Getting sick of Bill Maher's stupidity

[Blahface]

I just listened to a realtime overtime episode on youtube that was put up about 4 weeks ago. It was the one after the election with Bernie Sanders. He asks Bernie why we have so few independents in congress. Obviously, the answer is because of our first-past-the-post voting system that punishes you if you vote for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat, but somehow Maher couldn't figure this out. He can recognize that Nader is a spoiler, but can't seem to piece together that a different voting system would drastically mitigate his effect as a spoiler. The stupidity drives me crazy.

The thing that really bugs me is that nobody else seems to be able to make this connection either. This isn't fucking calculus, it is low level arithmetic.

 

[Axulus]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

 

[Nexus]

Sometimes "the way things are" is difficult to observe in context. Or the analogy of a fish not knowing what water is unless its taken away from it. Certainly the consequences of our voting system are easily understood mathematically and when judged by observing other types of voting systems but first you have to make the mental leap that our way isn't the only way much less the optimal way.

 

[Nexus]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

The theory is one of those parties more closely represents your political views and if you don't vote for a major party you risk having the other major party(less closer to your views) elected into office.

 

[arkirk]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

Your vote, which in California would be a write-in vote never appears on the tote boards of the election newscasts. Your candidates don't appear on the ballot in the general election. Your party disappears in the general election. Having your party "disappear" I suppose is a kind of punishment. The D/R duopoly is simply a fact of life. Both parties are clearly run by corporatist politicians.

I feel Maher is far from stupid. His question was simply an opening for Sanders' explanation. Blahface better realize that Maher is a comedian and get himself a sense of humor.

 

[Valjean]

It's a monopoly, or, in this case, a duopoly. Two huge companies have taken over the market and are blocking any attempt by third parties to present their cases to the public.

 

[Blahface]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

Your vote, which in California would be a write-in vote never appears on the tote boards of the election newscasts. Your candidates don't appear on the ballot in the general election. Your party disappears in the general election. Having your party "disappear" I suppose is a kind of punishment. The D/R duopoly is simply a fact of life. Both parties are clearly run by corporatist politicians.

I feel Maher is far from stupid. His question was simply an opening for Sanders' explanation. Blahface better realize that Maher is a comedian and get himself a sense of humor.

Yes, Maher is a comedian, but he largely does political comedy and he is relevant in the political arena. As a someone who has a voice in politics, he should at least bring attention to the problem – especially when he brings up the fact that independents aren't getting elected or talks about how Nader was a spoiler.

Nexus is essentially correct about what I meant by “punishment.” If you vote for your favorite candidate, you risk helping your least favorite candidate win. Voters shouldn't be punished for supporting their favorite candidate.

I also agree with Nexus's explanation of why people generally don't see it as a problem. It is frustrating enough for regular people to not understand this, but it is even more so when political pundits who should know better don't either.

 

[NobleSavage]

There is a direct primary. A communist, socialist, libertarian, anarcho syndicalist can just claim to be a R or D and run for office. The two party system functions as a funnel, buffer, and sounding board between voters and law makers. There is no evidence that opening up that funnel = better government.

 

[Ford]

It's a monopoly, or, in this case, a duopoly. Two huge companies have taken over the market and are blocking any attempt by third parties to present their cases to the public.

And thanks to Citizen's United, third parties have effectively been priced right out of the market. Unless a libertarian or green candidate walks into the process with a billionaire in their back pocket, they can't compete with the two main parties, and certainly won't be invited to any debates.

I read something yesterday, though, that brought to light something very interesting about why the system works the way it does today, and a possible way to change it. A comment on Reddit, of all places...with a link to a video I've yet to watch, but it is a fascinating proposition:

Bring back the secret ballot in Congress...

http://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2od0he/why_some_republicans_want_to_cancel_the_state_of/cmm0kih?context=2

Considered by many to have crushed the first gilded age, the secret ballot was introduced en masse in the US starting in 1890. By 1940 it was everywhere (all citizens and congressmen voted privately). And then for 30 years life was pretty good. Inequality was dropping, so were a number of other metrics, partisanship, campaign finance etc. And then, October 26th, 1970 there was a crack in our air-tight democracy - The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 opened up the votes of Congress (the committee of the whole). Dubbed a ’sunshine law’, this bill has only ever been considered a good thing.

