[besson3c]

What I don't get about being extremely "rah rah my party, your party sucks and can't do anything right", which seems fairly common around here, is this...

Look at the NYTimes Election Guide:

2006 Election Guide - Election News in the Senate, House and Governors' Races from The New York Times - New York Times


Look at all three races (house, senate, governor), and look at how things have gone in the past. In my cases, you'll have very red states pick Democrat governors or Congress (or whatever), while you'll have very blue states elect Republicans too... It seems extremely rare to find a state where a Republican or Democrat is in charge of all three areas.

For example, California has a Republican governor even though there will easily be more Democratic governors across the country than Republican ones (based on this map). Maine is a Safe Republican senate this year. If you analyze the map and take a historical look at any given state, you'll find that these sorts of things are more common than one might think. As they should be! It is clear that at the end of the day, the general population will elect who they think is the best person for the position regardless of their party.

So, why does this retarded partisan mud-slinging have to persist? If you want to vote a straight-ticket just because you want a particular party in charge (regardless of the candidate), great. However, you should realize that you are almost certainly the minority.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I don't get about being extremely "rah rah my party, your party sucks and can't do anything right", which seems fairly common around here, is this...

What do you mean you don't get it? The only side you complain about in here is the right.

You get it.

You are just in denial.

[BRussell]

There's a difference between partisanship at the expense of facts, which is what you see on bulletin boards like this, and voting for the party which best represents your ideology.

IMO "voting for the person" in most cases simply makes no sense if you want your political views accurately represented. Party is the best predictor of how the candidate will govern - what kinds of policies they will vote for, etc., as well as the fact that, in the case of legislative bodies, your representative will vote for the leadership of a certain party and therefore give control of the body to one party or another. If you're a liberal who just happens to like the Republican in your district, you're not just voting for that Republican, but you're also voting for the Republican leadership in Congress and, arguably, for Bush because a Republican Congress will generally vote for a Republican president's proposals.

I can understand "voting for the person" to the extent that it moves a party in a particular direction: Voting for Lieberman vs. Lamont in primary, for instance.

But my impression is that the vast majority of people who vote for the person rather than the ideology do so because they just don't have opinions on policy issues and are affected by transient things like 30-second ads and good looks and who "they like" based on personal impressions that aren't policy-oriented at all. Personal impressions can be so easily manipulated and distorted that, if you're a principled conservative but vote for a liberal based on perceived personality characteristics, for example, your political views are simply not going to be represented well.

[itai195]

It's easy to understand why CA has a Republican governor. If you think the DNC has a hard time picking decent candidates for federal positions, you should check out some of the Democratic candidates for governor in CA.

We actually had a chance to choose a really strong Democratic candidate for governor (Steve Westly) but, thanks to the unions, teachers, etc, we ended up with Angelides, who looks like Dracula but is much more boring. The only ad I've seen him run is one attacking Schwarzenegger for supporting Bush, how inspiring. Gray Davis was similarly bland and boring, and won because he was lucky enough to run against even worse Republican candidates.

However, being a Democrat myself, I've got not problem with having a Republican governor or senator. I voted against Dianne Feinstein a couple times, and she has one of the safest seats in the Senate. She actually ran a TV ad this year, even though I have no idea who she's running against and I doubt anyone I know will vote against her. It just seems to me like our government accomplishes more when power has to be shared and compromises struck.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There's a difference between partisanship at the expense of facts, which is what you see on bulletin boards like this, and voting for the party which best represents your ideology.

IMO "voting for the person" in most cases simply makes no sense if you want your political views accurately represented. Party is the best predictor of how the candidate will govern - what kinds of policies they will vote for, etc., as well as the fact that, in the case of legislative bodies, your representative will vote for the leadership of a certain party and therefore give control of the body to one party or another. If you're a liberal who just happens to like the Republican in your district, you're not just voting for that Republican, but you're also voting for the Republican leadership in Congress and, arguably, for Bush because a Republican Congress will generally vote for a Republican president's proposals.

I can understand "voting for the person" to the extent that it moves a party in a particular direction: Voting for Lieberman vs. Lamont in primary, for instance.

But my impression is that the vast majority of people who vote for the person rather than the ideology do so because they just don't have opinions on policy issues and are affected by transient things like 30-second ads and good looks and who "they like" based on personal impressions that aren't policy-oriented at all. Personal impressions can be so easily manipulated and distorted that, if you're a principled conservative but vote for a liberal based on perceived personality characteristics, for example, your political views are simply not going to be represented well.

So you vote a straight ticket? I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I will say that it is an utter shame (maybe even a travesty) that politicians can't be recognized for having distinct, disparate voices, and instead have to put together these party machines whose ideological talking points you either take or leave.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you vote a straight ticket?

Usually. I voted for a Green party candidate against my Democratic senator Baucus when he was up because he facilitated Bush's policies on so many occasions, and he was a shoe-in to win anyway.

