Please enlighten a non-American

[musey]

Date: 3/6/2009 3:12:11 PM
Author: saltymuffin
All very interesting. Thanks for all your help! Hopefully this will help me understand future posts! The idea of being a party member from the time you register to vote at 18 is a real difference that undoubtedly creates the party loyalty I have witnessed.

Date: 3/7/2009 3:18:34 AM
Author: LaraOnline
However, it comes down to having to nominate a 'favourite' at the ripe old age of 18! It certainly adds a different flavour to political discussions.

You two perhaps missed this, but it's been noted a few times that one can (quite easily) change one's party membership at any time. So choosing to register as either Republican or Democrat at 18 does not lock one in for a lifetime political party affiliation. Also, as stated, one does not have to register with any party at all. The main reason for doing so is so that one can participate in candidate selection, which may or may not hold importance to any given person.

I personally don't believe that that is primarily responsible for party loyalty. There are a lot of other factors (political affiliation of parents/family, religious affiliation, general beliefs and convictions) that play into one's party selection and loyalty a lot more heavily than "having to nominate a 'favourite' at the ripe old age of 18."

There is a misquote (supposedly said by Mr. Winston Churchill, but from what I can tell that is incorrect or at least twisted) I've often heard, "If you're young and vote republican, you have no heart. If you're old and vote democrat, you have no brain."

At least for the current voter spread, it tends to hold true at least enough to validate the stereotype.


Also, worth discussing is the fact that the parties have morphed over the years. Republican didn't always mean 'conservative,' and Democrat didn't always mean 'liberal.' Their definitions, if you will, were quite different at their inception. As I only have a general understanding of this specific topic and wouldn't be able to explain it very well, I won't try. I'm sure someone else will, though.

Suffice to say that by the old/original (American) definitions of the parties, I am actually a Republican, even though my liberal stance on most issues (primarily social) now puts me relatively firmly on the modern Democratic 'side.'


Another thing worth discussing further is the third parties' contribution/sway on candidate selection. Most often, third party candidates push their campaigns not with illusions (sadly) of winning the election themselves, but with the goal of bringing up issues and viewpoints for discussion in the primaries and general election.

As a side note, my husband and I often discuss the Green Party and the idea that they would likely benefit from a couple of campaigns with a 'celebrity' candidate such as Al Gore. It would bring the party attention and a degree of political clout, and perhaps begin pushing the system to include 'other' parties more seriously.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 3/8/2009 1:57:42 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/6/2009 3:12:11 PM
Author: saltymuffin
All very interesting. Thanks for all your help! Hopefully this will help me understand future posts! The idea of being a party member from the time you register to vote at 18 is a real difference that undoubtedly creates the party loyalty I have witnessed.

Date: 3/7/2009 3:18:34 AM
Author: LaraOnline
However, it comes down to having to nominate a ''favourite'' at the ripe old age of 18! It certainly adds a different flavour to political discussions.

You two perhaps missed this, but it''s been noted a few times that one can (quite easily) change one''s party membership at any time. So choosing to register as either Republican or Democrat at 18 does not lock one in for a lifetime political party affiliation. Also, as stated, one does not have to register with any party at all. The main reason for doing so is so that one can participate in candidate selection, which may or may not hold importance to any given person.

I personally don''t believe that that is primarily responsible for party loyalty. There are a lot of other factors (political affiliation of parents/family, religious affiliation, general beliefs and convictions) that play into one''s party selection and loyalty a lot more heavily than ''having to nominate a ''favourite'' at the ripe old age of 18.''

There is a misquote (supposedly said by Mr. Winston Churchill, but from what I can tell that is incorrect or at least twisted) I''ve often heard, ''If you''re young and vote republican, you have no heart. If you''re old and vote democrat, you have no brain.''

At least for the current voter spread, it tends to hold true at least enough to validate the stereotype.


Also, worth discussing is the fact that the parties have morphed over the years. Republican didn''t always mean ''conservative,'' and Democrat didn''t always mean ''liberal.'' Their definitions, if you will, were quite different at their inception. As I only have a general understanding of this specific topic and wouldn''t be able to explain it very well, I won''t try. I''m sure someone else will, though.

Suffice to say that by the old/original (American) definitions of the parties, I am actually a Republican, even though my liberal stance on most issues (primarily social) now puts me relatively firmly on the modern Democratic ''side.''


Another thing worth discussing further is the third parties'' contribution/sway on candidate selection. Most often, third party candidates push their campaigns not with illusions (sadly) of winning the election themselves, but with the goal of bringing up issues and viewpoints for discussion in the primaries and general election.

As a side note, my husband and I often discuss the Green Party and the idea that they would likely benefit from a couple of campaigns with a ''celebrity'' candidate such as Al Gore. It would bring the party attention and a degree of political clout, and perhaps begin pushing the system to include ''other'' parties more seriously.

Great post Musey! Since this was discussed not long ago at our house I will only add that not only have the parties ''morphed'' but so have the meanings of the word ''conservative'' and ''liberal''. I will try to get The History Teacher to refresh me on the cool teaching technique for teaching kids exactly how the meanings and positions have changed since the beginnings of this country. It was a nifty outline thingy. He let me look at it but other things have since driven it from my brain. He got about a month ago whilst attending a teaching in-service, and waxed enthusiastic about it when he got home.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

when Americans say they are a Democrat or a Republican, they rarely mean that they are an actual member of either party. They aren''t talking about paying dues, voting in primary elections (candidate selection), or attending rallies or meetings of any kind. I would guess that most people who say they are a Republican or a Democrat don''t even vote in most elections.

Claiming party affiliation is just a quick or conversational way of saying, "this is what I believe" or "this is who I support" since there are general stereotypes of what the two parties stand for.


Unfortunately, a lot of people who claim one or the other don''t even really know the parties'' positions on many issues. Even within each party, there is a range of beliefs on each issue. I would vote for Republicans more often than Democrats, but I would not be comfortable calling myself a member of either party since my positions do not line up 100% with either party.



And no, I don''t think that having two similar parties is less democratic. What I meant in my original post was that I can''t miss an election and wake up the next day with a new system or a dictator. The people running the government changes, but the government does not.

 

[LaraOnline]

Interesting...

I still feel (with the confidence of the complete outsider) that having the ability / cultural expectation/ opportunity to nominate with a particular party right from the get-go would actually encourage a fairly rusted on attitude towards partisanship, and would slow down the cross-over effect.

No doubt this is a reason why before the election, truck loads of students from each major party were signing up voters, with a specific goal of having those voters vote a particular way...

Voting rights are not associated with any party here. I guess because I''ve gotten used to this, I think that is how it ''should be''... probably also accounts for the low level of political interest / participation in our country as well - although we do have ''compulsory'' voting, which means voter turn out is not an issue... not the case for the branch meetings of the actual parties, though...

I have also felt that while the two party system lends itself to stability in a way multi-party systems do not, it is also an exercise in frustration because in many ways each party must be ''all things'' to a wide variety of supporters.

Thre seems to be a great conflict on, say, the conservative side of politics in relation to the clash of social and economic values. In many ways, the two-party system seems a hangover of a much less ''connected'' era... nowadays, in a political fantasy, we would be able to express a much more complicated political landscape, even within those two old parties...

But, still, we have the Republicans ridiculed for ''old-fashioned'' social beliefs (eg anti- abortion, so called ''pro-family'' values), and the economic hard heads are lumped in with the God-botherers... it just seems to ... clunky, inflexible and unsophisticated!