redistricting the electorate

[livendive 8]

So the Tea Party thing presents an interesting scenario. While obviously GOP leaning, they’ve managed to attract and repel a few factions in each of the major party’s demographics. This made me think about whether we are ready to return to a political environment consisting of more than two major parties. The growing voice for individual freedom combined with supposed small government ideals of the tea baggers suggests a maybe, however I can’t see a resounding success in pairing the religious right with libertarians. This got me thinking about how each of our major parties have defined themselves in order to stand a chance each election. Both are trying to get just over 50% of the electorate, but have a vested interest in keeping the “bad guys” big enough to be relevant so as to avoid fracture. What if we could “redistrict” the electorate? Here’s a super fast and likely flawed “map”, as I perceive it to exist today, with blue areas being mostly (D) and red mostly (R). If I were to draw my own map, where some other color (green) represented my interests, I suspect the 3 colors would be about equally represented. What would your map look like? Would you mostly pull from the red or blue areas, or would you pull about equally and form a legitimate third party?

Honk if this stream of consciousness makes absolutely no sense. :-D

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Niki1 1]

HONK HONK

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[rushmc 18]

HONK

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

I believe you would just have some overlap. I don't think the strength of the opinions would change the color scheme all that much. Perhaps you could place an opacity of the coplor depending on the strength of the opinion.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Alright, I'll rephrase the question. Our two major political parties rely on votes from people on either side of several issues. I doubt that many of us support all of the positions of either political party, we just usually go with the one we agree most with. If given the choice, how much would rearrange the issues your party goes after. Not much (i.e. you're fairly happy with one of the parties right now), or a lot? Right now, you would be hard-pressed to find a party that supports reproductive choice and strong 2nd amendment rights. If you're for labor unions, and against gay marriage, you have to pick which is more important to you. If you didn't have to choose the lesser of two evils and could instead make a party that agrees with you on most of these wedge issues, would it look a lot like one of the existing parties, or would it be a substantially different third party?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

I am thinking that the tea partiers may be a step toward realignment of the parties. Then again, I've speculated and been wrong about that in the past. As have others who thought that the 2008, 2006 and even the 1994 elections were realignment elections.

What we've got here is that there are "tea partiers" who publicly advocate for fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, etc. Despite the charicature painted of them as fringe loonies, they are apparently now a significant part of the political mainstream. While "tea party" candidates were a mixed bag in terms of wins and losses, the fact that the House of Representatives has changed hands (from 255-178 to what looks like 240-185 - roughly 50 seats changed hands). The 2006 switch was from 229(R)-203(D) to 233(D)-209(R).

I think there are plenty of people out there who don't see much difference between the Democrats and Reporublicans. 1994 provided a GOP platform for fiscal responsibility that lasted while Clinton was in office. They checked each other's spending sprees, shut down government, and got a "balanced" budget.

This is what I can see happening. Both sides looking to screw each other by slashing budgets. The GOP won't get anything past the Senate or POTUS. Bills originate in the House so things will be mucked up.

I think this election fell with fiscal policy. "Change we can believe in" was, of course, the lack of change that we all should have known would happen, anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think there are plenty of people out there who don't see much difference between the Democrats and Reporublicans. 1994 provided a GOP platform for fiscal responsibility that lasted while Clinton was in office. They checked each other's spending sprees, shut down government, and got a "balanced" budget.

This is what I can see happening. Both sides looking to screw each other by slashing budgets. The GOP won't get anything past the Senate or POTUS. Bills originate in the House so things will be mucked up.

I think this election fell with fiscal policy. "Change we can believe in" was, of course, the lack of change that we all should have known would happen, anyway.

I agree with most of this. The 1994 split government was good for everyone. The (R) government of 2000 became a blank check, as has the (D) government of 2008. I don't think either party is actually interested in smaller government and less spending, as that limits their ability to buy votes, but at least they can each balance the other out a little now, and both can blame all the bad on the other guys. People talk about the negativity in individual elections, but the overall temper of the government follows the same pattern. The constant changing of the guard from D to R and back again isn't so much due to one party doing well, as simply being patient while the electorate gets sick of the current leadership.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rhaig 0]

interestingly.... legalization of pot is largely seen as a liberal issue. But really it's a state's rights issue under the covers. State's rights, is largely seen as a conservative issue.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

>interestingly.... legalization of pot is largely seen as a liberal issue.
>But really it's a state's rights issue under the covers. State's rights, is
>largely seen as a conservative issue.

Which is another aspect of the two-party system. I have little doubt that the Republican party wouldn't have much cared about the legalization of pot (it is, after all, part of smaller government and a state's rights issue) but the Democrats supported it, so the Republicans had to oppose it.

A great many issues get distorted this way. Imagine how quickly Theodore Roosevelt, for example, would have been attacked by today's GOP for his extremist (for his time) stands on environmental protection and conservation. The environment shouldn't be the province of one party - but because each party feels it must oppose the other, it becomes just that.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>interestingly.... legalization of pot is largely seen as a liberal issue.
>But really it's a state's rights issue under the covers. State's rights, is
>largely seen as a conservative issue.

Which is another aspect of the two-party system. I have little doubt that the Republican party wouldn't have much cared about the legalization of pot (it is, after all, part of smaller government and a state's rights issue) but the Democrats supported it, so the Republicans had to oppose it.

