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 labeling if their independence is well established in advance. This is powerful, as it enables one to question assumptions that no partisan would question, and yet still be heard. That power is a threat that the spokesmen of the parties need to crush as well. Thats why Stanley Fish wants to discredit political independents... To ensure that none of the sheep who follow him will objectively consider any critical thinking about the official positions of his party.

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. Broad but shallow support accounts for nothing. One must have deep support in a geographic area to even win a state and get on the board, and for the Presidency, its really an all or nothing proposition. 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. Furthermore, because our Democracy is so focused on the Presidency, the failure of small parties to get into the Presidential race strongly undermines their ability to reach local voters. I'll bet most Americans have never even heard of the Libertarian party. Furthermore, 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...

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog