Decision 2016

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by dok

I don't mean to encourage despair. It is not impossible. But it's not going to change because the parties say "gosh, let's just try compromising more and running positive issue-driven campaigns", because the incentives just don't currently line up that way.

If you want different behavior, you need different incentives. Different voting methods and some changes to how governance works could manage that. Easy? No. Impossible? No.

I always hear how much more partisan politics are today compared to the past, but don't our representatives vote the way their constituents want? In other words, if I am in a district that votes largely democrat, I would imagine that the people vote democrat because they tend to support democrat supported policies. Shouldn't the representative for these voters support the will of their voters?

I can recall the political process going back some time. If I think to the 1980's for example, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal certainly were involved in partisan politics. Maybe the difference is that they were cordial through the process.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I always hear how much more partisan politics are today compared to the past, but don't our representatives vote the way their constituents want? In other words, if I am in a district that votes largely democrat, I would imagine that the people vote democrat because they tend to support democrat supported policies. Shouldn't the representative for these voters support the will of their voters?

I can recall the political process going back some time. If I think to the 1980's for example, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal certainly were involved in partisan politics. Maybe the difference is that they were cordial through the process.

And this is where Gerrymandering come in.


If your district is diverse, you have to ensure your platform is such that, everyone is mostly happy with you, rather than catering to extremes. However when you cut up the population so that only your supporters are voting for you, you can become more extreme.


Also people have become tribal with their politics. The Pope came out and said that Climate Change is a thing that Catholics have to combat. What did Catholic Conservatives do in the US? They ignored the Pope and continued to believe Climate Change is a hoax. People are literally choosing their political party over their religion. This is why this year is so interesting. People are willing to stick with a party that has a leader they don't support, just because it is their party. This is why we see papers switching sides, but not people.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I always hear how much more partisan politics are today compared to the past, but don't our representatives vote the way their constituents want? In other words, if I am in a district that votes largely democrat, I would imagine that the people vote democrat because they tend to support democrat supported policies. Shouldn't the representative for these voters support the will of their voters?

They are! But their voters have (in many cases) changed in two fundamental ways. First, their voters have been chosen for them by new, much more precise gerrymandering, so they are representing a more slanted district. Secondly, rather than those voters being motivated by whatever regional interests matter in that area, they are motivated by the national media sources they've chosen to listen to - many of them choosing to consume media that further reinforces a partisan viewpoint.

In short, many representatives are now more concerned about losing to a primary challenger from within their own party than they are about losing a general election to someone from the other party. (This is much much more true for Republicans than Democrats, which is why the Republican caucus in the house has become relatively much more extreme compared to the Democratic caucus.)

Originally Posted by Rich10

I can recall the political process going back some time. If I think to the 1980's for example, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal certainly were involved in partisan politics. Maybe the difference is that they were cordial through the process.

This argument - "we have gridlock because political opponents don't go to the same dinner parties any more" - is popular among the old-guard Washington media establishment. But it's wrong. Less cordial relations are an effect, not a cause. When you have to work together in order to accomplish the things that help you stay in office, you develop working relationships that lead to social relationships. When you have no incentive to compromise or work with the other side, those relationships don't develop.

Besides, there are plenty of completely intransigent partisan representatives in Washington who are friendly and polite in the way they deal with the opposition. David Brat (the guy who unseated Republican house majority leader Eric Cantor in a primary) seems like a well-mannered guy who isn't about to gratuitously insult anybody. But he'll vote to shut the government down all the same.

[Ranior]

EDIT: Ninja's by others who essentially said the same I did. Ah well.

Originally Posted by Rich10

I always hear how much more partisan politics are today compared to the past, but don't our representatives vote the way their constituents want?

Your statements here are both correct in my opinion.

Politics are more partisan than in the past.

The representatives we have vote the way their constituents want.

So what could that mean? It's quite simple--the districts that decide what people someone is representing have progressively got more partisan.

This is due to many factors. For one, people tend to group with other people who share their ideological and cultural values. So you get clusters of voters who are more likely to share values, making the representatives have a more focused group to pander to.

