Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden

[iluvatar5150]

That's where the mindset differences come into play that I was referring to.

The difference between Democrats saying "what do we need to do to get the greens on board with us so we can get the majority we need for initiatives A B and C?"
vs.
"Let's just call the greens selfish if they vote for the green party and tell them they just need to do the right thing, put their principles on the backburner, and vote democrat so that republicans don't win"

I think the answer is, in part, that once a duopoly is established, and those two parties get an outsized influence in the election & debate rules, it's tough to claw that back...and that gets combined with the social pressure I referred to earlier.

Sort of a "the first two people to the top of the ladder get to take the ladder with them so nobody else can use it" kind of thing.

I think Dems would be perfectly happy to, say, caucus with Greens in Congress. Bernie, after all, is only a Dem when he runs for president. It’s only in closer races, including but not limited to the presidency, where the spoiler effect even matters.

But I also think that the third parties themselves deserve a bunch of criticism on this front. If they were truly interested in establishing themselves as viable alternatives, they’d do more work in local and state level races. Here in Baltimore, for example, the Dems have had everything locked up for ages, to the point where the primary is The Election and the general can almost be ignored. A lot of people are fed up with the cronyism and entrenched dysfunction in city hall, don’t have much love for the Party, and are frustrated by the FPTP primary, but have no alternatives. Even if you were inclined to vote for a conservative, most of the people put forward by the Republicans are, by any standard, clowns. There’s plenty of room here for a third party candidate with left-center sensibilities and some executive skill, but without the party baggage. But no one runs.

If third parties only run in close, high- profile races where their presence causes more problems than it solves, then they deserve to be criticized.

 

[SummerMadness]

If the Republican Party was not so far to the right, you would have the same dynamic seen with the Democratic Party and parties to its left. The American system treating third parties as spoilers is something that emerged as soon the two major political factions first formed.

 

[durangodawood]

...but is there any time when the stakes wouldn't be high enough for them to say "you just need to vote for our guy this time"? Or at least portrayed that way?

While I understand Trump represents something rather concerning and unique in our modern era, they seemed to do the same when Romney was the guy the GOP put up.

There were articles from left leaning outlets expressing concerns that voting for Jill Stein could deliver Romney the presidency, with very similar rhetoric about how "the risks are too great not to vote for Obama"

Conservatives did the same thing to Gary Johnson's campaign...trying to strongarm libertarians into voting GOP in order to "keep Hillary out of the white house".

There's never going be a shortage of "this latest guy from the other side presents a serious threat, so you need to vote with us this time"

None of these doomed 3rd party efforts have ever been worth the cost of enabling the ideologically opposed major party - right or left. GOP was right to alarm libertarians.

If there was some identifiable upside to minor parties with their spoiler threat, then I'd reconsider. But they dont sway their side's major party - who cant lean extreme lest they alienate the middle. Minor parties dont really do anything, but they can cost lots. They can get some press for their causes. But thats not worth the risk (and actuality) of enabling the major candidate who policies least favor those causes.

(I say this as a person who'd probably vote green a lot in a different system).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Canada has FPTP voting for their legislative branch...they still manage to have a legislative branch with more than 2 parties represented (forcing the 2 larger ones to make concessions and deals)

View attachment 335545

In fact, so does the UK and Iceland
Iceland:
View attachment 335547

UK
View attachment 335548


I'll agree that FPTP voting contributes to the problem, but it's not the only culprit.

In the US, the social pressure of "Well, you're libertarian, you just need to vote for the republicans" or "Well, if you identify with the green party, you just need to vote for democrats when it counts" is something that's clearly not happening in those countries. (or at least not to the same degree)

I'm not quite sure how the politics of Canada's (NDP) and Britain's (LD) party works internally in each constituency, but both have regional parties ("the Bloc" in Quebec and various regional parties in Wales, Scotland, and NI).

Iceland is *NOT* FPTP. It has 6 large constituencies with multiple individuals elected within each by proportional representation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think Dems would be perfectly happy to, say, caucus with Greens in Congress. Bernie, after all, is only a Dem when he runs for president. It’s only in closer races, including but not limited to the presidency, where the spoiler effect even matters.