The trouble is, we vote in secret for a reason – reasons most Americans forget. Every time votes are public we get massive explosion in two types of electoral fraud. The first form of Electoral Fraud is Vote Buying (Tammany Hall, etc), with as much as 20% of the electorate being paid to vote a specific way (often poor individuals being paid with a chicken wing or a beer). The second form is Voter Intimidation, often times people would vote in the local court house, and they would just announce their vote to the local staff. The trouble with voting publicly (stating your votes to a clerk) is that often citizens were voting on deputies and sheriffs who were sitting right there in the court house, listening. It is hard to vote against an evil Sheriff if he can see how you vote. It is easy to see the problem there.

Interestingly, this is exactly what now happens in our Congress. Inside of congress, voter intimidation leads to massive partisanship and polarization, and vote buying leads to what some congressmen call ‘legalized bribery’. This isn't a correlation/causation issue. This is evidence/proof. The convictions, admissions and stories of this are common (Jack Abramoff, ABACAM, etc etc). And this change in 1970 has led to a feedback loop that responds to the ever increasing money in Washington. Indeed The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 is the cause for the phenomenal growth of K-street. And all the big firms were born just months after it passed.

Of course there is something to be said for knowing how your elected representative votes - transparency and accountability - yet we've long since passed the time when elected officials are accountable to voters except when it comes time to whip up the base around primary season. Lobbyists write the important legislation, campaign funding is dependent upon voting a certain way on that legislation, and when that legislation passes it is entirely for the benefit of those who have paid for it.

On the whipping up of the base side of things, we have what I call "stunt legislation." Perennial votes to stop flag burning, or keep "under god" in the pledge, and 50 votes to overturn Obamacare. Votes held just so everyone can see the vote tally. None of it does anything substantial except to show to that small percentage of voters who decides which candidate gets to run that their guy "stands on conservative principles" or some such nonsense.


Would the system be less corrupted by money if nobody knew who voted which way in Congress?

 

[Bronzeage]

I just listened to a realtime overtime episode on youtube that was put up about 4 weeks ago. It was the one after the election with Bernie Sanders. He asks Bernie why we have so few independents in congress. Obviously, the answer is because of our first-past-the-post voting system that punishes you if you vote for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat, but somehow Maher couldn't figure this out. He can recognize that Nader is a spoiler, but can't seem to piece together that a different voting system would drastically mitigate his effect as a spoiler. The stupidity drives me crazy.

The thing that really bugs me is that nobody else seems to be able to make this connection either. This isn't fucking calculus, it is low level arithmetic.

It's really simple. We have so few independents in Congress because organized political parties have the power to collect money and marshal resources for candidates. If an independent candidate qualifies for congressional office, he has only his own resources. This great if you are a billionaire. If we want more independents in Congress, we have to change the nature of campaign finance. There's no need to change the way we hold elections. Campaigns are the problem.

 

[Jayjay]

I just listened to a realtime overtime episode on youtube that was put up about 4 weeks ago. It was the one after the election with Bernie Sanders. He asks Bernie why we have so few independents in congress. Obviously, the answer is because of our first-past-the-post voting system that punishes you if you vote for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat, but somehow Maher couldn't figure this out. He can recognize that Nader is a spoiler, but can't seem to piece together that a different voting system would drastically mitigate his effect as a spoiler. The stupidity drives me crazy.

The thing that really bugs me is that nobody else seems to be able to make this connection either. This isn't fucking calculus, it is low level arithmetic.

It's really simple. We have so few independents in Congress because organized political parties have the power to collect money and marshal resources for candidates. If an independent candidate qualifies for congressional office, he has only his own resources. This great if you are a billionaire. If we want more independents in Congress, we have to change the nature of campaign finance. There's no need to change the way we hold elections. Campaigns are the problem.

