ubernoir wrote:
Stanley Fish takes apart a piece of non-sense so-called independents simply occupy the idealogical interzone between the parties, the fuzzy edge where the skimishing is and the general election battle takes place. The primary system is organising the army and deciding battle order before the fight, it not just about deciding who's in charge it's about designing, or at least building, the Spitfire to win the crucial battle. Independents are the World War 2 equivilant of Italy on one side and then the other.

I disagree with this perspective so completely that its hard to know where to start with it. Let me break this issue down into four parts:

1. There are reasons to select a leader that have nothing to do with politics. You are voting for people as well as their opinions. Some people are more qualified to handle top leadership positions than others, and those qualifications exist regardless of politics. While the author claims that voting for this reason is stupid, he doesn't do so convincingly. Incompetent people make incompetent appointments. These things matter in a way that is perhaps difficult for radical partisans, like the author, to understand. 99% of what needs to be done isn't a matter of partisan politics, its a matter of professionalism, and getting the right answers matters.

2. There are completely consistent political perspectives that do not fit neatly into one of the party frameworks. In fact the two parties in the United States are driven by radical participants in the primary process and are greatly split to the degree that neither faithfully represents what most Americans actually think. Furthermore, they themselves are not self consistent. The Republican party is an allegiance of economic libertarians who support federalism mostly as an avenue to limiting the overall power of governments, and social conservatives who support federalism mostly as an avenue to cut civil liberties protections without federal interference. Only the most small minded Republican cheerleaders fail to understand the difference between these two, mutually opposed positions, one of which seeks to minimize government power and the other which seeks to maximize it. In the Democratic party the philosophical lines are less stark, but here you have ACLU style civil liberties advocates who are aligned, mostly through mutual opposition to conservative designs on abortion clinics, with the women's movement, which is associated with efforts to censor video games, rock music, and other pop culture and advocates gun control. Its not really possible for a thinking person to agree with all of these positions simultaneously.

3. Open minded, well informed voters are the enemies of organized power and subtle, private interests. The party system uses ideology and peer pressure to turn the well informed voters into closed minded ones, ensuring that party managers (and their funding sources) main... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
Stanley Fish takes apart a piece of non-sense so-called independents simply occupy the idealogical interzone between the parties, the fuzzy edge where the skimishing is and the general election battle takes place. The primary system is organising the army and deciding battle order before the fight, it not just about deciding who's in charge it's about designing, or at least building, the Spitfire to win the crucial battle. Independents are the World War 2 equivilant of Italy on one side and then the other.

I disagree with this perspective so completely that its hard to know where to start with it. Let me break this issue down into four parts:

1. There are reasons to select a leader that have nothing to do with politics. You are voting for people as well as their opinions. Some people are more qualified to handle top leadership positions than others, and those qualifications exist regardless of politics. While the author claims that voting for this reason is stupid, he doesn't do so convincingly. Incompetent people make incompetent appointments. These things matter in a way that is perhaps difficult for radical partisans, like the author, to understand. 99% of what needs to be done isn't a matter of partisan politics, its a matter of professionalism, and getting the right answers matters.

2. There are completely consistent political perspectives that do not fit neatly into one of the party frameworks. In fact the two parties in the United States are driven by radical participants in the primary process and are greatly split to the degree that neither faithfully represents what most Americans actually think. Furthermore, they themselves are not self consistent. The Republican party is an allegiance of economic libertarians who support federalism mostly as an avenue to limiting the overall power of governments, and social conservatives who support federalism mostly as an avenue to cut civil liberties protections without federal interference. Only the most small minded Republican cheerleaders fail to understand the difference between these two, mutually opposed positions, one of which seeks to minimize government power and the other which seeks to maximize it. In the Democratic party the philosophical lines are less stark, but here you have ACLU style civil liberties advocates who are aligned, mostly through mutual opposition to conservative designs on abortion clinics, with the women's movement, which is associated with efforts to censor video games, rock music, and other pop culture and advocates gun control. Its not really possible for a thinking person to agree with all of these positions simultaneously.

