There is one other point to be made about Cuban’s flawed thinking. He alleges:
Not a single candidate provides details on how exactly they are going to accomplish anything.
This is just wrong. For both Democratic candidates, on each of the campaign websites and you can find relatively detailed policy proposals–certainly enough to make an informed choice about where that candidate stands on key issues.
Obama’s energy plan, for instance runs about 11 pages–while Hillary’s is 14.
It is true that McCain doesn’t really offer much in the way of detail. For the Democratic candidates, Cuban’s assertion is just false.
Comment by ratoe — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 10:57 am
[...] Taylor has one of the best, most thoughtful political sites on the Internet. Be sure to also read THIS POST. [...]
I certainly appreciate the remarks about competition!
But I disagree that under current rules we must “always [for the foreseeable future] find ourselves with a two party dominant system with two major party candidates.”
The number of parties is much too low. That is not a normative point, but an empirical one. No other large democracy (Canada, India, UK, etc.) with plurality rule has just two parties represented. You have to go to very small countries (Jamaica perhaps the largest) to find a party system with only two meaningful parties.
No other presidential system has only two parties or two main candidates in its presidential races.
The electoral college certainly makes things hard for third parties, but not insurmountable (as competing agents who shape the race, whether or not they are perceived as likely winners). In fact, any third candidate with regional support actually gets aided by the electoral college’s unit rule, not suppressed by it (see Wallace, 1968).
At various times in the past, the US has had other parties in congress and playing a role in presidential elections, despite rules that have not changed much.
So one can’t go to the plurality rule for congress and the block plurality in an electoral college and come out with “two” as the expected number. It confounds electoral systems analysis that the number of parties in the USA is so low.
Comment by MSS — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:55 pm
Ratoe: Detailed policy proposals on websites are nice. But that does not solve ‘the Cuban problem’ (as I interpret it). How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
Comment by MSS — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:58 pm
How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
MSS: I haven’t looked at every single plan proposed by all of the candidates. But, for sake of argument, look at Obama’s energy plan. He argues for a cap and trade CO2 emissions programe. Caps will be auctioned, some revenue from the auctioning will be put into expanding existing renewable and efficiency programmes like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and DoE or USDA’s.
Implementation of this isn’t rocket science.
With regard to how a president would deal with COurts, COngress, etc…the candidates themselves don’t have to address that. We already have a document that does: The Constitution.
Comment by ratoe — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 2:04 pm
There is one other point to be made about Cuban’s flawed thinking. He alleges:
This is just wrong. For both Democratic candidates, on each of the campaign websites and you can find relatively detailed policy proposals–certainly enough to make an informed choice about where that candidate stands on key issues.
Obama’s energy plan, for instance runs about 11 pages–while Hillary’s is 14.
It is true that McCain doesn’t really offer much in the way of detail. For the Democratic candidates, Cuban’s assertion is just false.
Comment by ratoe — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 10:57 am
[...] Taylor has one of the best, most thoughtful political sites on the Internet. Be sure to also read THIS POST. [...]
Pingback by Around The Campaign 2024 Sphere — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:03 pm
I certainly appreciate the remarks about competition!
But I disagree that under current rules we must “always [for the foreseeable future] find ourselves with a two party dominant system with two major party candidates.”
The number of parties is much too low. That is not a normative point, but an empirical one. No other large democracy (Canada, India, UK, etc.) with plurality rule has just two parties represented. You have to go to very small countries (Jamaica perhaps the largest) to find a party system with only two meaningful parties.
No other presidential system has only two parties or two main candidates in its presidential races.
The electoral college certainly makes things hard for third parties, but not insurmountable (as competing agents who shape the race, whether or not they are perceived as likely winners). In fact, any third candidate with regional support actually gets aided by the electoral college’s unit rule, not suppressed by it (see Wallace, 1968).
At various times in the past, the US has had other parties in congress and playing a role in presidential elections, despite rules that have not changed much.
So one can’t go to the plurality rule for congress and the block plurality in an electoral college and come out with “two” as the expected number. It confounds electoral systems analysis that the number of parties in the USA is so low.
Comment by MSS — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:55 pm
Ratoe: Detailed policy proposals on websites are nice. But that does not solve ‘the Cuban problem’ (as I interpret it). How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
Comment by MSS — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:58 pm
How are these potential presidents going to implement these plans? (Congress, courts, interest groups, and all that…)
MSS: I haven’t looked at every single plan proposed by all of the candidates. But, for sake of argument, look at Obama’s energy plan. He argues for a cap and trade CO2 emissions programe. Caps will be auctioned, some revenue from the auctioning will be put into expanding existing renewable and efficiency programmes like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and DoE or USDA’s.
Implementation of this isn’t rocket science.
With regard to how a president would deal with COurts, COngress, etc…the candidates themselves don’t have to address that. We already have a document that does: The Constitution.
Comment by ratoe — Sunday, February 10, 2024 @ 2:04 pm