The 50.1% Doctrine vs. The Value of a Solid Majority

[tongodeon]

Democracy's incentives are structured to encourage triangulation toward winning the most votes. The conventional rules say that if you can identify the policies that are most popular and get behind them more effectively than your opponent you'll end up winning. Both candidates compete to win as much support as possible and the person who wins the

Comments

And Coat Tails for Congress....

[drieuxster]

Clearly it will not be enough to change the white house, without a change in the congressional allignment.

I am pleased that the Karl Rove Games are being more apparent to folks. We can only hope that as we move past the tragedy of the sixties, we can return to a way of doing politics as if it were that important to americans.

Who knows, we might even decide that returning to being merely a republic is a good enough idea....

[loic]

The 50.1% doctrine treats the whole thing as a game to be won rather than a way for the people to determine the direction and policy of the country. To me that kind of strategy is morally equivalent to vote rigging and such.

[mmcirvin]

I always thought of "50%+1" as more a legislative strategy--if the bill passes by more votes, you compromised too much, or so the thinking went

[mmcirvin]

...and then I'll remember what a catastrophe it took to get him there, and the joy will dissipate.

That's the other thing. Obama can't do miracles, and I'm already starting to worry about a 1994-style Republican tidal wave in 2010 when the economy is still in bad shape. (Mind you, this does NOT extend to hoping McCain wins so the disaster can discredit him.)

[schwa242]

That's the other thing. Obama can't do miracles, and I'm already starting to worry about a 1994-style Republican tidal wave in 2010 when the economy is still in bad shape. (Mind you, this does NOT extend to hoping McCain wins so the disaster can discredit him.)

I've been worried about this too, though it's probably because I'm cynical and assuming attention spans are short.

[ponsdorf]

I dunno, I've read this post several times and can't seem to find a point? In this particular case the country would seem to be divided pretty evenly so a popular vote landslide seems unlikely. The Electoral College is a different critter to be sure.

But I don't see some Rovian style plot anywhere.

Still, I too would like to see a decisive victory by SOMEONE, even Obama!

My reasoning might seem cynical to some, but in reality I'm just sorta bored by the last 20+ years of Presidential politics.

[ponsdorf]

Maybe just an aside?

Saw a reference today that emphasizes my thinking. In essence - A deeply divided electorate actually protects us from a runaway freight train.

The issue is certainly non-trivial and belies the Rovian plot element to a degree.

We may simply be watching a transition. From 50/50 to something else?

[tongodeon]

Saw a reference today that emphasizes my thinking. In essence - A deeply divided electorate actually protects us from a runaway freight train.

It's too bad you don't provide the actual reference so that I could see what you're talking about.

I agree that party opposition prevents anyone from getting away with too much craziness. The Republican domination of the Senate, House, and Presidency starting in 2000 certainly led to a runaway Republican freight train and a lot of crazy things. Enough crazy things that the electorate gave power back to the Democrats in 2004. If they give the Democrats the presidency and even more Congressional power in 2008 it's likely that the Democrats will get their own runaway freight train and might do some crazy things of their own.

The only place where I disagree (this might have just been a typo) is where you mention "a deeply divided electorate". An evenly divided electorate with a few centrists to break ties certainly does protect us from too carried away with anything. Respectful

[ponsdorf]

Two comments in one