3. Open minded, well informed voters are the enemies of organized power and subtle, private interests. The party system uses ideology and peer pressure to turn the well informed voters into closed minded ones, ensuring that party managers ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

ubernoir wrote:
i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.

It's worth discussing, I think, why a two party system is inevitable. Is it the simplistic reason, that the social evolution of humanity has given us an ingrained tribe mentality? That the average person cannot conceive of himself except as part of an in-group that is largely itself defined by it's distinction from some other group?

There is simplicity in aligning yourself with a group... but it's this very simplicity -- which breeds simplicity of thought -- that fosters one of a few key issues on which Decius and I agree quite thoroughly. Of course, a good coalition represents the finest result of a series of countless arguments, negotiations and compromises. This is good... without compromise, nothing gets accomplished. Nonetheless, I don't see that a party is required in order to give structure to the compromises I personally address.

Rather, I still analyze each candidate by comparing their positions on various matters to my feelings about them. To be sure, in this country, at this time, the probability that the results of that activity will be a republican are quite small. That's not because I can't bear the thought of a republican, but because we're simply not likely to agree.

The party itself has essentially no bearing on that.

k wrote:
Rather, I still analyze each candidate by comparing their positions on various matters to my feelings about them. To be sure, in this country, at this time, the probability that the results of that activity will be a republican are quite small. That's not because I can't bear the thought of a republican, but because we're simply not likely to agree.

The party itself has essentially no bearing on that.

I agree, except for that last sentence. I've been voting since I turned 18, but not once have I voted for a Democrat. As you mentioned, it's not just because there's a "(D)" beside a Democratic candidate's name, but because I know the party itself, and I've heard what a particular candidate from that party has to say and/or seen what he's done in the past, and concluded that there are simply too many issues on which I disagree with him (and often his party's platform, as well). However, neither the Libertarians nor the Republicans can count on getting my vote by default. I've voted for a few independents, too. I prefer to cast my vote for someone, not against the other side.

Still, party affiliation itself does matter. If an individual Democrat were to go against his party and agree with me on enough key issues to get my attention, his election could wind up giving his party a majority in the House or Senate, affecting the leadership, committee appointments, etc. I'm not saying that's the determining factor, just that it should be considered when "voting for a person, not a party or an ideology."

Stefanie wrote:
I've been voting since I turned 18, but not once have I voted for a Democrat. As you mentioned, it's not just because there's a "(D)" beside a Democratic candidate's name, but because I know the party itself, and I've heard what a particular candidate from that party has to say and/or seen what he's done in the past, and concluded that there are simply too many issues on which I disagree with him (and often his party's platform, as well).

I'm confused, are you merely saying that the (D) is a quick indicator that you will *likely* not support the candidate, once you've eventually done the research to see what they're all about? I'm not really being snarky, because frankly I do this same in the other direction sometimes. Being affiliated with the Republican party doesn't automatically mean I couldn't support someone, but it probably does. I'm going to look at candidates starting from the other side and work my way over, perhaps. Of course, for major elections, I already know enough about the major candidates to have a somewhat reasoned opinion.

Still, the concern I have with the party system is precisely the presumptive affiliations. Of course a lot of people are going to naturally cluster based on the most fundamental values they hold. Still, I think attaching an arbitrary title to such people, when they vary quite widely on a lot of less fundamental, but still extremely important, issues is a disincentive to bother actually thinking or examining anyone. As I said, I do it too... it's a convenience, but it's one that i don't particularly think is healthy for the execution of our government.

But, then, if voting was any harder than it is, even less people would do it.

Anyway, if a voter has thought at all about their own values, some candidates can be quickly ruled out (at least on a first pass basis) due to a small number of specific disagreements. I don't feel the need to look hard at Giuliani, for example, because I detest his foreign policy attitudes and his utter lack of development on most other issues. That was easy. On the Dem side, I find Clinton distasteful because of her Senate record, foreign policy stance, censorship positions and her entrenched-politician attitude. She's not at the front of the list for me.

