Centerfield

"but I think the two-party system is so ingrained in this country, it would be difficult for a new party to emerge. "

Seems to me that all a third party needs is 6 Senate Seats, and about 16 House seats, and they will rule the roost. And if they can come up with part of that, the rest of the seats may switch from GOP to Dem, and they still end up with the swing votes. Think O'Connor on the SCOTUS.

Granted, those are pretty big numbers for a third party, but imagine the change in the dynamic if all of a sudden BOTH national parties had to court moderates to make any policy pass.

Imagine how much power those few Senators or Representatives would wield. Want something done, just mention it, you KNOW that both Dems and GOPs will be knocking on your door offering support for you if you even hint at support for something of theirs

Good points, Scott. I was really taken back by the person's cynicism. The response gave me the impression their aims are more partisan oriented (making the GOP to their liking) than policy oriented.

I looked over their positions and what they push for in terms of policy and it seemed very compatible with the positions I've read at the New Dem network, The PPI and the DLC.

In the end, I think money plays a big role in that these moderates (on both sides) fear leaving the edge of the tent because they lose the generous party money and support. It sucks.

"In the end, I think money plays a big role in that these moderates (on both sides) fear leaving the edge of the tent because they lose the generous party money and support."

I agree. This is where a national Centrist PAC can make a difference.

Just because the DLC and the Mainstreeters are centristly-inclined does not mean they will quit being Republicans and Democrats. Neither is going to leap across the aisle en masse. But they are strong indicators that the wings are actively alienating the mainstream voters to the point where moderates of both parties feel compelled to disassociate themselves from the wings--which to some extent also means from the parties.

On the bright side, the parties are doing a good job of driving people out of the fold, which may in turn lead to moderates actually paying more attention.

"We're centrists but we're republicans first and partisan politics stills rules."

Similarly, in assessing the possibility of the Democrats taking over in Congress (it was either on NewDonkey or in Blueprint), the list of vulnerable Repbulicans included a few moderates, like Shays of Connecticut. I emailed Ed Kilgore about that one, asking to make a difference between Republicans that centrist Democrats can work with and those they can't, but got no response.

Rather than try to get Republican groups to support Democratic candidates and Democratic groups to support Republican candidates, you need to work with whichever big-party centrist organization is on the partisan side of the candidate you want to favor in a particular race. If a Republican centrist is running against a leftie, that's when you work with the Main Street Republicans. If a moderate Democrat is running against a fundie, then work with the DLC or some other more moderate Democratic group.

In the primaries, centrists can work with both groups to support the moderate candidates of both parties early on.

Rather than rail against the 2-party system and beat your head against the wall trying to make fundamental change that most people are not ready for, find a way to accomplish centrist goals by working within the current power structure. Paul' idea of a Centrist PAC could work well in this regard. Don't demand ironclad fealty to "centrist" positions, just identify the moderate candidates and support them.

What Pat said.

You will NOT get mod PACs inside the parties to cross the aisle and oppose their own party's candidates. If there's a race where it looks like a mod can win, they're only going to support THEIR mod. They might not come out swinging for a winger on their side, but they're sure not going to bat for the opposition.

Mods across the aisle are some of the choicest targets for partisan moderate groups. They indicate a district where their party can maybe get a moderate elected.

Suppose there were a centrist PAC with actual substantial dough to disperse, In order to keep credibilty and avoid being accused of stealth partisanship, what do you guysthink about the merits of contribution quotas. I mean, suppose we had a million bucks. Maybe we'd commit to giving 100k to 5 moderates from each party who were facing wingers.

I'm not generally a quotas guy, but given the uniquely sensitive position of centrism (open to attacks from BOTH wings) I can se esome merit to implementing such a quota policy. It would allow centrists to claim with some credibility that we're not primarily interested in changing the ratio of democrats to republicans, we're just interested in increasing the number of the peoples representatives who can work together and forge responsive policies. And so we've implemented a quota to avoid getting sidetracked by claims of partisanship.

The other benefit is that such a policy is likely to attract more requests for help if each party knows they can walk away with half the dough.

If such a policy existed, it would have to be re-approved during each grant-issuing cycle.

I think that's not a bad policy idea, Brian. It also would help focus on priorities. Don't fight in battles we're almost certainly going to lose, pick those where we have the best chance of success based on demographics, prevalent issues, and the candidates available.

I may be completely off my rocker, but wouldn't moderates generally be helped by instant-runoff voting, allowing them to be less beholden to their party for election resources?

If that's true, would they form a large enough legislative block to get some form of IRV seriously considered or even passed?

It seems to me that for IRV to become reality, we need to find existing legislators who see IRV as more to their advantage than the current system. Maybe moderates fit the bill.

Rather than rail against the 2-party system and beat your head against the wall trying to make fundamental change that most people are not ready for, find a way to accomplish centrist goals by working within the current power structure.

While I wouldn't try to argue against Pat's point above, I would agree with it if qualified as the short-term approach toward at least a possible long-term goal of growing a third party. If we all continue to believe that a third party is impossible, our prophecy will be self-fulfulling. A third party may be impossible in the forseeable future, but what of the future beyond that? The two-party system is very limiting for moderates and centrists. I'm not prone to pie-in-the-sky idealism, so I don't want this post to be misunderstood as taking that sort of position. I just think that the practical approaches we take to promote centrism within the framework of the two-party system should be done with an eye forward to ulitmately breaking down the barriers the two-party system will always present if left unchanged.

I don't think you're off your rocker, Sean. We even have at least one "lab" for past-history research. Pat, how long has Louisiana had open elections, with the top two going to runoff if the "winner" has under 50%?

Since 1975, Tully. Edwin Edwards pushed for it in part to help him win reelection in 1975, and in part to make it easier for a Republican to win in 1979, when he would not be able to run again. Edwards knew that he could much more easily come back to win a third term against a Republican than against a Democrat.

Although I think in many ways it has helped us be much less partisan in our legislative affairs than most states, it is no panacea. One need only look at the Edwards-Duke election to see the risk it poses where the cohesive fringes can put 2 equally undesirable candidates in the run-off.

Now, IRV is of course a different system and may have different effects. As I said the last time the topic came up, I want to see experiments on the local level, then on the state level, before I even begin to consider endorsing it on a wide-spread scale.

com brings you online dating. online dating Software for your online dating Business. http://online.dating-smarts.com/ Speed Dating, Internet Dating, Adult Dating, online dating, Dating Agency, Party Supplies, Childrens Parties, Limousine Hire, Party Entertainers. Computer Notebooks online dating Insurance Jobs Online Store.

"lds singles Community - Mingle with 1000's of lds singles everday. Interests Jesus Christ cars stock-market business wireless adventure love excellence virtue relationships patriotism politics reading Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons lds singles the future Mustang GT rock Blogs. http://lds.dating-smarts.com/ Businesses, classifieds, yard sales, personals, and more for Wilkes NC lds singles. Businesses, classifieds, yard sales, personals, and more for Wilkes NC lds singles.