I won't vote for any Republicans simply because they don't represent my values. In the past I've voted for plenty of Republicans because I liked them - usually they were incumbents. Now I see that as stupid. When I vote in primaries is where I try to influence the direction of the party.

Why do you ask? How about addressing my reasoning?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Usually. I voted for a Green party candidate against my Democratic senator Baucus when he was up because he facilitated Bush's policies on so many occasions, and he was a shoe-in to win anyway.

I won't vote for any Republicans simply because they don't represent my values. In the past I've voted for plenty of Republicans because I liked them - usually they were incumbents. Now I see that as stupid. When I vote in primaries is where I try to influence the direction of the party.

Why do you ask? How about addressing my reasoning?

I've added another comment above, which sort of addresses your reasoning. I prefer to stay true to my own beliefs rather than to perpetuate something I don't really care for.

Of course, I haven't yet voted in this country, and won't on Nov. 7th either.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Angelides, who looks like Dracula but is much more boring..

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that "independents" vote on silly things like looks. My guess is that policy issues simply don't matter to large portions of the voters - what matters is that Schwarzenegger is very well-known from his movies and his opponent doesn't come across well on TV. (I'm not criticizing you, just agreeing with your characterization of what's important in so many people's voting).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I prefer to stay true to my own beliefs rather than to perpetuate something I don't really care for.

OK, but what beliefs are those, and on what basis do you vote for them if not on party? If someone can lay out a justification for how voting on the person rather than the party best represents beliefs, I'd like to hear it, because the only explanation that I can see is that people vote for looks and (perceived) personality, which are unrelated to beliefs.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Of course, I haven't yet voted in this country, and won't on Nov. 7th either.

[Kerrigan]

This thread isn't about Besson3c. It's about his understanding of partisanship.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm a Canadian citizen living in America right now. I'm probably eligible for citizenship now, but I didn't get my act together in time (it may have been close though). I'll be able to vote next election.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This thread isn't about Besson3c. It's about his understanding of partisanship.

Uh.. okay, whatever. Anything goes, it's just a thread on a forum in a lounge, not an official archive on the subject.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK, but what beliefs are those, and on what basis do you vote for them if not on party? If someone can lay out a justification for how voting on the person rather than the party best represents beliefs, I'd like to hear it, because the only explanation that I can see is that people vote for looks and (perceived) personality, which are unrelated to beliefs.

Their ideological beliefs on subjects that are important to you, and that (hopefully) you feel are appropriate issues for them to be representing for their position.

In practice, I'm sure a lot of voters vote for local candidates that believe a certain way about national issues or issues which shouldn't be the government's concern anyway, but I'm just speaking to my own beliefs.

Are we on the same page now?

[Doofy]

Seems to me that the only folks who're truly partisan around here are the Dems.

I'm in no way partisan (and I know a few others aren't either, like Kev), yet I've been accused of being a "Republican" more than a few times. I guess that this is the partisanship of the Dems showing through - because they're so partisan they expect everyone else to be. Us and them syndrome.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's a full time job to research all the candidates. You can't always believe what they're saying, so your best bet is to look at their voting record on issues that are important to you - which is impossible if the candidate has never held an elected position, or if their elected position didn't require voting.

I tend to listen to people whose full time job *is* researching candidates, and then I take their advice. While the Republican ideology doesn't accurately represent my own views, the Democrats seem to be 100% on the wrong side of what I want.

Honestly, it's rare for me to vote for a Democrat. I think I've done that like 3 times in the last 20 years.

It's time consuming to educate yourself as to the best choice of candidates. Almost nobody is completely informed when they vote.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that "independents" vote on silly things like looks. My guess is that policy issues simply don't matter to large portions of the voters - what matters is that Schwarzenegger is very well-known from his movies and his opponent doesn't come across well on TV. (I'm not criticizing you, just agreeing with your characterization of what's important in so many people's voting).

Yes, but looks aren't the only silly thing to vote on, and it's not just independents who do it. "Democrats" who chose Angelides in the primary voted based on silly things like union and insider endorsements, instead of choosing the much stronger candidate. Westly was a moderate Democrat with an independent streak, just the kind of guy who could've not only beaten Arnie but done a lot of great work for CA. Angelides' problems are more than superficial IMO.

Most people will just vote along party lines or for incumbents if they don't have the information necessary to make an educated vote. And in primaries, they'll vote however the union/party leadership tells them to. I don't know that anyone has time to make informed decisions about senators, congressmen, governors, treasurers, attorney generals, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, comptrollers, state senators, state assemblymen, mayors, city councilmen, county supervisors, judges, sheriffs, state ballot measures, county ballot measures, city ballot measures, ad nauseam.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This thread isn't about Besson3c. It's about his understanding of partisanship.

And of course the attitudes and psyche which shape beliefs are implicit in any discussion of one's understanding of politics. Especially if there is a big gap between what one 'understands' about partisanship, and how one actually acts.