Next, there is of course gerrymandering at play here too. Many races are just not competitive at all anymore. I already voted today. For my member to the US House of Representatives, Ron Kind, is running unopposed and has been the US representative for this district for many years. The Republicans know that they don't stand a chance in this district and so run no one. Similarly, my state representative, a democrat, is also running unopposed for my district. The Republican stands no chance. While this is due to me living in a fairly liberal county, for the US House of Representatives at least I can firmly say this is straight up gerrymandering. In 2010 Stevens Point WI was in the seventh district along with the rest of northern WI which is a bit Republican leaning. The suburbs of Eau Claire were also in this district, those suburbs are a bit democratic leaning.
When the new district lines were drawn in 2013, suddenly I find myself in the 3rd district, along with those Eau Claire suburbs. We are know in a very solid democratic district, while the seventh district we used to be in is no solidly Republican where it used to be more of a toss up.
(To those who care enough to look, the wikipedia article shows the maps clearly, you can see the 3rd district in particular looks pretty funky and I would argue is clearly a sign of some gerrymandering at work).

Straight ticket voting has also increased--fewer people are voting across party lines and instead most just vote for members of a single party which helps increase polarization.

But anyhow, because so many of these districts and states are no longer competitive in the general election, the true challenge for candidates like Ron Kind will come from the primaries--whatever Democrat emerges from the primary will go on to win WI's 3rd district. Primaries tend to attract voters who are more politically engaged, and doesn't attract as many moderates or independents. Therefore candidates need to move further to the left or right to secure their parties nomination. Being closer to the middle doesn't matter as much anymore.

So we are getting candidates who are more partisan, leading to increased polarization. After I've stated most of this, I remembered reading an excellent fivethirtyeight article about it a few years ago which essentially just says what I just did.

Ultimately, the simple truth is that we have fewer competitive national races anymore, which means there are fewer moderate candidates. So we get more candidates that are more partisan, even though those candidates are simply doing what they always have--following the will of the voters. As has been pointed out here by Dok, until the incentives change for politicians, we shall continue to see increased polarization with fewer moderate candidates occupying the middle.

[Aldin]

I just want to thank everyone here for participating in the discussion. In making my decision it has been very useful to read all the comments here and reflect on what they mean to me and what I understand them to mean with regard to our society as a whole. My intent no matter whom our President will ultimately be is to respect the position they hold and to pray they lead with wisdom.

~Aldin, off to vote in an hour and a half

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Aldin

My intent no matter whom our President will ultimately be is to respect the position they hold and to pray they lead with wisdom.

You and me both, friend.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by dok

Secondly, rather than those voters being motivated by whatever regional interests matter in that area, they are motivated by the national media sources they've chosen to listen to - many of them choosing to consume media that further reinforces a partisan viewpoint.

In short, many representatives are now more concerned about losing to a primary challenger from within their own party than they are about losing a general election to someone from the other party. (This is much much more true for Republicans than Democrats, which is why the Republican caucus in the house has become relatively much more extreme compared to the Democratic caucus.)

In today's internet based society, you can find media sources that are more advocacy based than you could find in the past. But when I speak to people, they don't seem as polarized as the candidates.

Regarding the primaries, you have to win a primary before you can get to the general election, but that's not new. Historically, that has led democrats and republicans to move to the left and right during the primaries and back to the center during the general election. I'm not sure why that has changed or why it would affect republicans more than democrats.

Originally Posted by wriggz

The Pope came out and said that Climate Change is a thing that Catholics have to combat. What did Catholic Conservatives do in the US? They ignored the Pope and continued to believe Climate Change is a hoax. People are literally choosing their political party over their religion. This is why this year is so interesting. People are willing to stick with a party that has a leader they don't support, just because it is their party. This is why we see papers switching sides, but not people.

As someone who is Catholic, I am concerned about climate change. but it has nothing to do with the Pope. I like and respect the Pope, but he isn't relevant to my beliefs or actions. I know a number of republicans who are voting for Hillary.

As for Gerrymandering, the term is named after Elbridge Gerry, who died in 1814, so it certainly isn't a new practice. According to Wikipedia (admittedly not the best source), it is practiced in many countries including (among developed countries) Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

You and me both, friend.

I agree. I voted for qualified candidates during this election in more than just one party. Vote for the best person.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rich10

In today's internet based society, you can find media sources that are more advocacy based than you could find in the past. But when I speak to people, they don't seem as polarized as the candidates.