It's an individual freedom thing, and with the number of votes the GOP gets from the religious right, they'd be fools to give an inch to the hippies & potheads.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Which is another aspect of the two-party system. I have little doubt that the Republican party wouldn't have much cared about the legalization of pot (it is, after all, part of smaller government and a state's rights issue)

Of course they cared - someone was at risk of having fun.

Personally I doubt the Tea Party has a future past the next election. Their leadership is mostly poor, some bordering on the absurd. Their success was based on voter disatisfaction with Obama, as well as lingering distrust of the traditional GOP members.

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

Personally I doubt the Tea Party has a future past the next election

Since they're currently based on being a grass-roots movement, they are kind of single-cause; it takes leadership to articulate an overall platform (really).

Right now they're the party of "no." Not entirely a bad thing -- we've had a lot of yesses lately. But, quite frankly, a political movement needs to be able to respond appropriately to complex issues, and I don't think that's going to happen without someone actually thinking about it, articulating it, and then placing that out in front of others.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

The Tea Party Movement has already has great success - check out the election results. Is there any doubt that the political landscape is different today than it wss yesterday? The elected official who does not bide by the will of the People does so at his or her own risk.

Our President is talking about compromise. Why would he compromise wirth idiots and kooks? It is either because he is gutless or the Tea Party movememnt is not populated by kooks and idiots.

The GOP will not be the same. The Democrats will not be the same. Things are different now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>The Tea Party Movement has already has great success - check out the election results.

Agreed. But as Wendy said, they are currently the party of opposition to basically everything. That works well when the other guys are in charge. What happens when "their guys" are in power? The "party of opposition" thing no longer works very well.

They are great at saying "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" But while being mad as hell can unseat politicians, it's not something that works to support a party that's _in_ power.

>Our President is talking about compromise. Why would he
>compromise wirth idiots and kooks?

Because most republicans are not idiots and kooks (or Tea Partyers.)

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]
Agreed. But as Wendy said, they are currently the party of opposition to basically everything. That works well when the other guys are in charge. What happens when "their guys" are in power? The "party of opposition" thing no longer works very well.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"No" is a damned nice thing to hear to some of us. It take balls to say no. Though I can predict that this new group of no-sayers will get their asses handed to them.

actually, for politicians, no is pretty easy. It's much easier to oppose any solution to a difficult problem than it is to come up with an alternative. And we do have problems that actually require solving.

You're wrong - they have not changed the landscape (yet). It's most probable that the GOP will pay more than lip service to their focus points and reincorporate them into the fold. The Tea Party will still exist in 2012, but that will be it. They lack the numbers to accomplish anything by themselves, and only by being part of the GOP do they get the subcommittee positions they desire.

[billvon 2,400]

>And - something that seems to be lost - saying "no" to everything
>is perfectly fine with plenty of people.

Agreed. But again, a political party that simply opposes everything is not a political party. It's sort of political antimatter.

>These ideas will become either adopted or ignored by the parties.

Well, to be more accurate, whichever party has the best talking points about adopting their views will see more Tea Party support. Ending government socialism while not touching anyone's social security, medicare or medicaid isn't really possible - but whichever party uses catchphrases that make them _think_ that will happen will win oit.

>For people who want to limit spending, "No" is the preferred answer.

And for people who want to cut spending - "NO!"
For people who want smaller government - "NO!"
Want to privatize general aviation? "NO!"
Balanced budget amendment? "NO!"

Which is the problem with "just saying no." Disagreement is not a political philosophy. (Or, to be fair, is as much a valid political philosophy as "hope" is.)

>Like anybody who learns to say "No" it gets empowering.

Do you have kids?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

actually, for politicians, no is pretty easy. It's much easier to oppose any solution to a difficult problem than it is to come up with an alternative. And we do have problems that actually require solving.

Check out the growth of the federal government. It's not from saying "No."

The president himself seemed to agree with me today.

Quote

the president argued that voters were more angry at the lack of progress in crafting effective policies, and the perception that business as usual in Washington wasn't changing. "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done," the president said

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101103/el_yblog_upshot/obama-on-democratic-losses-it-feels-bad

He didn't say No. His party didn't say "No." THey were so damned giddy to say "yes" that “We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what's in it.”

I expect the "compromise" bit to be a charade. No way the Democrats are going to dishonor Ted Kennedy by watching the healthcare reform get dismantled. The GOP cannot make reforms without approval of the POTUS and Senate. So no reforms will happen.

Too bad that the Obama admin doesn't have the power brokers like Reagan did. Someone like Richard Darman or James Baker - pragmatists who look at finding common ground and could build support behind things where it mattered. It's not about compromise most of the time. It's about agreeing on a problem and the costs of the problem.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you have kids?

Oh. Set me up to answer in the affirmative.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Imagine how quickly Theodore Roosevelt, for example, would have been attacked by today's GOP for his extremist (for his time) stands on environmental protection and conservation.

True; but on the other hand, TR was also a big advocate of prosecuting neat little foreign wars as a means of advancing US imperialism - which, of course, is the GOP's idea of good, clean fun.

[Beachbum 0]

I think that's pretty accurate overall ... as to a 3rd party? I agree that you couldn't just pull some of those items from both to a third ... would require subdivision.

The tea partiers that I know personally don't seem to have a clue what they DO want. They are only good at telling me what they don't like, without providing any reasonable, responsible alternatives. I agree with those who think it won't last, at least not unless someone steps up to the plate and actually outlines some functional solutions for them to rally behind.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?