But I also think that the third parties themselves deserve a bunch of criticism on this front. If they were truly interested in establishing themselves as viable alternatives, they’d do more work in local and state level races. Here in Baltimore, for example, the Dems have had everything locked up for ages, to the point where the primary is The Election and the general can almost be ignored. A lot of people are fed up with the cronyism and entrenched dysfunction in city hall, don’t have much love for the Party, and are frustrated by the FPTP primary, but have no alternatives. Even if you were inclined to vote for a conservative, most of the people put forward by the Republicans are, by any standard, clowns. There’s plenty of room here for a third party candidate with left-center sensibilities and some executive skill, but without the party baggage. But no one runs.

If third parties only run in close, high- profile races where their presence causes more problems than it solves, then they deserve to be criticized.

I think they actually do run (and occasionally) win in some local races. Once you make the hop to the state level, that's where the two major parties have their rules that drastically favor them.

Per NewRepublic:
a reform of the late 1800s intended to quash the buying and selling of individual votes—also gave state legislatures the power to determine who was qualified to be on the ballot. Republican and Democrat-controlled legislatures swiftly learned that they could use this power to smother rising third parties like the Populist Party, and gave themselves automatic lines on the ballot while instituting onerous petitioning requirements to hinder other upstarts. (When political scientists argue that the first-past-the-post system of awarding representation invariably forces voters into a two-party duopoly, they forget to note that it’s only when ballot lines are so rigidly guarded that two specific parties, in this case the Ds and the Rs, manage to artificially lock themselves in power.)


In local level elections in states where the aforementioned "onerous petitioning requirements" aren't in place for local/county elections, and when D's and R's don't have automatic ballot placement, and the D & R folks have to play by the same rules as any independents that want to run, the LP actually gets some wins.

One such state is PA.
There are currently over 300 elected people at local government level from the Libertarian party (including 70+ city council members, and just over a dozen Mayors)

The Green party has also had 100 or so people get wins at the local level (including 10 mayors)

However, it's when you get to the state level of government that the task gets more daunting and some of those petitioning & polling requirements get more rigorous (and directly favor the R's and D's).

And at the federal level, as long as the D's and R's control the "Commission on Debates" (it was established in 1987 via a joint sponsorship from the Republicans and Democrats), you can basically forget about it. If you don't get on the debate stage, you're dead in the water, and they can change the rules however they want, and whenever they want.

That was on display in 2000 when the Republicans and Democrats (who were agreeing on next to nothing) seemed to find common ground out of the blue in the form of deciding that people should have 15% support across five national polls in order to be allowed to debate. I'm sure that sudden decision had nothing to do with the fact that Nader was polling around 10% at the time they implemented it.

It was on display again 2016 when they were selectively choosing "which five national polls are used", and they just so happened to include polls (Fox News and CBS) that asked people about Clinton and Trump first, and then asked about Johnson and Stein as a follow up question if the person said "neither" to the first question. (and even with the questions being asked in such a leading manner, he still managed to come in at 10%)

Jill Stein and Johnson actually raised concerns about that.

Per Politico:
“Hey, I was at 10 percent, but that was after they polled Trump and Clinton, those two names, then they add Gary Johnson,” he said.

Per ABC News:
There is another complicating factor for Stein. While most major national polling organizations include the two third-party candidates in their questions, two of the five polls selected by the commission -- Fox News and CBS/NYT – do not include Stein’s name as an initial option for participants.




To use an analogy... If Ford and GM get to be the gatekeepers for deciding rules on who gets to try to make cars, it's not looking good for Chrysler and Toyota.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

None of these doomed 3rd party efforts have ever been worth the cost of enabling the ideologically opposed major party - right or left. GOP was right to alarm libertarians.

If there was some identifiable upside to minor parties with their spoiler threat, then I'd reconsider. But they dont sway their side's major party - who cant lean extreme lest they alienate the middle. Minor parties dont really do anything, but they can cost lots. They can get some press for their causes. But thats not worth the risk (and actuality) of enabling the major candidate who policies least favor those causes.

(I say this as a person who'd probably vote green a lot in a different system).

But why does that seem to deter more American independents (by independent, I mean people who aren't keen on either of the two major parties) more than Canadian ones?

As I noted in my previous example, Canada has the same challenges involving FPTP (with all the same risks) with regards to their legislative branch (which ultimately determines who their PM will be), yet, they still feel comfortable with voting according to their actual preference.

