Centerfield

been tried a number of times before, for various reasons. Didn't succeed then and I don't see it succeeding now. All you have to do is look at the California Senate races the past couple of decades.
A number of moderates have switched to try to get a moderate, i.e., moderate Tom Campbell elected into the primary instead of Herschenson because they prefer Campbell over Boxer. Didn't work. It's not just the stranglehold of the parties it's sometimes the strangleholds of the party structure and who's in charge, with the hard line conservatives trying to dominate California politics they have rendered themselves less effective except in the Congressional and some assembly and state senate races. Because of those successes it keeps them in business as the party bosses. The gropenator was the first to go against that grain but he also may be the last for a while. The other flaw on the GOP side is that while Boxer is quite liberal, she definitely wasn't as for to the left as her past 2 GOP opponents have been to the right. Chalk 2 failed elections to the far right influence on the GOP.

It takes money, too. Recruit some major donors into the fight, and help throw fundraisers early on for the moderate candidates to help them get their name out early.

Remember the lesson of EMILY's List. "Early Money Is Like Yeast."

I liked the article. It sounds like a great idea but how does one organize to:

1) help the majority REALIZE that they are in the middle? I say this because many of my Republican friends and family in my heavily, gerrymandered GOP district don't seem to realize how centered they really. They broadbrush the (R) as if it holds equal meaning for all Republicans even though when I've questioned them on detailed important issues (and avoided generalized philosophy) they invaribaly sway to a more moderate and nuanced position.

2)go about setting up an effective mechanism to inform people of more moderate choices and common ground? I suppose it would be easier to go after the minority party's people and explain the logic of the ploy. But the local leadership will resist and want to stay steadfast behind "their man" even if he only has the prospect of getting 40% of the vote.

30 get a national spokesman or several people to inspire the locals to follow the lead?

As Marcus suggests indirectly, Senator Boxer has to be one of the luckiest politicians going. Because while she is way to the left of most Californians, the Republican Party here persists in nominating opponents for her who are even further to the right of the population. And so she keeps winning.

I'm a life-long Republican. _I_ think I'm a conservative. But there's no way I could vote for any of those lunatics. And the majority of Californians appear to agree.

I'm not sure that third party is all that nonviable. Certainly we'll not have a third party president for a long time, if ever, but if a third party made any significant (say >20%) in local, state, or even federal (senate/house, of course), they'd represent a coalition with whom either party would have to negotiate to get legislations through, which might not be a bad thing at all.

My point is that a third party doesn't have to "win", nor even siphon off votes. Think of the attention that would be paid if you had to have a run off with no clear majority. Or if your state house of representatives had a sizeable portion of third party affiliates who could derail votes.

Of course, the most probably viable third party is the Green party, which may or may not be to the general taste of readers of this blog :grin:

Cheers,
BEG

I'm not sure that third party is all that nonviable. Certainly we'll not have a third party president for a long time, if ever, but if a third party made any significant (say >20%) in local, state, or even federal (senate/house, of course), they'd represent a coalition with whom either party would have to negotiate to get legislations through, which might not be a bad thing at all.

My point is that a third party doesn't have to "win", nor even siphon off votes. Think of the attention that would be paid if you had to have a run off with no clear majority. Or if your state house of representatives had a sizeable portion of third party affiliates who could derail votes.

Of course, the most probably viable third party is the Green party, which may or may not be to the general taste of readers of this blog :grin:

Cheers,
BEG

Rats, sorry for the double post hiccup...pls feel free to delete/cleanup...

I've registered for "the other" party in the past in order to do just what was described in the post. The main result was I ended up on their mailing list for several years. Yes, it cost them money to call me and send me things, but it cost me more as far as having to put up with it.

Never again.

One problem with trying to push politics to the center through the primaries is that while conservatives/liberals are concentrated in the Republican/Democratic party, moderates and centrists are split between the parties. All you have to do is read through this blog to realize that that is not going to change.

Now consider the impact of this fact. In an electorate which is 20/45/35 percent liberal/moderate/conservative, as polls indicate, and in which moderates split nearly evenly, the Democratic party would be 47/53 percent liberal/moderate and the Republican party 60/40 percent conservative/moderate giving conservatives an ironclad grip on the Republican party outright and with liberals having greater sway in the Democratic party due to greater turnout in the primaries.

There is another way, though.

At best the most a third-party candidate can hope to do is siphon votes off the major-party candidate most similar to them, to the benefit of their ideological opponent.

That is only because in our system, any voter who votes third party forfeits his or her right to express a preference between the major parties. Change this system, and third parties will become viable. Start counting voters' second and third choice votes, there, you've started to count their preferences between the major candidates, even if they voted third-party.

The problem with centrists in politics, though, is that, while it's possible to identify (however imperfectly) what a liberal and conservative position it, it's nearly impossible to define what a centrist position is on any given issue. So when people describe themselves as moderate, for many people, I suspect it more likely reflects the fact that a lot of voters don't really know much about particular issues or don't really have an opinion. In other words, the laberl moderate or centrist is sort of a default position, especially for those that don't like being labeled liberal or conservative. So what does it mean to say that 45% of the population defines themselves as centrists? Self-described centrists can be for or against the war, for or against abortion, for or against gay marriage, etc. So, how do you mobilize such an amorphous group of voters? It's much easier to go after liberals or conservatives because you can identify their positons on key issues. And how do you shape a campaign to appeal to centrists when you don't really know what the label means?

I wonder if centrists might have some hidden commonality. There's bound to be a variety of positions, but what happens when we identify what we think the admin's and the legislatues top priorities should be.

If we have a few things we all think should go to the top of the list, even if our stances vary, can we at least agree about where the problems lie?

