Special Comment By Teh Keith, and Rachel Re:

[filkertom]

First, Keith came back for this evening (if you recall, his father died ten days ago) to speak of the imminent self-destruction of the GOP. This one comes with a couple of illuminating footnotes.

Then, Rachel points out the real truth in terms almost anyone can understand. No guarantees on Bachmann, Palin or Gingrich.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

No guarantees on Bachmann, Palin or Gingrich.

Or Rush, Boehner, or Crybaby Beck. But then again, the folks on wingnut welfare basically don't want to understand the world the way rational people do.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

That littany of "isolated incidents" needs to become the talking point for every Democratic candidate. Fear is a powerful weapon, and you gotta show it for what it is. Most of the voting public doesn't tune in to Keith. If they resort to the fear card, you gotta lump them in with their buddies.

It will be very interesting to see of Keith's prediction comes out because it's a huge long shot under normal circumstances. One of the SUREST things in US politics is that in a mid-term election the party opposing the President gains seats in Congress. About the only time in modern memory it did *not* happen was while the GOP was trying to impeach Clinton. So of course after getting the word from the voters on how they felt about the matter, the pressed on with it.

But they are still around. They'll always be the party of people who hate the Democrats.

[zellion.livejournal.com]

This was wonderful, thank you for posting this.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

Like the man said, you cannot get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it.

Actually, it also happened

[capplor.livejournal.com]

that the Democrats did not gain seats in 2002. Might have been the war fever, no-opposition-because-the-country-needs-us-and-the-corn-king-is-the-country mentality

[alverant.livejournal.com]

We've been a 2 major party system for as long as just about everyone can remember. Even if the GOP self-destructs, it will reform. People won't change their views just because their party is gone. Best we can hope for is that they'll loose much of their power during their reformation.

I'm curious; what if the USA stopped being a 2 party system, that we had a bunch of small parties instead of 2 big ones. Yes I know there are a host of 3rd party candidates out there but they don't have much power. I'm talking about what would happen if power was divided more or less equally among 5 or so parties.

[caraig.livejournal.com]

I've had to back away (slowly...) from DailyKos lately. The level of vitriol there is... pretty heavy. The most vocal will leap on and flame anyone who even remotely disagrees with some ephemeral non-existent party line.

That being said, Keith has it right on, as always. It's a relief to hear him and Rachael Maddow and hear things that sound like common sense coming from human beings.

[kilbia.livejournal.com]

I think that needing a majority of the votes, as opposed to a plurality, tends to favor a two-party system. I've seen the proposals for an instant run-off ballot, and that looks cool, but I don't know if it would work.

[caraig.livejournal.com]

My knee-jerk reaction is that it would be Better(tm) somehow. Thnking on it further, I would say that we'd get a much broader set of views inhabiting Congress... which may or may not be a great thing. The two party system very much essentially disenfranchises swaths of the country, but it is also something of a moderating influence. The chances increase for very radical left- or right-wingers to obtain some sort of federal-level officer. I'm not entirely certain that's a good thing, from either side. While I consider myself a Progressive, and am duly concerned about the authoritarianism, dominionism, and rampant privatization espoused by the Right, there are aspects of the Left that I'm not 100% comfortable with, either, or think we're ready for, or just plain don't like/want.

At the same time, though, the radicals would be pretty well marginalized, and they would have to form explicit coalitions, as opposed to the de facto coalitions they have in the Republican and Democratic parties. And the various parties would HAVE to compromise, there would be no such thing as politics of extremism or exclusionism... or, dare I hope, eliminationism. So... I guess I trend towards believing it would be in fact Better.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

You know, for all that they've said and done, and for what they've become.. I can only hope the Republican Party implodes soon and becomes a spent force, a home for lunatics and nutters with no credibility or power...