Still, party affiliation itself does matter. If an individual Democrat were to go against his party and agree with me on enough key issues to get my attention, his election could wind up giving his party a majority in the House or Senate, affecting the leadership, committee appointments, etc. I'm not saying that's the determining factor, just that it should be considered when "voting for a person, not a party or an ideology."

Well, i think this argument sounds circular. You're saying that even voting for that rare candidate you find superior to all the others, despite being from a party you typically wouldn't, i... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

k wrote:
I'm confused, are you merely saying that the (D) is a quick indicator that you will *likely* not support the candidate, once you've eventually done the research to see what they're all about? I'm not really being snarky, because frankly I do this same in the other direction sometimes.

Given what we know about the two major parties, party affiliation does give us a broad idea of what we can expect from a candidate, without knowing anything else. It doesn't give us the whole picture though. For example, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller are quite a bit different from Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, and they were all Democrats at one time. Also, we're seeing a lot of infighting from candidates of both parties during the primaries, as we always do, but most of that fighting is over the details... and power struggles.

I think we agree that any voter would be doing himself a disservice to simply go down the list of Ds and Rs and make instant selections, but party affiliation usually does tell us whether a candidate is generally on the left or right, before we know the details. Some might call it "political profiling," but it's true.

k wrote:
Well, i think this argument sounds circular. You're saying that even voting for that rare candidate you find superior to all the others, despite being from a party you typically wouldn't, is dangerous due to the affiliation behind them. That's true, but my initial statement was really intending to imply disapproval of the entire notion of parties.

We probably agree about the negatives of having only two major parties. I don't like the two that dominate our landscape, but I don't think political parties, as such, are the root cause of all evil in politics. I think it would be more realistic to encourage multiple parties than to encourage an absence of parties. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with the status quo.

As for the "superior candidate" scenario, my main question for said candidate would be, "If you agree with me on this, this, and this, then why are you affiliated with that party, which is against all of this?" I'll put it this way... I would vote for Zell Miller (D) over Rudy Giuliani (R) eleven times out of ten, regardless of who controls Congress, but you won't see such an atypical contest very often. Of course, if there's an (L) in the race, I'm much more likely to vote for the third party candidate.

Stefanie wrote:
We probably agree about the negatives of having only two major parties. I don't like the two that dominate our landscape, but I don't think political parties, as such, are the root cause of all evil in politics. I think it would be more realistic to encourage multiple parties than to encourage an absence of parties.

Agreed. Increasing the number of parties is the way forward, if there is one. Some of the above discussion regarding coalition building is apropos, and interesting to consider in the context of US politics.

Ultimately, the goal of my admittedly theoretical no-party system is achieved by a one "party" per candidate system. We may never get there, but more than two is still more than two. I'll take it.

Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with the status quo.

Sadly, I agree, and I'm curious where that leaves us. Other than fucked, I mean. Honestly, I'm not sure how much longer the system will even marginally function.

k wrote:
Other than fucked, I mean.

lol

ubernoir wrote:
however i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.

How does this lead to the author's conclusion that one must participate in one of these parties and that failure to do so is somehow fraudulent or weak? If being independent is valid when viewed soley through the lens of American politics, how could broadening my perspective lead to the conclusion that it is invalid?

Generally, two blocks form because in a majoritarian system with a unitary executive there must be a winner who holds power, and anyone who is not part of that winner is by definition the opposition.

In America, I find can myself a part of the opposition regardless of who is in power. This is because both parties actually cut away at my interests. Both constantly press againsts civil liberties. Neither has the will to solve substantial domestic problems that this country faces. I don't suspect that the coming reign of the Democrats is any more likely to address real problems like social security solvency (which Democrats publicly pretend isn't real) or health care than the Republicans were. When they are able to find the will to act it is usually in response to phony news media moral panics or in the interest of corporate doners (intellectual property maximalism, new bankruptcy legislation).

I do not see how it can be weak to refuse to join political organizations that are alligned against my interests.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
however i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.

