US Political Parties -- One or Two?

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) If the US political parties are two distinct groups, how so?

(2) If the US political parties are really just one distinct group, then how?






Lagniappe
How does the following support the above two positions:

(Sauce)

[AndyDufresne]

I vote one and one half.


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

one group, stop being annoying and get to the point, you are using my step by step into the fire technique against me, just tell us to jump already, this is related to voluntary action.

they are all a bunch of middle age lying wealthy white people who have gained more and more influence over the years by making deals that looked favorable to people while screwing them over. Now whats the next thread?

[DoomYoshi]

The DW-Nominates scores shows that generally how an individual senator will vote is based on party. That clearly supports the two-party hypothesis.

A way to statistically test this would be: give things a value on how "conservative" or "liberal" they are. Determine if a senator votes for one based on party, controlling for party vote.

Basically, you are testing whether a Republican is more likely to vote for a liberal measure. You need to control for the party vote, because if the entire party votes for a a liberal measure it doesn't make it as extreme, right? Then you get a mean and distribution of senators votes, and you get another mean and distribution which is a composite for the whole party. These 2 means can be tested against each other, but you can also look at the bounds of the distribution. If the most conservative Democrat supports liberal measures 51% of the time, but the most liberal Republican supports liberal measures 49% of the time, then there is no overlap at all, and you can infer that likely the two populations are different.

[Frigidus]

In a lot of ways they are the same party. Both degrade the civil liberties of the populace, both support the crony capitalist system we've all come to know and love, both use the military aggressively, neither have made a serious attempt at creating a public health care system, etc. The biggest differences that they have are the ones they like to impotently yell about while ultimate control of the issue lies in the hands of others (gay marriage, abortion, climate change, etc.). That's just how I look at it.

[Crazyirishman]

1 party. Iff you look back historically to like the 1800's the democrats were in the south and favored slavery and all that jazz while the republicans were more for civil liberties but were in the north. Unless there was like a mass migration that I missed, It appears that they switched sides for the most part.

[AndyDufresne]

1 party. Iff you look back historically to like the 1800's the democrats were in the south and favored slavery and all that jazz while the republicans were more for civil liberties but were in the north. Unless there was like a mass migration that I missed, It appears that they switched sides for the most part.

The switch is usually seen around 1912 I think, back when Teddy Roosevelt was running and trying to start up a progressive Bull Moose Party I believe.


--Andy

[saxitoxin]

Yes, the U.S. is functionally a one-party state (whether or not the Republicans and Democrats keep separate office space is irrelevant). I just did a random sample of the first 13 laws voted on in the second session of the 110th Senate. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... _110_2.htm) If this trend is consistent, then:

-39% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 90%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-70% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 80%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-92% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 70%+ of the chamber voting as a block

---------------------

HR1424 - 74-25-1
A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

HR7081 - 86-13-1
A bill to approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and for other purposes.

HR6049 - 93-2-5
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

S3001 - 88-8-4
An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

HR5501 - 80-16-4
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes.

HR6304 - 69-28-3
A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

HR6124 - 77-15-8
A bill to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

HR3121 - 92-6-2
A bill to restore the financial solvency of the national flood insurance program and to provide for such program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes.

HR493 - 95-0-5
A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.

S1315 - 96-1-3
An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance veterans' insurance and housing benefits, to improve benefits and services for transitioning servicemembers, and for other purposes.

HR1195 - 88-2-10
A bill to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

S2739 - 91-4-5
A bill to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

S3321 - 84-12-4
A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.

[patches70]

Yes, the U.S. is functionally a one-party state (whether or not the Republicans and Democrats keep separate office space is irrelevant). I just did a random sample of the first 13 laws voted on in the second session of the 110th Senate. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... _110_2.htm) If this trend is consistent, then:

-39% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 90%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-70% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 80%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-92% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 70%+ of the chamber voting as a block

Now, Saxi, I'm of the opinion that both parties are beholden to the same Money Powers that really run things. However, the above example is not proof of that. Laws being passed is just the nature of compromise and politics.

Any law that is to be enacted, through the meetings, back room wheeling and dealing, compromises, national needs and such, then most bills will be passed as such.
Any bills that would show a sharp divide between the two parties, and thus showing that they are indeed different, would never get passed anyway. To really see how much the same both parties are, look at the bills that never see the light of day as well.

For example, the new Feinstein gun grabbing bill will never pass and gun control laws are one of those things cited as a difference between the parties.
Just sayin' is all.


But, looking at the exact same Bill that won't pass, the gun grabbing Feinstein bill, you'll get some evidence. That is, not only will the Republicans in mass reject the bill, but also a good portion of the Democrats will reject it.
Thus, showing that the supposed difference between the two parties on gun control is not really all that different after all.

What we got is some crazy rogue politicians who are so ideologically set in their ways that are the true difference. The parties themselves always tow the line but these mavericks have actual differences but they are so far and few between it doesn't change anything.

So effectively the US is certainly a one party system that has the occasional Feinstein's on certain issues and the true mavericks like the Ron Paul's, but for better or worse these people are never able to accomplish their goals because they are trying to swim up a river with heavy weights attached. All they do is sink and the real powers just use them to further divide the population with false paradigms. The real powers being the wizards behind the curtain who are of the same mind.

[PLAYER57832]

(1) If the US political parties are two distinct groups, how so?

(2) If the US political parties are really just one distinct group, then how?






