Re:512 Paths to the White House
by bobwaycott on Saturday November 03, 2012 @03:34PM
(#4737623)
You seem to let your bias leak through here. Given the sum total of both his rhetoric and his governance to date, Obama does not stand anywhere near far-left, not even in the US. You may want to recalibrate your scales.
Supporting gay marriage and abortion rights are increasingly moderate positions, held by people who swing further left and right on a host of other issues. For example, Obama has been overwhelmingly willing to compromise with business to move other policy agendas (e.g., health care) forward—the far-left is quite unlikely to do this. There are plenty of other counterexamples to an unfounded claim that he is far-left. Drone strikes come to mind, to name but one other.
If he holds views and suggestions for policies that are actually far-left, please enlighten us.
I'd argue that passionate people are more likely to vote. Arguably, they deserve to be heard, since they care so much about politics. On the other hand, they may be brainwashed idiots.
It also creates a lot more divisive candidates. Obama is a far-left (by US standards, in Australia or Europe he'd be center-right). Bush was far-right. You need to be extreme to win the primaries, and need to stay extreme to get your base excited enough to vote. Polarising candidates encourages debate (which is good), but also encourages group-think.
> As for (2) the problem is that this reinforces a two-party system. A vote for a minor party is often a vote for the other side (eg voting for the Greens is a vote that would probably otherwise go to a Democrat so is effectively a vote for the Republicans).
Once again, this makes it hard for a compromise candidate to win, and makes it hard for extreme groups to win anything more than a small percent. It's the worst of both worlds - less debate, and more extreme Presidents.