"Dear Wealthy Fucks: Fuck you. Yours in Christ, the Black Guy"

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements.  Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.

[crazy canuck]

They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements.  Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

Multiple factors, I think.  We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be.  The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow.  With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes?  People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions.  The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters.  They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit.  As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system.  Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.

[crazy canuck]

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

Multiple factors, I think.  We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be.  The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow.  With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes?  People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions.  The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters.  They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit.  As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system.  Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.

That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

[viper37]

I don't. I follow the Wealth of Nations by that little scottish dude.

he was revolutionary in his time, but if he lived today he'd be one of the most economically-illiterate intellectuals in the world.  The reality of externalities, for instance, destroys his basic theory.

science is like religion.  If it's been written many years ago, it is still valid today and anything else is just a test of your Faith.

[MadImmortalMan]

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

Multiple factors, I think.  We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be.  The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow.  With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes?  People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions.  The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters.  They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit.  As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system.  Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.

That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

And yet sometimes the parties nominate bland moderates like Romney.

[garbon]

Who was the last radical presidential nominee?

[MadImmortalMan]

Reagan and Obama were both on the outside edge of their respective parties maybe. That they each won two terms might be a little telling.


Maybe running to the middle is genuinely a bad idea.

[garbon]

Obama is radical?

[katmai]

Well you know he is a Nig.

[Martinus]

They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements.  Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

Or you could argue the opposite - the wide agreement about certain fundamental issues is so strong, it is no longer perceived as an agreement, but simply as the reality paradigm. So both mainstream parties need to differentiate themselves from each other by taking opposing views on issues of relatively minor importance, such as abortion, gay marriage, pot legalisation or immigration.

[viper37]

Who was the last radical presidential nominee?

GW Bush?

[CountDeMoney]

What happened to the political centre in the US?

Like the ice caps, it's melting away.

[CountDeMoney]

[crazy canuck]

They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements.  Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.

But that structure has existed for a long time.  I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so.  I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges.  But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country.  If that is accurate, how did that happen?

Or you could argue the opposite - the wide agreement about certain fundamental issues is so strong, it is no longer perceived as an agreement, but simply as the reality paradigm. So both mainstream parties need to differentiate themselves from each other by taking opposing views on issues of relatively minor importance, such as abortion, gay marriage, pot legalisation or immigration.

In order to make that argument you would have to be able to identify the fundamental issues upon which agreement is strong.  Any idea what those might be?