It's Party Time! (Answers)
Jul. 31st, 2006 04:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
etherialWith SFS Advisor and WPI Professor George Phillies getting a lot of lj-press today regarding his 2008 Presidential bid, I find these entries of my own topical:
"Unenrolled" has been the largest political affiliation in Massachusetts since 1992, and has been growing in "popularity" every year! To help keep this poll free of meddling, I included in my response what I would have estimated before I knew the exact figures.
A long time ago, we had "cross-endorsement" or "fusion voting" as standard operating procedure here in the United States. Basically, a candidate could receive nominations from several political parties. This allowed people to vote for a candidate, but also help indicate which aspect of that candidate's position most closely reflected their own views, by aligning themselves with one of the many parties nominating that candidate. This practice was systematically eliminated in 42 states as Democrats and Republicans feared losing electoral battles against more than one political party.
With roughly half of Massachusetts voters as unenrolled, it is abundantly clear that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering what Massachusetts voters want, yet they consistently get all the electoral attention because of the perceived inability of "third" parties to be electable. One of the more powerful minority parties in New York, the Working Families Party has been trying to expand into Massachusetts. They've managed to put a referendum on this year's ballot to reinstate cross-endorsement (vote YES on #2!)
So, uh, they want me to work for them. I don't particularly agree with their political stance, but the opportunity to work to repair American politics and be a leader of that change is very appealing. I love the idea of working to bring back the people's confidence in the core of our political system - voting - while simultaneously eliminating the two greatest threats to our country - the Democratic and Republican parties. The hours suck - 2-10pm and the pay will be unpredictable and probably lousy, but I'm having great difficulty dismissing the idea of being a part of a movement to effect change in an ailing world, to move Massachusetts and the rest of the country forward.
| Unenrolled Voters | 2,000,062 | 48.8% |
| Democratic | 1,526,711 | 37.2% |
| Republican | 532,319 | 13.0% |
| Libertarian | 23,900 | .6% |
| Green | 9,509 | .2% |
| Other | 6,133 | .1% |
"Unenrolled" has been the largest political affiliation in Massachusetts since 1992, and has been growing in "popularity" every year! To help keep this poll free of meddling, I included in my response what I would have estimated before I knew the exact figures.
A long time ago, we had "cross-endorsement" or "fusion voting" as standard operating procedure here in the United States. Basically, a candidate could receive nominations from several political parties. This allowed people to vote for a candidate, but also help indicate which aspect of that candidate's position most closely reflected their own views, by aligning themselves with one of the many parties nominating that candidate. This practice was systematically eliminated in 42 states as Democrats and Republicans feared losing electoral battles against more than one political party.
With roughly half of Massachusetts voters as unenrolled, it is abundantly clear that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering what Massachusetts voters want, yet they consistently get all the electoral attention because of the perceived inability of "third" parties to be electable. One of the more powerful minority parties in New York, the Working Families Party has been trying to expand into Massachusetts. They've managed to put a referendum on this year's ballot to reinstate cross-endorsement (vote YES on #2!)
So, uh, they want me to work for them. I don't particularly agree with their political stance, but the opportunity to work to repair American politics and be a leader of that change is very appealing. I love the idea of working to bring back the people's confidence in the core of our political system - voting - while simultaneously eliminating the two greatest threats to our country - the Democratic and Republican parties. The hours suck - 2-10pm and the pay will be unpredictable and probably lousy, but I'm having great difficulty dismissing the idea of being a part of a movement to effect change in an ailing world, to move Massachusetts and the rest of the country forward.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-31 10:17 pm (UTC)Since the democrats can't organize their way out of a paper bag, their voters vote 40 for D1, 30 for D2, 20 for D3, and 10 for D4.
The republicans, on the other hand, are an evil-army of efficiency. They know they won't get all the seats so they focus on only 3 candidates. They also know that the most the democrats can put into seat 3 is 33 and the most they can put into seat 4 is 25. Thus, to ensure they get at least 2 seats, they vote 34 for R1 and R2, and then 32 for R3.
The Republicans win 3 seats. Furthermore this guarantees them their 2 proportional seats even if the democrats know about it beforehand and try to counter it, so it's never harmful. Granted, it would never be this clean or sure in real life, but an organized voter base can take advantage of this system to get non-proportional representation.
I like proportional voting, but every system has its flaws.
re: proportional voting
Date: 2006-08-01 03:24 am (UTC)Re: proportional voting
Date: 2006-08-01 06:17 am (UTC)Re: proportional voting
Date: 2006-08-01 03:10 pm (UTC)(I don't think local geography has a lot to do with representation any more... at least not when selecting federal representation. 51% telling 49% to go die in a hole is not (good) democracy).
the "solution" to this sort of gaming is to withhold official party endorsement... the party will only allow X people to call themeselves "democrats" (this, in turn, will encourage smaller parties and independents.)