I'm creating a self motivated project based on political compass. The results will be compiled on a crowd chart.

Just for reference this is where I stand on political, cultural, and social events. I consider myself a super Moderate and I'm wondering if Moderate America is a dying breed. I have a little trouble understanding where our nation's leaders stand, but I attribute my dot on the chart to the fact that I just don't care what people do with their family, businesses, or politics.
Take the test on:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Take time to actually research the questions being asked as well, as they may be confusing, but actually know what you are agreeing with and disagreeing with.

Everything aside I would like to start a new conversation on how it seems to be that American Moderates have 0 say in any political environment because of our indecisive tendencies. It is a bit of a loaded statement in saying we're too indecisive, but for myself I just think we're the ones who don't like internal conflict, we're experienced thinkers outweighing pros and cons, and we just don't care about what happens with anybody. I feel that we also take stance with how nothing is right, nothing is wrong, but it would all be ok if everyone stopped caring as much as they do. It's a you do you kind of mindset. But as we lay ever more idle and sit in between our two very hateful parties we're losing confidence and completely disregard any political conflict because it's not needed. Maybe some congress people don't understand what's being said on the floor, or maybe they just work out of spite of the opposing.

 

There's always two sides to a story but most people disregard the fact that the police officer is now the third party involved when filing a police report. You may argue that no, it's just the judiciary system taking place, but where people fail to pick up the pieces, there's a third entity that hopefully comes to a consensus. We need a third entity in all of government. You have 3 systems of government, but the problem is there's only two parties to manage. The moderate government almost doesn't exist, so there's where we need any support we can get to fix America.

 

I can tell you right now that every president that will be voted into office whether man or woman, every single one of them will vow to "Fix America" because the previous president didn't line up with their American Dreams. I'm not saying it will be fixed, but blurring the lines between a two party system and going with three, will most likely help strengthen and maintain the greatness of America. Since bouncing from one extreme to the other is so bad, why not go for your next least worst option which basically gives every hardcore democrat or republican a saving grace or an actual chance to influence future generations by not erasing everything that has ever been, but rather innovate it as a mediation party or full on hardcore "Don't anger yourself, We'll fix it for you so both sides can agree" politics. You wouldn't argue with your therapist, you wouldn't fight the police, and you sure as hell wouldn't attack our military.

 

Wherever we are now we sure are dying out.

That quiz is garbage. I took it against my better judgement. All of the questions are loaded and presuppose an adherence to conservative notions of morality. It sucks. 

Edited February 13, 20205 yr by bumsquare

I think it can be boiled down to partisan primaries, gerrymandering and campaign finance.

 

Between the advent of computers being able to cut voting districts down to the block and citizens united in 2010, partisanship has sharply accelerated.

Then, in primaries candidates are incentivized to move farther and farther to the edge of the ideological spectrum in order to attract voters from their “base.”

Edited February 14, 20205 yr by Enginerd
Grammar

Why do we need political parties at all? How many people have been conditioned to automatically reject Republicans as hating sick people and/or Democrats as taking all your money and giving it to welfare queens?

 

Let's start with local elections like city council members; take the party affiliation off of the ballot and have a general election with as many candidates as want to run, and then a run off if no candidate cracks 50%.

 

The parties exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating themselves.

11 minutes ago, originaljbw said:

The parties exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating themselves.

 

Agree. The party system seems in many ways like a racket. But all hope isn't lost imho. 

 

As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.

^Then why hasn't a strong Independent candidate shown up (at least since Ross Perot)? It has to be a money thing right? Before this current election season, wasn't there talk about a year ago that Bloomberg might run as an Independent?

Political parties are like labor unions for politicians. Sign up with the one whose platform is closest to your own and you automatically have a base number of votes from recognition of the letter next to your name on the ballot. You get access to resources, including money for the campaign but also mailing lists and events to speak at, etc. It would be really hard to escape having political parties.

 

Now, the reason we only have two viable parties is baked into the way our representation and voting work. Winner-take-all versus proportional representation and first-past-the-post versus other methods (e.g. STAR, ranked-choice, condorcet, approval voting). Game theory dictates that two parties is the optimal way to "play" in the system we have. In my opinion, pushing for more places to adopt alternative voting systems is the most realistic and productive way to fight the disaster of the two-party status quo. Maine has moved pretty far in that direction. We just saw Nevada use ranked-choice for early voting in their primary. It's catching on a little bit. The next step would be to move toward proportional representation in state legislatures, if different voting methods don't sufficiently "fix" things.

On 2/19/2020 at 9:21 PM, originaljbw said:

^Then why hasn't a strong Independent candidate shown up (at least since Ross Perot)? It has to be a money thing right? Before this current election season, wasn't there talk about a year ago that Bloomberg might run as an Independent?

 

Because the 38% of independents agree on very little. They're not a solid block looking for someone to represent their opinion. Most of them lean left or right, and consistently vote for Ds and Rs--even if they don't want to call themselves one. 

Yikes.  No offense, but that's a really bad quiz.  I mean... what even is this question?  "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."  Sure... I agree that would be an advantage of a one party system, but I'm not saying I want it.

 

EDIT - I'm basically Gandhi according to this quiz so... you're welcome. 

 

Edited February 26, 20205 yr by Hootenany

only online. the russians and others are flaming negativity an the extremists to cause chaos and dissension in america. its working to an extent, i.e.., in the presidential race, but I doubt elsewhere in reality. in other words, moderates are still the majority. remember that as far as discussions much of what you read online is fake, trolling, hyping and the like. don't mistake online for reality although their paths do cross at times.