That way, the elections aren’t between two or three democrats and two or three Republicans, who are often mainly running on name recognition rather than policy differences, and instead there will be more room for parties other than the main two to distinguish themselves in terms of policy.
I think stonespring's argument here is addressing the fact that humans generally only have the capacity to engage critically with a small number of candidates, so if you swamp the candidate list with a group of almost-interchangeable main-party candidates, it's harder for candidates from minor parties to gain traction. Whereas if the election contains one candidate from each major party and a handful of minor party candidates, it's easier for voters to engage with the policies of the minor candidates.
Which is an argument about people rather than about the correctness of voting systems, and I think I agree with it.
I think the difference that I was trying to point out is that for the Australian federal House of Representatives, the parties get to select their candidate for each constituency before voters rank them. In Alaska, voters have a first round (called a primary but different than primaries in most other states) where the ballot has lots of people running as a Republican or a Democrat for the same seat on the same ballot. The top four vote getters regardless of party advance to the general election, which uses ranked choice voting. California uses a similar system but only the top two vote getters advance to the general election, meaning that it is just a run off and you don’t need ranked choice.
This means that the general election technically could have four candidates all from the same party in Alaska, although that is unlikely, or two candidates from the same party in California, which has happened before. It also means that the parties have much less control over who their candidates are and can be hijacked by candidates who have very little connection to the party at all, who are at odds with the party’s policies, who have various scandals, etc., but who have high name recognition or good fundraising ability.
I know in the Australian federal Senate sometimes voters will rank someone that their party listed third higher and that means they get a seat whereas the person the party listed second doesn’t get a seat. But the party at least gets to determine who is on the ballot at all and who isn’t. That isn’t really the case in Alaska and California, and you could argue that parties have limited ability to prevent any candidate from running under the party label in any US state, at least in a primary.
Yes, we don't have the US system of primaries at all - selection of candidates is entirely left to the internal processes of the parties. I can see advantages both ways. There is certainly no suggestion that we should change to the US procedure. You are right that at the election voters can make their own ranking, regardless of whatever the party decides. That can be done in various ways. The simplest is indicating your preference by marking "1" next to the candidate you want to win, and then consecutive numbers to indicate your preference if the one who was your first preference does not get a majority of votes. That system works well when there is only one candidate to be elected. We call that the "Preferential System". There is a different system for votes for the Senate/upper house, which we call the "Proportional System". That also requires voters to place consecutive numbers against the candidates, but the counting method is entirely different (I don't really understand it and shan't try to on this thread).
At a recent election for State parliament, an independent (ie, someone who is not standing as a member of any party) stood for the seat next south from us; while she did not win, she gave the candidate for the conservative party quite a shock. Our seat and those nearby are generally very safe for the conservative party (which is called Liberal). An example of voters giving a party an appropriate kick.
But your comment " .... the party at least gets to determine who is on the ballot at all and who isn’t" is not really correct. I've just given an example of a candidate, rejected by her party, still standing with her name on the ballot paper. There are several members of State and Federal legislatures who are Independents, that is not a member of any party. Some are successful at election after election.
Has anyone else heard of The After Party, which is a free course (and there’s also a book, but not necessary) for Christians trying to approach politics—not how to vote on candidates or issues, but how we think about politics, and deal with each other on the other side* from us, and such—in a more Christian way than we often do? I’m planning to watch and/or read it, myself.
Our free course will guide you through six videos, interactive sessions, and reflections questions to help you focus less on the "what" of politics — “What policy, party, or candidate is most Christian?” — and more on the "how" of politics so we can ask "How do I relate to others — including those I might disagree with — so that I better reflect Jesus?”
I came across this New York Times article [ gift link ] and it reminded me of this thread. It's about Trump supporters at the Detroit Economic Club whose support is premised on not believing Trump is going to do what he says he's going to do if elected.
One of the more peculiar aspects of Donald J. Trump’s political appeal is this: A lot of people are happy to vote for him because they simply do not believe he will do many of the things he says he will.
The former president has talked about weaponizing the Justice Department and jailing political opponents. He has said he would purge the government of non-loyalists and that he would have trouble hiring anyone who admits that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen. He proposed “one really violent day” in which police officers could get “extraordinarily rough” with impunity. He has promised mass deportations and predicted it would be “a bloody story.” And while many of his supporters thrill at such talk, there are plenty of others who figure it’s all just part of some big act.
There is, of course, evidence to the contrary. During Mr. Trump’s term in office, some of his autocratic rhetoric did become reality. He really did set in motion a Muslim ban; he really did order up investigations of his foes; he really did foment a mob when the election didn’t go his way.
<snip>
“I think the media blows stuff out of proportion for sensationalism,” said Mario Fachini, a 40-year-old Detroit man who owns a book publishing company. His black hair was gelled back and he had on a boxy, black pinstriped suit with a gold pocket square peeking out. There were tiny model globes hanging from his cuff links. He held up his wrist and gave one a spin.
Asked if he believed Mr. Trump would purge the federal government and fill its ranks with election deniers, Mr. Fachini sipped his iced tea and thought for a moment. “I don’t,” he said. So why was Mr. Trump saying he wanted to do that? “It could just be for publicity,” Mr. Fachini said with a shrug, “just riling up the news.”
Mary Burney, a 49-year-old woman from Grosse Pointe, Mich., who works in sales for a radio station, described herself as an independent-turned-Trump-voter. She did not believe the former president would really persecute his political opponents, even though he has mused about appointing a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and members of his family. “I don’t think that’s on his list of things to do,” she said. “No, no.”