Campaign money goes where the winners are. If you change the system so that new candidates get a shot at winning, the money would to start flowing their direction just as well. If there was a smaller third party that could decide certain issues that two parties disagree on, they'd be just as valuable to the various lobbies as the major party representatives.

One way to reduce private money is politics is to start giving the parties public money. It's got its own problems though.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's really simple. We have so few independents in Congress because organized political parties have the power to collect money and marshal resources for candidates. If an independent candidate qualifies for congressional office, he has only his own resources. This great if you are a billionaire. If we want more independents in Congress, we have to change the nature of campaign finance. There's no need to change the way we hold elections. Campaigns are the problem.

Campaign money goes where the winners are. If you change the system so that new candidates get a shot at winning, the money would to start flowing their direction just as well. If there was a smaller third party that could decide certain issues that two parties disagree on, they'd be just as valuable to the various lobbies as the major party representatives.

One way to reduce private money is politics is to start giving the parties public money. It's got its own problems though.

If you turn it into a chicken or egg question, there will never be a solution.

We have factions in both parties which serve as virtual third party. For all the bitching posted on TFT about the teaparty, or evangelical Christians, they are serve as a third, fourth and sometimes fifth party.

 

[untermensche]

The funny thing is the majority opinion in the country doesn't support the policies of the two major parties in issue after issue.

One thing this corporate run duopoly does is legitimize minority opinions, like taxing the only people enjoying any increases in wealth less and less and doing absolutely nothing about climate change.

One thing that stops third parties from getting much traction is the control of the media by corporations and the way third parties are either ignored or demonized to maintain the two party corporate controlled duopoly.

Ralph Nader couldn't even attend the presidential debates no less appear in them.

 

[lpetrich]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

Axulus, I suggest that you study  Duverger's law. About the OP, does Bill Maher have even the tiniest bit of awareness of Duverger's law? Does Bernie Sanders? About another post on this sort of subject, does Cenk Uygur? Someone ought to ask those three about the issue.

Duverger: The Electoral System

Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System,"
in Party Politics and Pressure Groups
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32.

The Technical Factor: The Electoral System

To these socio-economic and historical factors a technical factor must be added: the electoral system. I expressed its effects in 1946 in the formulation of three sociological laws: (1) a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system; (2) proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system; (3) a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.

The first one is first-past-the-post, what the US uses almost universally. The third one is top-two runoff.

The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated.

That's the spoiler effect.

In a system of proportional representation, the situation is quite different. The very principle of proportional representation explains the multiplicity of parties it produces. Since every minority, no matter how weak it may be, is assured of representation in the legislature, nothing prevents the formation of splinter parties, often separated only by mere shades of opinion.

That's what's good about proportional representation -- it makes it easier to see what the will of the voters really is.

In a system in which elections arc decided by a majority vote on the second of two ballots, political parties are numerous because the existence of a second ballot permits each party to test its chances on the first one without risking irrevocable defeat through the splintering of parties holding similar views; the regrouping occurs on the second ballot through the game of "withdrawals."

Meaning that it's easier to see the will of the voters in the first of two-ballot elections.

 

[lpetrich]

There is a direct primary. A communist, socialist, libertarian, anarcho syndicalist can just claim to be a R or D and run for office. The two party system functions as a funnel, buffer, and sounding board between voters and law makers. There is no evidence that opening up that funnel = better government.

Why is it so important to have such gatekeepers? Especially only two gatekeepers?

Opening up that funnel would make elections more clearly represent the will of the voters. Why is that supposed to be such a terrible sin?

 

[Bomb#20]

In a system in which elections arc decided by a majority vote on the second of two ballots, political parties are numerous because the existence of a second ballot permits each party to test its chances on the first one without risking irrevocable defeat through the splintering of parties holding similar views; the regrouping occurs on the second ballot through the game of "withdrawals."