It's not as if Canadian NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Greens don't realize "Hey, the Liberal Party is closer to us than the conservative party" or "if we vote for who we want, it could give the Conservates an advantage" (the FairVote CA link I provided showed those outcomes happening)

Is there even a remote chance that it could be my theory, and the Liberal CA party doesn't go out of their way to bully/badger the Greens and NDPs the same way the US Democrats to do to our Green party and US Republicans do to our LP?


"Your party is welcome at the table, but hey, let's team up since we have a lot in common" is a very different vibe than "abandon your party and vote for mine, otherwise you're a selfish spoiler"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not quite sure how the politics of Canada's (NDP) and Britain's (LD) party works internally in each constituency, but both have regional parties ("the Bloc" in Quebec and various regional parties in Wales, Scotland, and NI).

Iceland is *NOT* FPTP. It has 6 large constituencies with multiple individuals elected within each by proportional representation.

You're correct...that was an oversight on my part. Iceland only uses FPTP for their President, not their legislature.

Although, my Canadian example would still apply.

 

[durangodawood]

That's where the mindset differences come into play that I was referring to.

The difference between Democrats saying "what do we need to do to get the greens on board with us so we can get the majority we need for initiatives A B and C?"
vs.
"Let's just call the greens selfish if they vote for the green party and tell them they just need to do the right thing, put their principles on the backburner, and vote democrat so that republicans don't win"

I think the answer is, in part, that once a duopoly is established, and those two parties get an outsized influence in the election & debate rules, it's tough to claw that back...and that gets combined with the social pressure I referred to earlier.

Sort of a "the first two people to the top of the ladder get to take the ladder with them so nobody else can use it" kind of thing.

What is first past the post? - Fair Vote Canada

What is first past the post? How does it affect elections in Canada? Learn about our winner-take-all voting system and its problems.

www.fairvote.ca

There's an effort by some in Canada to reign in the FPTP voting system due to the fact that it leads to unfair levels of representation that aren't proportional to how people actually voted. However, that doesn't appear to deter people from voting their conscience like it seems to here.

So while the problematic end result is similar to what we deal with here, that doesn't seem to deter people from voting the way they actually want.

Some of the examples they cite
View attachment 335562

In the US environment, the people in the liberal party (and media allies) would've been socially pressuring the NDPs and Greens to vote for them in order to be able to make sure conservatives don't get a landslide victory.

When Con owns such a commanding supermajority, everyone else has free reign to "vote their conscience" as their vote is inconsequential anyway.

But once there's a chance of the overall left or overall right getting split and losing, then the spoiler effect is obvious and the rational choice is to coalesce around one center-left and one center-right party. You oughta respect this more than anyone with your disdain for the extremes in US politics.

The duolpoly is natural and rational in our current system. 2 parties each getting to pull up the ladder is an effect, not a cause, of our system.

As for Canadas bloc Quebecoise, perhaps that cuts against the rest of the country's near duopoly because strong separatist and language based politics specific to Quebec dont map onto the rest of the countrys ideological divides. I dont see a similar situation in the US. I'm guessing tho.

"Your party is welcome at the table, but hey, let's team up since we have a lot in common" is a very different vibe than "abandon your party and vote for mine, otherwise you're a selfish spoiler"

What does "team up" mean? In normal speak that means allied folks join to make one team, which is precisely the rational strategy that leads to our duopoly - in our system. One right, and one left team.

 

[durangodawood]

Also, I should add that the proper purpose of voting is not to express your deepest ideals or truest conscience. We have books and art and blogs and podcasts and songs for all that.

The proper purpose of voting is to make the best decision for the country. And in our voting system that means joining up with everybody on your half of the ideological spectrum so you can win and get some of what you value for the country rather than lots of what you reject.

Seeking for all of what you want - a representative who perfectly maps onto your conscience - is doomed and selfish, at least in our current system.

 

[zippy2006]

No, having two parties is a byproduct of a first-past-the-post electoral system.

The presidential election in the United States is not first-past-the-post. It is majoritarian, where candidates who do not receive more than half of the electoral votes do not win election. First-past-the-post is a plurality system, and does not converge on two parties nearly as much as a majoritarian system does.

