natural rights (one of those rights is NOT a right to private income. Private property, yes. Private income? No. You don't like it, move to a place (read: Your own island) that doesn't tax you, *******.) Instead you and your apathy created the control or be controlled 2 party system. You're a *****, and the government is your ****ing pimp. Apathy is the illness of America.



If everyone thinks like this, then you have to assume that the 5 people that do vote are voting in your favor. By voting, you're causing that majority rule figure to come into play, so you encourage your candidate to win. By voting, you don't weaken YOUR party, you weaken the whole election in general, so you're not actually hurting anything but your party.

(A side note: It's interesting that "Conservativism" isn't a word in the Firefox dictionary. You know why? Because having a "conservative" party implies that there's a right side of "libertarian," and there isn't. Christianity has ruined politics. However, apathy is still the scapegoat.)

If you want to use today's standards, the original parties were libertarian(Federalists) and super libertarian(democratic-republicans).

Since obviously they are not currently the same thing, we're going with "traditionally". They still weren't the same thing. The "liberals" wanted independence, the "conservatives" wanted to stick with Britain.

Socialists have never had power in the US. Wookie would probably argue they have, just not under that name.

Because libertarians and socialists, who are diametrically opposed politically, would get along politically........riiiiight.

Income is seen as property and it is seen as an implicit right, with the 16th amendment now adding the government's right to your income. However, the debate isn't whither or not private income is a personal right(because otherwise we'd be a communism if it weren't), but how much the government also has a right to that money. Right now the government has a right to about 35% if you're wealthy.

Apathetic people are those who have no opinion, not those that speak out against the current system.

Yeah, "If" everyone thinks like this, which not everybody does. And just like with the polling process, an election will still be fairly accurate to the entire whole's will unless one of the candidates does an outstanding job of firing up his base or pissing off his opponent's base. Of course, purposely not voting also sends a message, but it's about as effective as casting a vote, unless a multitude of people are doing it, in which case that's because of the politicians, not the people. Also, "By voting you don't weaken YOUR party.......so you're not actually hurting anything but your party".....hur?

Religion is a part of politics. Always has been, and until everyone is atheist, it always will. It's not something new.

Whoa now, you're confusing me arguing with your viewpoints and me insulting Freelancer for no good reason, be more careful!

this guy gets it

I took how you describe Freelancer(and myself, since I agree with him), and compare that with how I see you. I'm making the statement that being cynical is still better than being naive.

I agree. Remember I am a renowned cynic on these forums.

I just like to take swings at Freelancer.

Who doesn't?

His mom.

She's too busy washing it out of her hair.

That, or maybe the median voter changed. Historically, as Kieran clarified, the US started out with the middle of the political spectrum being roughly libertarian by today's standards. Today, the system still gravitates towards the center (median voter theory), but the center changed. Yes, if more deadbeats voted, it could move the center a little bit over to their side, maybe. But "third party" voters cannot move politics onto their turf. Imagine the libertarian party as to the right of the Republican party which is to the right of the Democratic party. If the Libertarians gained a signficant amount of support, the Democrats would just join the Republican party (closer to their political preference) and we'd still be left with a two party system. The example is absurd, though, for a reason.

Most people are perfectly content to call themselves a Democrat or Republican. Many independents are content to decide between the two parties at election time (they are in the middle between the two parties' preferences). Those third party people are out there on the fringe without much hope. So they toss their vote to the closest big party. After all, a libertarian on the one dimensional line I imagined earlier would find the Republicans preferable to the Democrats, although not ideal.



No, the illness is in the institutional structure. Single member districts decided on plurality will always lead to two dominant parties. There are exceptions of course where a third party pops up, but it usually simply helps one of the two real parties gain a bigger advantage. (Well, that and the fact that political science isn't as exact as other science's in its theory). Of course, I think you were supporting the range vote idea. This sort of change would actually have an impact on the party system. Electoral rules (institutions) cause two dominant political parties. If you change the way voting happens, that could change.





Ok, I actually need clarification if its important enough to you to explain this a bit more. I mean, I'm interested to know what you mean by this, but I'll get over it if you don't want to discuss it further.

Okay, I realized I messed up the wording.

You made the claim that voting can hurt your party by lowering the value of the individual vote, which I'm disagreeing with. By not voting, you make all of the votes more valuable. You're essentially making the power of the other side just as valuable as your own sides' votes, but not actually contributing to your own party. If you vote, you DO cheapen the value of a single vote, but it also cheapens it in favor of your party.

Does that make sense? I still feel like an idiot.

No, that's not what I meant. In the section that you quoted, I am simply saying that if the candidate that you support is going to win the election in a landslide, then that doesn't mean your vote counts more. It actually means that you can get the outcome that you desire both by voting and by not voting.

In other words, you can free-ride off the work of another. This is a response to the claim that your vote only counts if you're voting for the candidate who is favored in your district. My point is that the vote "counting" has nothing to do with if you are voting for the loser or the winner. It's just a matter of whether or not your vote actually caused the election outcome.

I said that there is a higher probability of the vote counting in that sense when there's a low turnout, but this is oversimplifying. If only five people vote, but all five agree, then a dissenting 6th person's vote wouldn't have any impact. But that dissenting 6th person, if he had no knowledge of how the vote was going to turn out, would probably be more likely to cast a vote because the number of possible combinations of votes are so small that there is a higher probability that his vote would count.

If there's one million people voting, there's much higher and more extremely variant possible outcomes..

Of course that just assumes a "random" vote. With pre-polling, there's much greater certainty of where the vote stands. So even if there's one-million people voting, the data can indicate that the vote is "close enough" that a person would actually vote. I don't think anyone ever really expects to be the +1 voter in an election decided by only one voter in a real district.

However, if the vote is close, that's when people start to actually believe "if people like me all get out and vote, then maybe we would actually change the outcome." So, my theory is that in a place like Kansas, the deadbeats that lean Democrat all don't bother voting. Some people in this thread have claimed that it's because deadbeats don't vote that we don't see results. I think, instead, that deadbeats don't vote because they truly have no chance of affecting the outcome. In such races, the only people who vote tend to believe there is intrinsic value to the process of voting itself. Voting for the sake of voting. Deadbeats tend to be more instrumental. They are the ones who vote in places like Ohio where things are hotly contested. Without the numbers in front of me, I would hypothesize that battleground states have a higher percentage of turnout than other states. And yes, in THOSE states, deadbeat voters *do* have an impact whereas they might not have voted at all in another state.

The patriots!!




Seriously though, even if this theoreticially is right, its like someone else said, your voting a little bit of each person, doesn't make much sense in the scheme of things. Also I doubt the government or whoever regulates the voting system, will accept any new method with arms wide open. Voting has always pretty much been a "yes" or "no" deal. A better plan would be improving the systems errors as described above based on the "yes" or "no" vote. Just my opinion.