So, why support Democrats?

[eridani]

Because literally, in terms of voting records, Democrats and Republicans are almost two separate species. Following are graphs of the 2008 environmental records of the WA state legislature. Scores are voting records rated from 0-100% by the League of Conservation Voters.




House Dems: N = 66
AVG = 89.7
STDEV = 11.2
Range = 50-100

House Repubs = 38
AVG = 28.7
STDEV = 18.3
Range = 0 - 73

Numbers total more than 98 because six legislators did not serve a full term and were replaced.
Outliers defined as over 40% for Repubs (7) and under 40% for Dems (none).

Similar results for the Senate



Senate Dems: N = 32
AVG = 87.5
STDEV = 14.5
Range = 34-100

Senate Repubs = 17
AVG = 22.5
STDEV = 11.1
Range = 7-45
The one Dem outlier (under 40%) caucuses with Repubs. There are three Repub outliers (over 40%) representing purplish King County suburban areas.

I analyzed national ratings on issues important to retirees in 2005 similarly (no graphs)

House Dems: N = 201
AVG = 94.6
STDEV = 8.0
Minimum = 58

House Repubs = 222
AVG = 5.5
STDEV = 6.2
Maximum = 33

Senate Dems: N = 43
AVG = 93.3
STDEV = 10.5
Minimum = 52

Senate Repubs = 57
AVG = 8.0
STDEV = 11.5
Maximum = 69 (Jeffords)
Next after Jeffords - 35


And how many conservative Dems and liberal Repubs are there really? Counting as a conservative D someone with less than 85% rating and as a liberal R someone with more than 15%-- 7 liberal Repubs and 5 conservative Dems

Senate ConservaDems: N = 5
AVG = 71.6
STDEV = 13.0

Senate liberal Repubs = 7
AVG = 34.4 (minus Jeffords = 28.3)
STDEV = 16.5 (minus Jeffords = 6.5)

House ConservaDems: N = 19
AVG = 75.8
STDEV = 8.8

House liberal Repubs = 16
AVG = 22.2
STDEV = 4.6

So even the gap between the most liberal Repubs and the most conservative Dems is a chasm. The fly in the ointment is, of course, that when it comes to serving people rather than corporations or the military-industrial complex, the good stuff never gets out of committee. The Repubs, joined by a significant block (and even sometimes a slight majority) of Dems, block it. We are seeing this played out in health care, financial regulation and war appropriations right now. Still, much legislation, however timid, that does get out helps real people, or at least mitigates harm to same. And that is why I'm still a partisan Dem, despite of the health care and other fuckups.

[peacebird]

1. important to remember this. Dems may not always do what we want,

or act quickly enough, but the repukes will always act against our best interests.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. You know what?

One or two bones thrown at the progressives every now and then will no longer suffice. They've sold us out in too many other ways and ways that are, literally, going to kill people.

[eridani]

4. No, it won't. That's why I'm fighting to either ditch health care reform proposals

--or strip out and recycle the useful parts as separate legislation.

[HughMoran]

10. So it's certainly better to elect the person who will throw a bone AT the progressive

...in an attempt to murder him or her.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Look around.

There are more than 2 choices.

[HughMoran]

16. No, there aren't

I look around - but I take off the blinders first. When I see good qualified alternatives, I'll vote for them - otherwise I'll do my best to keep the bigot hate Nazi party out of office, thank you very much...

[old mark]

3. Politicians are a bad lot - Democrats are only slightly better than the GOP,

but they are somewhat better.

I urge everyone to vote in Tuesday's election to keep Republicans from gaining more power in your local area. You have to live there, after all.

mark

[still_one]

5. Bullshit. There are more than just Democrats and republicans in the pool, and if the

Democrats mess up the health insurance reform bill, or get us deeply involved in Afghanistan where thousands of more people will die needlessly, no one tells me I have to support that

Just because I won't vote republican because they are far worse, does not guarantee that I will vote Democrat

In fact, that is one of the reasons that the Democratic party is where it is today, because they believe they don't have to listen to progressives. They can take them for granted

[eridani]

6. There are no third parties that take electoral politics seriously

With the exception of some in states where fusion balloting is allowed. This was widespread in the 19th century, but the Repubs shut it down except for a few states on the east coast. Bringing it back would be more helpful than IRV, IMO.

[still_one]

7. If enough people are hurt by both parties, something will happen. It may be challenging

those incumbents within the party, or a third party candidate emerging in a particular area

[HughMoran]

11. I think I'll just go stab grannie in hopes that we'll have a better system for my grandkids

Is it OK to vote for at least some Dems? ...or should we allow the lockstep Republicans to take over and enslave us - all in the name of progress or course.

[still_one]

14. Vote your conscience /nt

[eridani]

18. I think that primary challenges are the way to go

On the west coast, I've never yet heard of a third party bothering to establish a general voter list, even for just one congressional or legislative district. They operate on the assumption that all they have to do is talk to their supporters who are issue junkies.

[stray cat]

9. It is important to throw elections to people like Sarah Palin?

[HughMoran]

12. Yes, because when we all go insane, we'll have learned a valuable lesson

And when she allows us to have our elections in our concentration camps, we'll elect good cartoon leaders that we can pretend are what we wanted all along.

[Selatius]

8. Because voting for the Greens fucks you over with another George W. Bush?

There will never be the kind of electoral reform that would damage the two-party monopoly on the national level. It's against the interests of both the establishment parties. It is like expecting somebody who wants to hold power suddenly deciding putting a bullet in his head is a good idea.

We are stuck, essentially. The mathematical nature of single-member district plurality tends to favor only two parties becoming viable. Lo and behold, we only have two viable political parties. Maurice Duverger discovered this tendency when analyzing voting system behaviors, and it has since been dubbed Duverger's Law, which is a phenomenon that the US is firmly in the grip of. If the US adopted a rule saying that a candidate must pass a 50% threshold to win a seat, the two-party system could become progressively easier to dislodge the angrier and disillusioned the population becomes in addition to escaping the phenomenon of Duverger's Law.

Not all countries that use SMDP have two-party monopolies. India has multiple parties, but that's because India has developed a strong tradition of regional parties, something the US was developing prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. As long as progressives buy into the "not as bad" meme we will stay stuck in the 2 party system.

The hold your nose and wait for better days strategy of working within a corrupt system has landed us a one-party-two-wings state where out "public servants" work for corporations and serve only their own ambitions.

The only way to get the party to move left is to threaten to withhold our votes and mean it.

[eridani]

19. And use the votes for what?

No third party in this country bothers about even the basics of electoral politics, with the exception of a few in states that allow fusion ballots.

[Greyhound]

17. We've created a system of governing in a vacuum.

The disparity between what goes on in DC and the real nation is now so great that there is no relationship between them.

The government of The People, by The People, and for The People has indeed perished.