Lagniappe
How does the following support the above two positions:

(Sauce)

Neither of the above is really true or relevant.

At the point of elections, we have 2 effective choices for presidency, sometimes more for lower level offices.

However, the structure that gets the elected folks up to that point is pretty intermixed. Sometimes a corporation will favor one particular individual or such, because of a particular policy, and of course there are some activists in corporations who are very forceful about their position (typically religious or anti tax stuff) but overall, most corporations wind up supporting folks from both parties.

Only at the lowest, local levels do you see any real differentiation. However, even then, it tends to be about specific issues, not an overall philosophy. One person will be in favor of, say, using x company for public trash collection and another may be wanting to put up a new park ... etc. It can be hard to tell, from the outset, who is Republican and who is Democratic.

[BigBallinStalin]

The DW-Nominates scores shows that generally how an individual senator will vote is based on party. That clearly supports the two-party hypothesis.

A way to statistically test this would be: give things a value on how "conservative" or "liberal" they are. Determine if a senator votes for one based on party, controlling for party vote.

Basically, you are testing whether a Republican is more likely to vote for a liberal measure. You need to control for the party vote, because if the entire party votes for a a liberal measure it doesn't make it as extreme, right? Then you get a mean and distribution of senators votes, and you get another mean and distribution which is a composite for the whole party. These 2 means can be tested against each other, but you can also look at the bounds of the distribution. If the most conservative Democrat supports liberal measures 51% of the time, but the most liberal Republican supports liberal measures 49% of the time, then there is no overlap at all, and you can infer that likely the two populations are different.

I've heard of the DW-Nominates score, but what does it really measure?

Is the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" superficial or what?

[DoomYoshi]

The DW-Nominates Score is what the graph is. You didn't just hear about it, you posted it lol.

Ok, let's assume that a choice is quantifiable as existing on an actual political plane. There really is a left and right wing. Every voter (senators) in this case has a mean chance to support either a liberal or conservative viewpoint. Senator A has a 75% chance to vote conservative let's say. Now the mathematics happen like this: If every single bill was exactly half-conservative/half-liberal, (the x=y line), the senator would still only support each bill 75% of the time. The closer that bill gets to 75% (somewhere in the bottom right) the more likely he is to support it.

What the nominates method does is figure out where everybody's mean chance and plot it on a grid, where you can actually see left and right wing politics.

So, if A has 75 and B has 74, they will be together.

Now, the y-axis is where they mess around a bit. Where the x-axis is easy to understand, the y is for issues that aren't "liberal" or "consevative"... slavery, or traffic laws for example. The point they made originally with the chart is that there is a statistically significant difference along the x-axis, but not on the y-axis.The DW is just better math/stats.

EDIT: so the other assumption is that if senator A has a 75% chance, he also has a 100% chance for passing laws that are 75% conservative.

[DoomYoshi]

Yes, the U.S. is functionally a one-party state (whether or not the Republicans and Democrats keep separate office space is irrelevant). I just did a random sample of the first 13 laws voted on in the second session of the 110th Senate. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... _110_2.htm) If this trend is consistent, then:

-39% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 90%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-70% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 80%+ of the chamber voting as a block
-92% of proposed laws end up being enacted with 70%+ of the chamber voting as a block

---------------------

HR1424 - 74-25-1
A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

HR7081 - 86-13-1
A bill to approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and for other purposes.

HR6049 - 93-2-5
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

S3001 - 88-8-4
An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

HR5501 - 80-16-4
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes.

HR6304 - 69-28-3
A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

HR6124 - 77-15-8
A bill to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

HR3121 - 92-6-2
A bill to restore the financial solvency of the national flood insurance program and to provide for such program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes.

HR493 - 95-0-5
A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.

S1315 - 96-1-3
An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance veterans' insurance and housing benefits, to improve benefits and services for transitioning servicemembers, and for other purposes.

HR1195 - 88-2-10
A bill to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

S2739 - 91-4-5
A bill to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

S3321 - 84-12-4
A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.

So these are laws that are passed and that failed as well?

[tzor]

1 party. Iff you look back historically to like the 1800's the democrats were in the south and favored slavery and all that jazz while the republicans were more for civil liberties but were in the north. Unless there was like a mass migration that I missed, It appears that they switched sides for the most part.

The switch is usually seen around 1912 I think, back when Teddy Roosevelt was running and trying to start up a progressive Bull Moose Party I believe.

You are confusing slavery with progressivism. I read an interesting article that suggested that the flip of African Americans from Republican to Democrat actually was a response to Barry Goldwater who opposed the civil rights bill of 1964 and often pushed "states rights." This appealed to White Southern Democrats. This continued in the election of NIxon in an attempt to get the White Southern Democrats and alienating the Black base in the process.

[oVo]

The two party system is simply the opposite sides of the same coin. Elections are pretty much a coin toss that results in business as usual for this corporate democracy. Public opinion is coerced by maintaining polar opposites which lends itself to a successful divide and conquer quid pro quo.

Republicans still manage to idolize Reagan even though his trickle down economics didn't and he vetoed US sanctions of South Africa intended to pressure the minority government there to end apartheid.

[Gillipig]

(1) If the US political parties are two distinct groups, how so?

(2) If the US political parties are really just one distinct group, then how?






Lagniappe
How does the following support the above two positions:

(Sauce)

1) You can't vote for both parties. That separates them from each other.

2) No one in politics gives a f*ck about the people. That unites them.

(1) and (2)