How does this lead to the author's conclusion that one must participate in one of these parties and that failure to do so is somehow fraudulent or weak? If being independent is valid when viewed soley through the lens of American politics, how could broadening my perspective lead to the conclusion that it is invalid?

Generally, two blocks form because in a majoritarian system with a unitary executive there must be a winner who holds power, and anyone who is not part of that winner is by definition the opposition.

In America, I find can myself a part of the opposition regardless of who is in power. This is because both parties actually cut away at my interests. Both constantly press againsts civil liberties. Neither has the will to solve substantial domestic problems that this country faces. I don't suspect that the coming reign of the Democrats is any more likely to address real problems like social security solvency (which Democrats publicly pretend isn't real) or health care than the Republicans were. When they are able to find the will to act it is usually in response to phony news media moral panics or in the interest of corporate doners (intellectual property maximalism, new bankruptcy legislation).

I do not see how it can be weak to refuse to join political organizations that are alligned against my interests.

it's interesting how you remember a piece and read it differently
(Stanley Fish the author of the piece is someone whose reader theory and writings I studied at university for my english degree so i find it ironic to have to go back to read his article again because my impression of it and what I took away from it is so different from yours)

i missed him arguing that you should join a party

i do not belong to a political party and never have but the set up in this country is very different. Everybody of voting age is on the electoral roll -- we do not register to vote in the US manner and i'm not sure of the exact mechanics of being an independent or registered democrat or republican. My mental model is rather different of the two blocks. In the UK we have party members and activists but membership is quite low compared to voter turnout. We have what are called swing voters, the undecideds who move between parties between elections. It is these who in general elections decide the outcome. Large areas of the country are electoral wastelands for party x or party y. It is a cliche of British politics that because Scotland had no Conservative MPs it was used a... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

ubernoir wrote:
i missed him arguing that you should join a party

The article is titled "against independent voters." The alternative is to join a party. He asserts that people who aren't part of a party don't beleive in anything (paragraph 6), are self obsessed (paragraph 7), and possibly stupid (paragraph 8). He then argues that I should join a party:

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties... If you are really interested in the way things should go in the country, come off the high pedestal and join the rest of us in the nurturing (and, yes, dirty) soil of the partisan free-for-all.

this is not something which I am clear on in my own mind as to whether a proportional or first past the post system is better

Does anyone run a proportional system? When I consider this the first issue that comes to my mind, possibly more stark in America than in the UK, is that representation in our system of government is in accordance to geography, which is actually an antiquated idea in some respects.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
i missed him arguing that you should join a party

The article is titled "against independent voters." The alternative is to join a party. He asserts that people who aren't part of a party don't beleive in anything (paragraph 6), are self obsessed (paragraph 7), and possibly stupid (paragraph 8). He then argues that I should join a party:

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties... If you are really interested in the way things should go in the country, come off the high pedestal and join the rest of us in the nurturing (and, yes, dirty) soil of the partisan free-for-all.

this is not something which I am clear on in my own mind as to whether a proportional or first past the post system is better

Does anyone run a proportional system? When I consider this the first issue that comes to my mind, possibly more stark in America than in the UK, is that representation in our system of government is in accordance to geography, which is actually an antiquated idea in some respects.

i realise i missed him arguing that you should join a party (i wasn't being facetious) hence saying i missed it and refering to Stanley Fish's reader theory about the practice of reading
the germans have one form of proportional representation and indeed most of continental europe has some form of proportional system
there are various system of proportion representation and some do have a geographical element -- the whole subject is rather tedious and technical see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

from wikipedia

Mixed election systems combine a proportional system and a single seat district system, attempting to achieve some of the positive features of both of these. Mixed systems are often helpful in countries with large populations, since they balance the mechanisms of elections focusing on local or national issues. They are used in nations with widely varying voting populations in terms of geographic, social, cultural and economic realities, including Bolivia, Germany, Lesotho, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

more from wikipedia

Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957.

and yet more

Proportional representation is the dominant electoral... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Stanley Fish wrote:
To be political is to believe something, and to believe something is to believe that those who believe something else are wrong, and after all you don’t want people who believe (and would do) the wrong things running your government. So you organize with other like-minded folks and smite the enemy (verbally) hip and thigh. You join a party.