Unfortunately, I suspect there's enough crazy hateful people out there, that even if they become full-bore, openly admitted loonies, that's not going to happen.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The thing is, right now we have one of the big two parties which is completely radicalized. A multiparty system would whittle away at their support and marginalize them, rather than leave them in a position to take over the whole system in their current radical form.

[old-fortissimo.livejournal.com]

From Keith's lips to the universe's ears, but it sound like whistling in the graveyard to me. God, I would love to be proved wrong on this one.

[laurel-potter.livejournal.com]

It saw both of them last night. It's great to have Keith back, and he and Rachel were so "on" last night.

[laurel-potter.livejournal.com]

I meant "I saw" of course. Wow.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem with a true multi-party system, is that it becomes very unlikely for any party to get a majority. In many countries, this results in the formation of "coalition governments", where two or three of the larger parties make deals among themselves to form an alliance that would, in essence, a majority.

Unfortunately, these coalitions sometimes fall apart between elections, which leaves no clear majority in power, and causes all sorts of problems, when it happens.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's an idea that will work well on paper. But paper is a flimsy thing that turns transparent when you rub grease on it.

[rtred.livejournal.com]

I love Rachel Maddow and want to marry her. What? She's a lesbian? Dammit! LOL

Seriously, regardless of the content, it is so much more enjoyable to watch RM or KO than Beck or any of the other Fox news ilk. For one thing, their speaking is so much more inclusive and not divisive.

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. With all due respect for teh Keith, with whom I agree wholeheartedly about our imperialistic wars, but didn't he call for the killing of any bill with mandated purchase back in December?

Oh, yeah, here it is:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2009/12/16/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-opposing-the-current-senate-health-care-bill/

I guess sometimes folks get caught up in the moment.

To tell the truth, I love Rachel, even though I disagree with her. For the most part, though, with his inconsistencies and rapid ravings, I consider Keith the Glenn Beck of the Left.

Tom T.

Two Party Voting

[baronet.livejournal.com]

Imagine that there are four almost equally popular parties with candidates for President. As the election approaches, the one who is in last place is strongly motivated to drop out of the race and encourage his or her followers to vote for another candidate who might win. That way, the candidate at least gets to pick his or her favorite amongst the other candidates. Then the candidate in third place has a significant motivation to drop out and combine her/his support with the remaining candidate who best matches her/his views. Then we have a 2 person race again.

If we are going to have more than 2 parties, then we need to change the way we vote. People need to be able to communicate "I'd really like A, but if I can't have A then I'd like B, and I'll take C over D if you make me choose."

Instant Runoff Voting is one way to do that. Various forms of preferential voting can do that. Acceptance voting can do something similar. But "One Person, One vote" doesn't.

If you want to see more than 2 parties, work for voting reform.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

anyone got a transcript of her bit?

Re: Two Party Voting

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I want more than 2 parties because of the problems listed. I was just curious about what other people thought about it.

When I was preparing a campaign setting for an RPG, I toyed with something like the idea you suggested. There were two presidential campaigns. The first being the first Tuesday in May where anyone can run. You take the 5 leading candidates by popular vote and they run against each other for the next 6 months. The winner (again by popular vote) becomes President, the second place is VP, 3rd place is Speaker of the House, 4th is the National Senator (who's duties is that of the VP's role in the Senate). Last place is held in reserve in case something happens to one of the other 4. That way we avoid requiring a majority vote while still having most of the people having some say in the executive branch.

Generally I think government would work better if everyone was more willing to compromise and not be so vindictive and ruthless.

Re: Two Party Voting

[ldyerzsie.livejournal.com]

In the begining of our country, the Vice President was the runner-up in the presidential election. That led to some significant problems. If you think the back room politics and backstabbing agenda's of modern times are bad, look up Thomas Jefferson's presidency and the issues he had with a VP from an opposing party.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

B-b-b-but MLK was a REPUBLICAN!

It's like I keep saying, government is not George Soros hiding under your bed.