I saw a quote the other day, Buckminster Fuller I think: "a problem adequately stated is a problem on its way to being solved."

I think if we have a strength, it's there. Both wings already have a simplistic "solution" because they have not encompassed the entirety of the problem, or haven't focused completely enough on the components that are truly driving it.

For example, most of us here are willing to acknowledge that the bigest part of the problem with social security is solvency...we have to make promises based on our ability and willingness to fund them. I'm more concerned with coming to a reconciliation between promise-making and promise-fulfilling than I am with the exact details. We have different views of how best to do with, and those are driven by different philosophies. We favor different approaches. But I know that I'd be willing to live with a program somewhat different from what I'd like as long as it was suatainable and arrived at via a process that I didn't feel was corrupt or ignored the people's needs and sentiments. So long as it provided a minimal safety net such that, should I live longer than I expect and run out of funds, I'd have a roof over my head, food, basic care, and a little bit of autonomy.

Don't forget, Marc, that in many situations it's not as if there are only two options, and centrists are equally attracted to both; rather, centrists are often attracted to a third "compromise" option that neither party is articulating.

A few years ago I had an idea I thought would help the situation even more elegantly: let everyone vote in every primary. Closed primaries should just be made illegal, so you have republicans voting in democratic primaries and republican primaries, and vice versa (and independents, etc.)

Then both parties' candidates would, theoretically, end up closer to center, and elections would feel much more like compromises than wins or losses.

I figured since I had never even heard anybody else suggest such a thing, there must be some major flaw in the idea, but I don't see how we could do worse than a Bush/Kerry election.

Justin. supposeyou started your own political party, and filled it with people with views similar to yours. Then suppose you noiminated a candidate that matched the viewed of your party.

How would you feel if the government mandated that anyone could have a say in who the party's nominee was, instead of only the people who bothered to join the party and support its stated ideals. You'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you?

Political parties have the right to free association, just like the boy scouts. Now, there's no real reason why each state has to privilege the 2 dominant parties. They do, but they don't have to. But if they wanted to, I believe any state could implement its own non-party system. They could even make the political parties pay to have their own primaries. I think that's a GREAT idea to try...you two parties go have your own primaries and do them any way you want, on your own nickel, and then tell us who you want on the ballot. And we'll have an open primary and the top 2 or 3 vote-getters make the finale.

In Louisiana, we have non-partisan open primaries. Everybody runs against everybody else. The two highest vote-getters are in a run-off, regardless of party. You could have two Republicans or two Democrats, or two Libertarians, for that matter. Sometimes, this does help produce the moderate candidate in the general, run-off election.

But too often, the middle-of-the-roaders split their vote among 2 or 3 decent candidates, while the extremes stick hard by their guys. That's how we wound up with Edwin Edwards v. David Duke a few years ago. So no, the open, non-partisan primary is not a panacea, even without considering Brian's very good arguments against it in principle above (with which I fully agree).

Well, a technical and a practical counterpoint. I guess we're just screwed :)

lol, Justin.

Let me clarify. I'm not against the open primary such as what we have here in Louisiana. I am opposed to a more traditional primary system which allows Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. In our open primary, the voters are not voting for who should be standard bearer for the party. They are voting directly on whether to put a candidate in office. If one candidate gets 50% + 1 in the open primary, then there is no general election and that candidate is elected.

But if the system were such that the top GOP and the top Dem went into a general election together regardless of whether 2 Dems or 2 GOPs were the top vote-getters, then I would be opposed to that for the associational reasons Brian laid out above. Members of my party have a right to choose our own leadership without interference from members of the other party.

Pat, regarding that right of party members to choose their own leadership, I agree in principle. But I wonder what you think about the state running these primaries and so funding them.

I mean, it's awful sporting of the government to subsidize these things, isn't it? Now if the local or state government running and funding these things is willing to keep doing so, the parties would be fools not to keep letting them do it. That's a no-brainer.

But are the governments under any real obligation to do so? And if they are funding and running, isn't it reasonable to expect that they'd be buying some say in how the process unfolds and who can vote? Suppose a state did mandate that anyone can participate in one of the primaries. If a party said that was wrong, I'd agree with them. But suppose the state then responded "OK, fine, then run and pay for your own primary, and we'll stay out of it." I'd agree with the state in that case.

In principle, yes. But I don't have a real problem with the state paying for them, and think it's better for the state to handle the reins lightly. If they didn't, I'd be worried that the parties might choose a cheaper method of picking their candidates... like the old smoke-filled back room.

States are constitutionally empowered to set their own election rules, as far as open or closed primaries go. To change that would require a constitutional amendment. But in my state anyway, you can change your party affiliation right up until election day, and if you're registered "independent" you can declare a party at the polls and vote that side's races.

A fully-open primary system such as Louisiana has is much less objectionable, IMHO. But the idea of letting voters of one party pick the candidates for the other party grates on me severely. A minority party could easily end up not being able to field a real candidate at all, as voters of the majority party could settle on their side of the slate and also Trojan Horse a preffered candidate onto the opposition slate. Win-win for the majority party, and the minority always gets screwed.

But there is nothing that I know of, anywhere, that would keep you from registering for the party you wanted to affect and voting accordingly. The parties have the right (as far as I'm concerned) to have their candidates chosen by their people. What they don't have is the right to ban people from registering for their party.

It's the trying to have it both ways that annoys.

Meant to also say--registering for the other party so as to affect the primary has a long and honorable tradition in America. It's not in the least new.

Many of my friends were raised to register for the opposition, vote for the WORST person on that slate, and then vote their party in the general election. Democracy in action.