Meaning that it's easier to see the will of the voters in the first of two-ballot elections.

Which is exactly what the primary is, in California's open primary system. I'm puzzled as to why so many third-party supporters seem to hate it so much, when it's so much better than first-past-the-post at giving third-parties a chance to win. Two hypotheses:

(1) They never vote in primaries since it never matters which of two Greens or whatever is the one running, and are then ticked off when the general election comes around and they discover to their horror that their party isn't on the ballot.

(2) It rips away the comfortable illusion that their party never wins because the system is stacked against them, and they have to come face to face with the painful reality that the reason the U.S. has a two party system even though Britain manages to have three major parties in a first-past-the-post system is because the vast majority of Americans really are Republicans or Democrats.

 

[Blahface]

Meaning that it's easier to see the will of the voters in the first of two-ballot elections.

Which is exactly what the primary is, in California's open primary system. I'm puzzled as to why so many third-party supporters seem to hate it so much, when it's so much better than first-past-the-post at giving third-parties a chance to win. Two hypotheses:

(1) They never vote in primaries since it never matters which of two Greens or whatever is the one running, and are then ticked off when the general election comes around and they discover to their horror that their party isn't on the ballot.

(2) It rips away the comfortable illusion that their party never wins because the system is stacked against them, and they have to come face to face with the painful reality that the reason the U.S. has a two party system even though Britain manages to have three major parties in a first-past-the-post system is because the vast majority of Americans really are Republicans or Democrats.

CA's system is still first-past-the-post (or first-two-past-the-post if you want to be literal). Voting for your favorite can help the two candidates that you really hate make it on the ballot. Also, the top two are just the two that happen to survive the vote splitting process and it doesn't even mean they are the best candidates for the district. Even if you really like one of the top two, he could still be unpopular and be a push over for the opposing candidate who may be someone you can't stand. If the vote splitting is bad enough you might even get two candidates from the same party in the general election. This would be good if the district is dominated by that party and it would have gone for that party anyway. This is absolutely atrocious though if it is a district that is dominated by or leans towards the opposing party. There is still massive incentive to not vote for your conscience.

If approval voting were used in the top two primary, you could vote for your favorite candidate without much worry. Technically, you could still be hurt by voting for your favorite if he is popular, but isn't the best to defeat the other guy. This isn't likely though. If he has enough general approval to make it in the top two, he is likely to be viable. Even if he loses, the opposing candidate isn't likely to be THAT bad and that candidate is more likely to be one of your compromise candidates than the guy you hate most. Approval voting would get the two best candidates for the district.

 

[arkirk]

There is a direct primary. A communist, socialist, libertarian, anarcho syndicalist can just claim to be a R or D and run for office. The two party system functions as a funnel, buffer, and sounding board between voters and law makers. There is no evidence that opening up that funnel = better government.

And people like you will make sure we never see that evidence...if they can. If voting were mandatory it would be a different world. There is no evidence of anything that has not been tried and is suppressed by corporate interests. Our government is sold out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you explain the "punishment" part if one votes for someone other than a D or R? I'm not clear on that aspect of your post.

See 2001 through 2008.

There is this idea that liberals love the Democrats. They really don't. However, the idea of voting third party to siphon votes from the only viable opponent to a Republican who'll support who the fuck knows what is too difficult to swallow to vote a third party.

Third party candidates have a very bad record in the US. In the last decade, a third party candidate is usually just the guy that lost in the Primary. To the best of my knowledge, Ventura was the last high profile third party guy to actually win, and he had a huge amount of mainstream exposure prior to running.

 

[untermensche]

....the vast majority of Americans really are Republicans or Democrats.

2/3rds don't even bother to vote.

The parties are controlled by corporate interests, in other words by agents of the oligarchy.

People know it is a game and voice their displeasure loudly by ignoring the charade.

Of course this loud voice is not heard at all in the corporate media which is the lapdog to the corporate run system and when 2/3rds of the people don't even bother to show up talk about mandates.