You may have issues with Clinton on a personal level, but when you hear her themes in her stump speech, does she really sound any more polarized than past Democratic candidates? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. It's pretty boilerplate Democratic stuff, including the usual appeals to diversity and uniting (the slogan is "stronger together" after all). She does go after her opponent hard, but that's also typical (even if the specific things she's criticizing him for are unprecedented).

Originally Posted by Rich10

Regarding the primaries, you have to win a primary before you can get to the general election, but that's not new. Historically, that has led democrats and republicans to move to the left and right during the primaries and back to the center during the general election. I'm not sure why that has changed or why it would affect republicans more than democrats.

It's changed because of the same two reasons I brought up before. Gerrymandering has shifted the median of many districts, and the typical primary voter has become much less friendly to compromise with the other side. As a result, the risk of losing to an extreme challenger in the primary is greater than the risk of losing to a moderate challenger in the general election for many incumbents.

These things are particularly true on the right, because Fox News is much more successful and dominant on the right than any similar source on the left, and because (for whatever reason) the grass roots on the right have been much more active and successful at running primary challenges against moderate candidates of their own party.

[Ranior]

EDIT: I keep getting ninja'd by Dok today. I guess that's what happens when I keep typing up a response and getting distracted, then going back and finishing it. Ah well, basically the same answers once more.

Originally Posted by Rich10

Regarding the primaries, you have to win a primary before you can get to the general election, but that's not new. Historically, that has led democrats and republicans to move to the left and right during the primaries and back to the center during the general election. I'm not sure why that has changed or why it would affect republicans more than democrats.

In the past, if a party sent a highly partisan candidate to the general election, they would usually lose to the presumably more moderate candidate from the other party as the district was probably more moderate.

Now however, you have many districts that are highly partisan. In the past you had more districts who were fighting over the moderate Democrat or moderate Republican. Now you have heavily Republican districts where the battle is between the very conservative Republican or the moderate Republican. Whomever wins will almost surely defeat the moderate Democrat that may get run (if the Democrats even think it is worth trying to spend funds to run someone). Therefore you can now elect more partisan candidates and actually get them to the House than you could in the past.

As for why it is effecting Republicans more than Democrats, the short answer is roughly Tea Party related. But basically until you start seeing the more liberal wing of the democratic party really pushing for more change than they are getting out of their current candidates, they probably will continue to keep roughly their current ideological stances. (Which are solidly but not extremely liberal).

The Tea Party in particular though has found plenty of support and has had success in getting very conservative individuals elected, unseating more traditionally moderate Republicans. Therefore there is now a significant number of elected Representatives who identify as Tea Party members and tend to have very conservative opinions.

The Democrats probably could start seeing more intensely liberal candidates get elected in many districts, but it just hasn't happened yet. I'd agree the incentives are basically there and we could see it happen. But for whatever reason, we have more so seen increased partisanship with the Tea Party and the conservative wing as compared to the Democrats.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Ranior

In the past, if a party sent a highly partisan candidate to the general election, they would usually lose to the presumably more moderate candidate from the other party as the district was probably more moderate.

Originally Posted by dok

You may have issues with Clinton on a personal level, but when you hear her themes in her stump speech, does she really sound any more polarized than past Democratic candidates? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. It's pretty boilerplate Democratic stuff, including the usual appeals to diversity and uniting (the slogan is "stronger together" after all). She does go after her opponent hard, but that's also typical (even if the specific things she's criticizing him for are unprecedented).

Hillary Clinton has not been more polarizing than past democrat candidates, but Bernie Sanders was certainly more polarizing than past candidates (or Hillary). Similarly, Donald Trump was the most polarizing figure among the republican candidates. The difference is that Reince Priebus didn't do as good a job as Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c39_story.html
The DNC controlled Sanders better than the RNC controlled Trump. But remember that both the republicans and democrats had fairly radical candidates with significant support.

[Nukatha]

Anyone else care to join me watch the world burn? I've got plenty of popcorn!

[Xorlof]

THE HELL?

I'm watching and that's my general reaction. NYT's model is very confident that Trump will win at this point: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president. It seems to be the most data rich site I've found so far tonight, although some of the twiddling of the numbers is obviously just for show.