Government is people... Coming together... And getting organized... To accomplish... What they can't as individuals.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I was glad to see Keith back last night. He made some very good points about the recurring vitriol of a good number of the tea-party protesters.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

I got a close-up, ugly look at a Tea Party protest last April 15 -- my bus stop from work is in a pricey bedroom enclave, and that pack of screaming hate-faced whites waving their copycat signs embossed with AM radio call letters looked like a Klan rally via Sharper Image. (Trust me -- in the San Francisco area? You notice damn fast when a group is whites-only; it sticks out, looks unnatural.) And it was SO illuminating to watch a crowd of well-off whites howling against all taxes even as they marched on public streets and were protected by police -- after I'd come away from helping a grateful elderly black man sort out his tax forms.

I've been calling the Tea Party the Town of Rock Ridge for a year. It's all about the Sheriff being Near. (Yeah, and a few token bawls about taxes from people who got a fucking tax cut from the President they compare to Hitler.)

And in answer to the teapologists out there blurting and blubbering "There'ssss no video! And if there is a video, it's a left-wing plant to make us look baaad!" let me quote from one of my favorite philosophers: If I let go of a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity, I do not need to see it fall to know that it has, indeed, fallen. Human beings have characteristics, just as inanimate objects do. All an opponent needs to do to make these people look bad is let them continue to talk and act.

But it will be interesting to see how Animal Farm's Squealer (oops, Fox News' Beck) turns this around.


So no, Beckwash, I don't need video proof of these "isolated incidents" -- this Liberty Tree is loaded with rotten fruit, and by their fruits I know them.

[nomaddervish.livejournal.com]

I think that perhaps the greatest irony of the US Constitution is that it was written by men who (for the most part) didn't want to see political parties existing at all, but contains a system of presidential election which essentially requires that there must be either one or two political parties.

How so?

If no candidate receives an absolute majority of the vote in the electoral college, then the House selects a winner from among the top three candidates, with no requirement to pay any attention at all to the popular vote.

If there are N viable candidates, then each will receive approximately 1/N of the total popular vote. (If they're going to get substantially fewer votes than that, then they have no chance of winning and are not a "viable candidate".) Outside of extraordinary circumstances, N will be equal to the number of major political power blocs (i.e., parties).

Therefore, if there are more than two viable parties, the selection of president will invariably fall on the House with the popular vote serving only to determine which three candidates the House will select from. Given the uproar that routinely follows when we get a president who won the electoral vote despite his opponent receiving a larger share of the popular vote, I can't imagine that this would go over at all well.

Of course, it would work a lot better if we were told that we're voting for an elector who will then go and meet with the other electors and the candidates to select the president rather than that we're voting for a candidate ourselves, but the illusion of direct(ish) democracy in the US is far too firmly rooted these days for that to go over any better than having presidents routinely selected by the House would.

There's been a lot of talk lately about instant run-off voting, which would solve a lot of this, but it strikes me as fundamentally incompatible with the electoral college system (although, really, when you think about it, the electoral college is basically just a low-tech attempt to address the same issues as instant run-off), so the US wouldn't be able to implement it without first rewriting the relevant sections of the Constitution.

And that's never going to happen for the same reason that states insist on awarding their electoral votes "winner take all" rather than in proportion to the popular vote or allowing people to vote for electors directly rather than using votes "for president" as a method of choosing an elector by proxy: The two parties which are viable at any given point benefit from the mathematical requirement that there can be no more than two viable parties. Reforming any of these things would open up the field to more competition and could only result in them losing much of their power with little chance of gaining anything in return, so they would oppose it and there's no way you're going to ram through a Constitutional amendment with both major parties standing in opposition to it.

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

On this whole "baby-killer" thing - which kills more babies - abortion clinics, or republicans denying health care to children and pregnant women who happen to be poor and/or unable to obtain insurance?

Eveyone who has voted to deny health care to others should themselves be deprived of health care, IMHO.