Decius wrote:
I do not see how it can be weak to refuse to join political organizations that are aligned against my interests.

ubernoir wrote:
i missed him arguing that you should join a party

Whether one officially joins a party and carries a card in his wallet isn't the issue. The reality is that most of us who are politically aware do have opinions and take positions, and we do tend to align ourselves with "other like-minded folks," as Dr. Fish put it. Even if we merely sympathize with one party over another and don't actually join organizations, most of us do take sides, and that's both natural and logical.

Where I disagree is the notion that one must choose between the two major parties (in the USA). There are alternatives, although most voters still see the political spectrum of any democracy as being two-sided (left vs. right, capitalism vs. socialism, liberalism vs. conservatism, hawks vs. doves, etc.), regardless of the number of viable political parties.

Decius wrote:
Open minded, well informed voters are the enemies of organized power and subtle, private interests. The party system uses ideology and peer pressure to turn the well informed voters into closed minded ones, ensuring that party managers (and their funding sources) maintain control of the debate.

I completely agree, and the fewer parties, the more influence they have. The solution to that problem is to encourage voters to be open minded and well informed, so that they won't be partisan zombie slaves. I don't consider the mere existence of parties to be the problem, though.

Decius wrote:
If you refuse to sign up for a party, your interests are subject to pursuit.

If, however, you are part of a substantial independent voting block, both parties may have an interest in competing for your attention, and that means you are more likely to get what you want.

Just playing Devil's advocate on this particular point, but wouldn't that encourage more pandering on the part of the candidates and political parties, and more selfishness on the part of the voters?

I know some individuals (they've actually told me this) who don't care about ideology, but only about what candidates will do for them personally, or how much federal money those candidates will steer toward their home states or communities for special projects. They'll vote for Democrats here, Republicans there, based on which candidates are more skillf... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
Is the formation of "two blocks" caused by the nature of the system itself, or by our cultural attitudes, independent of the system? I could see the current system in the USA supporting three or four parties, as well as a few independent politicians, which would allow varying degrees of alliances, so that we wouldn't have only the winner and the opposition (well, as the smoke clears after an election, we might have only two sides anyway). Unfortunately, I can't see individual Americans breaking away from the two party mentality in sufficient numbers to support such a scenario. I think it's cultural, rather than an inherent aspect of our system.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner about this post. I'll pop this reply out on my MemeStream so people know the thread is still active.

I took the linked article more as an attack on those who refuse to select one of the other political parties, in the US. As one who can't do so, I took it nearly as a personal attack, but I also believe that most, not all, but most people who think they fit neatly into one idealogical pigeon hole or the other aren't really thinking for themselves, but are buying a line of BS that is being sold to them by the party's marketing department.

Furthermore, the nature of partisan dialog in America is for one side to teach it's sheep that no one on the other side is ever reasonable. Republicans say liberal like its a slur, and liberals talk about Republicans the way you talk about a foreign army. The other side is the enemy, and the enemy is stupid, evil, potentially dangerous... Pundits constantly reinforce this perspective by finding loony or radical statements made by people on the other side, or even by intentionally misinterpreting things said by people on the other side, and holding them up and saying "SEE!? All of those people think this way! Thats why you should never, ever listen to them!"

What follows is that within each party there is a range of acceptable disagreements about particular issues. Its OK to be conservative if you care about civil liberties as long as you are economically conservative and you are unwilling to sacrifice your economic position in order to defend a civil liberty that you care about. Its OK to be liberal if you are anti-abortion as long as you care more about global warming.

But anyone who expresses a point of view which is outside of the allowed conversational sphere... suggests to a conservative that there might actually be a problem with green house gasses or suggests to a liberal that withdrawing in haste from Iraq might be a bad idea... these people are instantly labelled as being a part of the other side, and carrying all of the baggage associated therewith; labeled crazy. And if they are crazy, then why should we listen to them about this specific issue they raised? The mind closes.