 

[zippy2006]

Also, I should add that the proper purpose of voting is not to express your deepest ideals or truest conscience. We have books and art and blogs and podcasts and songs for all that.

The proper purpose of voting is to make the best decision for the country. And in our voting system that means joining up with everybody on your half of the ideological spectrum so you can win and get some of what you value for the country rather than lots of what you reject.

Seeking for all of what you want - a representative who perfectly maps onto your conscience - is doomed and selfish, at least in our current system.

This is a good post. The only problem is that instead of advising compromise and pragmatism you spoke of, "joining up with everybody on your half of the ideological spectrum," emphasis on half. The assumption that there should only effectively be two ideologies is what @ThatRobGuy seems to be contesting.

There is such a thing as too much compromise. West looks better than Sanders. Sanders has become what he opposed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is a good post. The only problem is that instead of advising compromise and pragmatism you spoke of, "joining up with everybody on your half of the ideological spectrum," emphasis on half. The assumption that there should only effectively be two ideologies is what @ThatRobGuy seems to be contesting.

There is such a thing as too much compromise. West looks better than Sanders. Sanders has become what he opposed.

That's part of it...

The other interesting facet is that the "compromise approach" almost never leads to two moderates running for office.

It's more like a back & forth process in which one side will run a more polarizing candidate, and the other side runs a watered down person who's technically on their "half of the spectrum" in order to get the "moderate spillover" from the other party or independents.

The end result being that nobody is really all that thrilled about the outcomes.

I don't think "welp, I guess I'll have to settle for mediocrity just so the other side doesn't win" produces a particularly health democracy.

You look at the parliamentary systems (the ones that have 2 larger parties, but neither have enough to win on their own), the onus is on them to reach out a welcoming hand to the smaller parties to build coalitions. So for instance, in those systems, if the largest left-leaning party only had 40% of support and the major conservative party had 48%. That party would have to reach out to the greens and social democrats in order to build a coalition that would get them to the 51% mark. (which is what you see happening in Europe).

Here, The Democrats just basically badger the greens it's backing their guy under the threat of being labelled "spoiler" if they don't.

 

[zippy2006]

You look at the parliamentary systems (the ones that have 2 larger parties, but neither have enough to win on their own), the onus is on them to reach out a welcoming hand to the smaller parties to build coalitions. So for instance, in those systems, if the largest left-leaning party only had 40% of support and the major conservative party had 48%. That party would have to reach out to the greens and social democrats in order to build a coalition that would get them to the 51% mark. (which is what you see happening in Europe).

Unless I am mistaken, many places in Europe have a plurality system where 51% is not required to win, and this is a big difference. You are conceiving of a system where "no party has enough support to win on their own, and therefore they need to build coalitions." Since the U.S. presidential election is majoritarian, the U.S. never tends towards this system. A third major party in the U.S. would be highly anomalous.

But the system you are thinking of does occur in non-Presidential elections and Presidential primaries. We saw a coalition between Liberals and Progressives in the last election.

Here, The Democrats just basically badger the greens it's backing their guy under the threat of being labelled "spoiler" if they don't.

In 2020 they did more: they pushed the Greens off the ballet in a number of swing states via underhanded judicial wrangling. It worked perfectly, and, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." I think we will see the same sort of things in 2024.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The presidential election in the United States is not first-past-the-post. It is majoritarian, where candidates who do not receive more than half of the electoral votes do not win election. First-past-the-post is a plurality system, and does not converge on two parties nearly as much as a majoritarian system does.

While technically majoritarian (since the actual votes for president are cast by the electors and a majority is required), the US presidential election is effectively first-past-the-post because that's how the electors are chosen. In theory, faithless electors can exist, but that's extremely rare - 165 instances in the entire nation's history, with 63 of them occurring in 1872 (when Horace Greely died between the election and the convening of the electoral college) and a further 23 in 1836 (when Virginia's entire delegation abstained from voting for the winning VP candidate). The reality is that whoever wins a plurality of votes in enough states will win the election.

 

[zippy2006]

the US presidential election is effectively first-past-the-post because that's how the electors are chosen

I don't follow. I am talking about a simple majority of electoral votes at the national level, not a simple majority of direct votes at a state level.

The reality is that whoever wins a plurality of votes in enough states will win the election.

