I'll start a discussion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leadpipe on August 4, 2008 at 11:12am

Interesting thought. Do you mean to suggest that online media will oust television as a primary medium?

I should say no, not until the majority of people use the internet as their primary source of information. Unfortunately, television still holds that spot.

As to the variety question, I'd like to think so, but am doubtful. Just as there are alternatives to any service the web provides, one or two names dominate them. Few, if any, are household names (let alone verbs!). So it will go with politics. Will it cause a shift in which parties? Again, I'm doubtful, but I'd like to think so. American political epistemology seems to center on dichotomy. We like point/counterpoint since it's simple and clean. Point - Spectrum of semi-agreement - counterpoint is too messy and doesn't mesh well in our minds. We like the simple lies over complex truths (deToqueville).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony Katz on August 4, 2008 at 4:34pm

There already exists this counter culture(?) in regards to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and the 90's brought us Ross Perot, and neither one of them are media darlings.

The parties (Dem and GOP) are so similar these days it is almost laughable, and there is serious undercurrents of displeasure. Yes, TV controls the vote, but they used to control my viewing habits as well....just not anymore.

Tony

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leadpipe on August 5, 2008 at 1:57pm

Let's not overstate Ron Paul. He certainly made a lot of noise, but it came to not much. In the primary contest, he was the last to throw in the towel and wound up with 29 delegates, and didn't carry a single state. He was second place in only 12 states.
The problem with third party candidates (and Ron Paul) is that they are on the fringe. That is to say that they do any or all of the following: bring emphasis to issues that are not a matter of national or federal concern, express desire drastic and/or radical changes, or (most importantly) fail to construct the frame and direct discussions about those topics on which they have something to say. That last one is always the kiss of death. It allows them to be painted by their opponents as crazy, to which they often respond by screaming "I'M NOT CRAZY!!!" and there's nothing that looks more crazy than someone shouting that they're not.

The Ross Perot point doesn't reinforce your main point about the internet. Ross Perot came along before the internet. I wasn't politically active when he was running, as my age was somewhere in the single digits, so I can't speak more on this.

As to the two major parties in the US being nearly identical, that's as much true as it is untrue. If you disagree, I encourage you to vote for John McCain. The appearance derives from trying to appeal to the same demographic of people: most of everyone, or at least most of everyone likely to vote. Historically, this has been less than half of everyone, though that trend has seemed to reverse itself in recent years (somewhere near an 80% voter turnout in 2004, I believe). There are significant differences in platform and values, even structurally. If you like, we can get into that, but this is getting long enough already. They're most similar in that they appeal to large numbers in the general population, enough so that these people will give them money just for being asked.

This response is starting to run a bit long, so I'll just make the points briefly: You and I might not watch TV, but most of the rest of the country does - and they watch a lot of it. Television hasn't gone the way of the telegraph. Hell, it hasn't even gone the way of radio, and mostly because reception is free of charge.

So, to the last word for now: there are plenty of Third Parties, just no one knows about them.

bah, trying to do this at work is difficult...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by I'llturnnative on August 4, 2008 at 4:50pm

Hmmm, campaigning done exclusively virtually? That is an interresting concept and given the amazing success of Ron Paul in this last election, I would say that it is feasable. However, you have to remember that it is campaigning, and there is always an element of shaking hands and kissing babies. Hopefuls will invariably have to travel to give speeches and have meetings with electorates, dinner with contributors and lobbyists, baseball pitches from the mound, discussions with think tanks, visitations with unions and factory workers, etc, etc, etc. The only way that this would change is if the infrastucture of travel changes and it becomes unfeasable for the hopeful to travel.

As for the variety of political parties: I'm with シェント図書館が大水だよ (and deTouqueville) on this one. I think that we Americans appreciate a dichotomy government because it is a familiar platform, Good vs Evil, Us vs. Them, Right vs. Left. Much to my dismay because we have had a two party dictatorship on elections for far too long and a disenting voice would be refreshing. The system has been rigged for a third party to not be able to get a foot-hold in the system. first, start with the debates.

1.The companies and organizations that control the debates (http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html) are headed by both Paul G. Kirk (president of the Democratic National Committee- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_G._Kirk,_Jr.) and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. (President of the Republican National Committee- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Fahrenkopf%2C_Jr.) There are no representatives from other parties on the board. So they will not allow any third party members to come onto the stage.

2.There are also state laws that inhibit candidates from getting on the books in some states: Example: Arizona has a law that says that if you are from another state collecting signatures in Arizona, those signatures will be thrown out, nevermind if you are running for a federal office.