Political Independents are sometimes able to avoid partisan lab... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
Is the formation of "two blocks" caused by the nature of the system itself, or by our cultural attitudes, independent of the system? I could see the current system in the USA supporting three or four parties, as well as a few independent politicians, which would allow varying degrees of alliances, so that we wouldn't have only the winner and the opposition (well, as the smoke clears after an election, we might have only two sides anyway). Unfortunately, I can't see individual Americans breaking away from the two party mentality in sufficient numbers to support such a scenario. I think it's cultural, rather than an inherent aspect of our system.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner about this post. I'll pop this reply out on my MemeStream so people know the thread is still active.

I took the linked article more as an attack on those who refuse to select one of the other political parties, in the US. As one who can't do so, I took it nearly as a personal attack, but I also believe that most, not all, but most people who think they fit neatly into one idealogical pigeon hole or the other aren't really thinking for themselves, but are buying a line of BS that is being sold to them by the party's marketing department.

Furthermore, the nature of partisan dialog in America is for one side to teach it's sheep that no one on the other side is ever reasonable. Republicans say liberal like its a slur, and liberals talk about Republicans the way you talk about a foreign army. The other side is the enemy, and the enemy is stupid, evil, potentially dangerous... Pundits constantly reinforce this perspective by finding loony or radical statements made by people on the other side, or even by intentionally misinterpreting things said by people on the other side, and holding them up and saying "SEE!? All of those people think this way! Thats why you should never, ever listen to them!"

What follows is that within each party there is a range of acceptable disagreements about particular issues. Its OK to be conservative if you care about civil liberties as long as you are economically conservative and you are unwilling to sacrifice your economic position in order to defend a civil liberty that you care about. Its OK to be liberal if you are anti-abortion as long as you care more about global warming.

But anyone who expresses a point of view which is outside of the allowed conversational sphere... suggests to a conservative that there might actually be a problem with green house gasses or suggests to a liberal that withdrawing in haste from Iraq might be a bad idea... these people are instantly labelled as being a part of the other side, and carrying all of the baggage associated therewith; labeled crazy. And if they are crazy, then why should we listen to them about this specific issue they raised? The mind closes.

Political Independents are some... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
With respect to the text I actually quoted above, I think its actually the structure of our system that prevents the development of independent parties. In particular, the electoral college eliminates the impact of minority parties in presidential elections.

Agreed. Frankly, a president ought to represent the largest number of Americans. The issues the E.C. was designed to combat are, I think, far less important than securing a president that actually represents a majority.

Decius wrote:
...the electoral college eliminates the impact of minority parties in presidential elections. Broad but shallow support accounts for nothing.

Furthermore, you almost never see third party candidates in debates. The system is really ruled by money. Unless they are backed with huge financial resources they cannot get access, because access is purchased through advertising.

...on the Senate and House, you have positions that go to minority and majority parties... its all setup with the assumption that there are only two. The few independents that manage to make it into the place don't have the systemic support networks of either party to help them actually get laws passed...

I can't disagree with any of those points, but I do think the landscape (if not voters' attitudes) has changed a bit. Up through the 1980s (before cable TV, talk radio, and the Internet), I think it was easier for the establishment to maintain the status quo. In 2008, the systemic barriers to other contenders that you mentioned aren't quite as effective as they once were, but I agree that they do still exist (the exclusive debates bother me the most). I suppose it boils down to a chicken vs. egg discussion about whether the culture is responsible for the system or vice versa. Perhaps they're constantly feeding off of each other, but I still see it as being primarily cultural.

Either way, voters in 2008 have no excuses for not being aware of all available options, assuming they're inclined to do a little homework. Collectively, we have the power to force change (I'm speaking politically, not ideologically), but I don't think that's what most voters want. Most want something familiar, and they find it in the two-party elections with which they've grown up. Even those who do consider alternatives often wind up voting for one of the two major parties, pursuant to Duverger's Law, which actually supports your argument more than mine.