Except this isn't true. For example, in 1824 Andrew Jackson won a plurality of electoral votes and lost the election. The failure to reach a simple majority moves the election to the House of Representatives via the 12th Amendment. Adding more major parties would make this phenomenon more common.

 

[durangodawood]

.....First-past-the-post is a plurality system, and does not converge on two parties nearly as much as a majoritarian system does.

The entire congress is elected FPP (except I think Maine). And you hardly ever get an alternative to D and R. There's an independent here and there, but the numbers are negligible. This is to be expected given the spoiler effect.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't follow. I am talking about a simple majority of electoral votes at the national level, not a simple majority of direct votes at a state level.

How are the electoral votes assigned though? By statewide plurality votes, right? If you want any electoral votes, you need to first need to win a plurality of popular votes in at least one state (or a congressional district in Maine or Nebraska).

Except this isn't true. For example, in 1824 Andrew Jackson won a plurality of electoral votes and lost the election.

It is true - Jackson did not win a plurality of votes in enough states (no one did in 1824). However, that was a very different time in our country's history. There was only one national-level party (the Democratic-Republican Party) and there was much less in the way of party cohesion, which allowed for a field with 4 significant candidates. In other words, the 1824 election was more akin to a modern primary (a concept that did not exist at the time - people just campaigned for president after being nominated), but conducted nationwide.

The failure to reach a simple majority moves the election to the House of Representatives via the 12th Amendment. Adding more major parties would make this phenomenon more common.

In theory, sure. But in practice, you can't just "add" more major political parties.

 

[zippy2006]

The entire congress is elected FPP (except I think Maine). And you hardly ever get an alternative to D and R. There's an independent here and there, but the numbers are negligible. This is to be expected given the spoiler effect.

Sure, but remember that there are many FPP countries with more than two parties.

 

[zippy2006]

How are the electoral votes assigned though? By statewide plurality votes, right? If you want any electoral votes, you need to first need to win a plurality of popular votes in at least one state (or a congressional district in Maine or Nebraska).

But what relevance does this have to my point? I said that U.S. presidential elections are majoritarian and thus practically restricted to two parties. In response you say, "Ah, but plurality votes are held within the states." Despite the truth of your response, everything I said remains true, and this means that your response is not relevant to my point.

Ironically, statewide plurality voting makes my point more salient, because it raises the risk of a contingent presidential election (by creating a situation where it is easier for third parties to win electoral votes and thereby upend a simple majority at the national level).

If the whole admits only two parties, then the parts of that whole cannot admit >2 parties. Thus plurality voting in the parts (i.e. states) cannot effect >2 parties in the whole (i.e. at the national level). Therefore the majoritarianism at the national level holds sway, at least for the presidential election.*

This restriction against >2 parties is not in effect in other, non-presidential elections, but it still carries weight given that the national parties are always strongly interested in the presidency. Ergo, any third party that arises must abstain from presidential aspirations, which tends to suppress the existence of a powerful third party (i.e. a third party at the national level).

* This is a reductio, where it is taken for granted that contingent elections are to be avoided, and that third parties which win electoral votes significantly raise the risk of contingent elections.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But what relevance does this have to my point? I said that U.S. presidential elections are majoritarian and thus practically restricted to two parties. In response you say, "Ah, but plurality votes are held within the states." Despite the truth of your response, everything I said remains true, and this means that your response is not relevant to my point.

Ironically, statewide plurality voting makes my point more salient, because it raises the risk of a contingent presidential election (by creating a situation where it is easier for third parties to win electoral votes and thereby upend a simple majority at the national level).

If the whole admits only two parties, then the parts of that whole cannot admit >2 parties. Thus plurality voting in the parts (i.e. states) cannot effect >2 parties in the whole (i.e. at the national level). Therefore the majoritarianism at the national level holds sway, at least for the presidential election.*

This restriction against >2 parties is not in effect in other, non-presidential elections, but it still carries weight given that the national parties are always strongly interested in the presidency. Ergo, any third party that arises must abstain from presidential aspirations, which tends to suppress the existence of a powerful third party (i.e. a third party at the national level).

* This is a reductio, where it is taken for granted that contingent elections are to be avoided, and that third parties which win electoral votes significantly raise the risk of contingent elections.

Ah, I see what you were saying now.