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, 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. I'm really arguing against all that, precisely *because* of these assumptions. If a democrat gets elected, all the appointments will flow down through the democratic ranks. That's lazy and wasteful and I don't think it results in the most effective government or the most competent people in important positions.

If the political landscape was a smooth spectrum, we might be able to choose based on careful analysis, and we might expect that appointments could be made on the basis of the stated positions of the person making the appointment, coupled with the competency of the appointee rather than a semi-arbitrary affiliation. Instead, each candidate is a scale which reads (R) or (D) whether you're just the slightest bit weighted to one side or so far down the scale that they've pinned the meter. It's silly, inefficient and poisonous to the process.

Of course, in reality, it's tough for me to even admit that something this complex can even be reduced to two dimensions, much less two points. In truth, each candidate is a point in a space with as many dimensions as there are issues to consider. According to personal priorities, you can eliminate dimensions that aren't particularly important to you, or ones that are tightly linked to another. That's how I visualize analysis of candidates.

Certainly, I am forced to admit the possibility that despite all this, the evolution of a party system is an inevitable outcome of a representative form of government. I am not well versed enough to argue convincingly on that point.

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