Tom Pierce, a 67-year-old from Northville, Mich., did not truly believe that Mr. Trump would round up enough immigrants to carry out “the largest mass deportation operation in history.” Even though that is pretty much the central promise of his campaign.
“He may say things, and then it gets people all upset,” said Mr. Pierce, “but then he turns around and he says, ‘No, I’m not doing that.’ It’s a negotiation. But people don’t understand that.”
What's interesting here is that Trump's dishonesty is seen by some of his supporters as a reason in favor of supporting him.
At any rate this fits very neatly with the OP, which is premised on the idea that some Shipmates are being "paranoid" for worrying about the consequences of Trump's stated policies. There's a bit of a mental disconnect here since those making this argument will often also insist that Trump "says what he believes" or "tells it like it is", implying that Trump should be taken at his word.
I'm very much hoping that this will all turn into one of those fascinating "what ifs" of history, where the man does NOT get elected, and we can speculate till kingdom come just how much he would have truly tried to do. But a man who incites insurrection at the end of his first term is a man to be trusted with nothing.
The cockeyed optimist in me says Fachini is right. All that matters to 50% of the electorate is that he lies about taxes and inflation coming down, the markets booming. Ukraine? Isn't that in Alaska?
I'm very much hoping that this will all turn into one of those fascinating "what ifs" of history, where the man does NOT get elected, and we can speculate till kingdom come just how much he would have truly tried to do. But a man who incites insurrection at the end of his first term is a man to be trusted with nothing.
This. Not to mention what he did during that first term. Yikes.
But this is what happened last time. A lot of people said in 2016 that Trump would pivot after the primaries, or pivot after being elected President. But he didn't! His campaign was a fair reflection of how he would govern. To fall into the same trap again is dumb at best, disingenuous at worst.
But this is what happened last time. A lot of people said in 2016 that Trump would pivot after the primaries, or pivot after being elected President. But he didn't! His campaign was a fair reflection of how he would govern. To fall into the same trap again is dumb at best, disingenuous at worst.
He didn't build a border wall, and he didn't make Mexico pay for the bit he did build. He also didn't "lock her up".
But this is what happened last time. A lot of people said in 2016 that Trump would pivot after the primaries, or pivot after being elected President. But he didn't! His campaign was a fair reflection of how he would govern. To fall into the same trap again is dumb at best, disingenuous at worst.
He didn't build a border wall, and he didn't make Mexico pay for the bit he did build. He also didn't "lock her up".
He succeeded in getting the Democrats to support building a border barrier and cracking down on irregular immigration. He also, perhaps unintentionally, normalized a situation in which the Justice Department investigates and pursues trial against a candidate for president in the final months before the election. Although he is the defendant now, he undoubtedly will try to get the Justice Department to go after his opponents if he wins.
Comments
I think stonespring's argument here is addressing the fact that humans generally only have the capacity to engage critically with a small number of candidates, so if you swamp the candidate list with a group of almost-interchangeable main-party candidates, it's harder for candidates from minor parties to gain traction. Whereas if the election contains one candidate from each major party and a handful of minor party candidates, it's easier for voters to engage with the policies of the minor candidates.
Which is an argument about people rather than about the correctness of voting systems, and I think I agree with it.
Yes, we don't have the US system of primaries at all - selection of candidates is entirely left to the internal processes of the parties. I can see advantages both ways. There is certainly no suggestion that we should change to the US procedure. You are right that at the election voters can make their own ranking, regardless of whatever the party decides. That can be done in various ways. The simplest is indicating your preference by marking "1" next to the candidate you want to win, and then consecutive numbers to indicate your preference if the one who was your first preference does not get a majority of votes. That system works well when there is only one candidate to be elected. We call that the "Preferential System". There is a different system for votes for the Senate/upper house, which we call the "Proportional System". That also requires voters to place consecutive numbers against the candidates, but the counting method is entirely different (I don't really understand it and shan't try to on this thread).
At a recent election for State parliament, an independent (ie, someone who is not standing as a member of any party) stood for the seat next south from us; while she did not win, she gave the candidate for the conservative party quite a shock. Our seat and those nearby are generally very safe for the conservative party (which is called Liberal). An example of voters giving a party an appropriate kick.
But your comment " .... the party at least gets to determine who is on the ballot at all and who isn’t" is not really correct. I've just given an example of a candidate, rejected by her party, still standing with her name on the ballot paper. There are several members of State and Federal legislatures who are Independents, that is not a member of any party. Some are successful at election after election.
https://redeemingbabel.org/the-after-party/free-course/
* Just like the title of this thread, though it’s relevant to whatever “side” someone is on.
What's interesting here is that Trump's dishonesty is seen by some of his supporters as a reason in favor of supporting him.
At any rate this fits very neatly with the OP, which is premised on the idea that some Shipmates are being "paranoid" for worrying about the consequences of Trump's stated policies. There's a bit of a mental disconnect here since those making this argument will often also insist that Trump "says what he believes" or "tells it like it is", implying that Trump should be taken at his word.
This. Not to mention what he did during that first term. Yikes.
He didn't build a border wall, and he didn't make Mexico pay for the bit he did build. He also didn't "lock her up".
He succeeded in getting the Democrats to support building a border barrier and cracking down on irregular immigration. He also, perhaps unintentionally, normalized a situation in which the Justice Department investigates and pursues trial against a candidate for president in the final months before the election. Although he is the defendant now, he undoubtedly will try to get the Justice Department to go after his opponents if he wins.