3. The fact that they even HAVE to get voter petitions in each state for the party to even be Viable every election year is another disadvantage.

4. The Democrats and Republicans are suject to millions of dollars in federal campaign donations for their parties that require a minimum percentage of votes that make it difficult for the outreach.

5. Third parties generally do not accept corporate donations and abide by a higher code of ethics than the two major parties- this puts them on a BIG disadvantage.


There are many other reasons why third parties are at a disadvantage, but I'll stop here because I don't want to get myself all worked up. But I hope that this kindof shows the system for what it is and how difficult it is for the third parties to get a voice. Nevermind that they always come up with the best ideas.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J.J on August 5, 2008 at 9:06am

I'm not from the US. And i read an article in a news paper from France that said that in the US there was only one political party divided in two pieces. I don't think it it's 100% there, but you must see that it's true that Democrats and Republicans only have "little differences" in the most mainstream subjects. I don't know that much to make more judgments about that.

I think that the Internet will be the main place of future campaigns as Internet users will become the highest portion of the population around the world. And it may lead or not to new potential parties or candidates according to how the existing parties adapt to the new environment. If they don't take consideration of the people using the internet, it is most likely that a third candidate will come out and represent them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sarah Atwood on August 5, 2008 at 11:34am

A virtual campaign is a great place for a new party to emerge. I would love to see that happen.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Gowdy on August 5, 2008 at 11:46am

I think like all communications mediums, the internet will continue to be influential in future elections, not only for campaigning but for media coverage and fact finding. However, using the internet exclusively would put some people at a disadvantage as some candidates wouldn't be able to use other mediums to their full potential.

I would like to see more 3rd party candidates be able to run in any state for federal office without as much paperwork as it currently takes in some instances. I get that they need to be sure the candidate is serious, but ultimately the system is built to support the largest parties on top and we really really need a third party (at the very least) to compete with the other two.

Alas, it does come down to money. Which is why the internet will continue to grow in popularity for campaigning: It's cheap and effective. But don't discount going across the country in a van or bus or what-have-you, it's still going to help. Not everyone has internet access or even uses it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony Katz on August 5, 2008 at 11:54am

Matt,

I never discount the importance of the face to face meeting, and I don't think anyone who utilizes the net (and is thinking) would do so. If the net could replace human interaction, what would happen to all of these meetups, tweetups, conventions, expos and other gatherings that everyone is always hosting?

However, your opening line about putting some people at a disadvantage is not an acceptable theory. No one stated that Nixon wasn't able to use the technology of Television like Kennedy, so the debate wasn't fair. Kennedy looked great, Nixon looked awful, end of story.

The learning curve will be very quick. Or so I hope.

Tony

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Gowdy on August 5, 2008 at 12:16pm

Indeed, the internet will never fully replace human interaction, merely extend it by allowing people to communicate more often, increasing the chance that people will eventually meet each other face to face.

Who said anything about Nixon? ;) I was referring to the use of the internet exclusively by all parties. Theoretically, this would require government regulation to be attained. In that situation, while multiple mediums can be grouped under the umbrella of the internet, a candidate would be at a disadvantage if they had other opportunities that they didn't choose to pursue based on doing everything online.

Basically: Keep all the options open. Regardless if somebody looks awful in one place, they can look better in another medium. If everything were fair, well, that would be a fun dream wouldn't it?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Woolf on August 5, 2008 at 11:48am

Great discussion thread, Tony.

I think that we will see a diversification of viewpoints and platforms as the web influences politics and the media. Whether or not that eventually manifests itself into new parties is hard to say. I don't think that will happen any time in the near future. The web can definitely help formerly fringe candidates reach new prominence, though. We already have numerous political parties that get no national attention, whether it is due to funding or lack of widespread support.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by I'llturnnative on August 5, 2008 at 1:19pm

One thing that we cannot deny about the internet in the political sphere (and this is I think where you might have been heading) is that the internet is creating a new medium of massed communication that is different because of it's dual nature. People can make postings and ask questions as well as informing themselves more than simply being fed the information as they are in print or television media. This can allow people (who choose to) educate themselves about the issues and develop their own opinions. Also, they can through discussion and analysis, come up with solutions to our societies' problems that politicians may have never thought about. For that the internet is a wonderful forum of discussion, indeed.

As for the development of new parties, the internet is still simply a virtual space and therefore it's affect on a political process that is pushing on 225 years old is minimal- the system would have to change (see my posting above).

Great discussion topic! :)

▶ Reply to This