Sentences to ponder — *Who Wants to Run?*

Incumbent polarization is also consistently below that of new candidate polarization.

That is from the forthcoming interesting book by Andrew B. Hall.  He also argues that while voters can elect moderates, they cannot force more extreme candidates to govern as moderates.  Furthermore, devaluing office leads to more extreme candidates being interested in running for office.

The book’s argument is that who runs for office helps determine the level of ideological polarization in the legislature.

Comments

Perhaps the paper relates to this one by Peltzman:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3235867

Peltzman is good, but her methodology is all wrong. She should try to employ more rigorious models.

They can run, but they can't hide.

Yeet Thiago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdhdcTG_ZU

they actually said
maintain a low profile not hide
why are you throwing strauss/straws in my eye?

It is not that simple.

f.u.bonesaw bensalmon
its self explanatry
you threw straw in my eye
now I gotta corneal abrasion

When voters are forced to pick one winner, the candidates seek to be the most extreme, ie, winner, for the biggest plurality. Note, in 1992, either three extremists, or three moderates, were the top three candidates, and Bill Clinton was the least loser. With approval voting and drawing lots the result would not have been worse. It was the fact Clinton lost to two balanced budget hawks that he pivoted to balancing the budget by taxing more, spending less, two parts of the promise that were not free lunch. And Clinton, unlike Trump, got 100% of Democrats to back his extremist new policy of balancing the budget. Remember, Perot was the extremist.

If voters instead only chose those they consider viable leaders, the candidates will all seek to gain the approval of the largest number of voters, with the ideal candidate gaining 100% approval from all voters, and the leader then being chosen by lot, as in the original democracy, to represent the interests of all the people.

Thus approval voting is the best. Vote for every candidate on the ballot you approve of. Don't vote for those you believe would be disasters. No need for complex game theory. Ie, rank choice voting doesnt help if you rank Clinton next to last above Trump; the second and third rounds eliminating the fascist, libertarian probaly elects Trump before green gets eliminated electing Clinton.

If the GOP had used aplroval voting in 2016 primaries, Trump would not be president. He would have not exceeded 50% approval in most states while several ccandidates would have had 70-80% approval.

Approval voting would be improved by taking the top two highest approval candidates and picking one with a coin flip, or all candidates with more than 51% approval blindly picking balls from a jar of white and black balls, until only one has not been black balled. (Start with the lowest approval to pick and keep picking until only one remains, so if every initial pick is a black ball, the highest approved candidate does not draw and is responsible for serving all the people.)

For the religious populatiion, picking by lot is god picking the person to serve all the faithful who must be assumed to have placed their faith in the candidate by approving of him. If you are religion X and the winner by lot is Y, then clearly the faithful X approved of the Y if X is the majority of the population. Any X follower needs to seek wisdom from his god if he did not approve of the Y chosen by the faithful followers of X AND BY GOD.

And given no single elected official governs alone, an extremist hiding as a moderate might win office, but like Trump, would find himself powerless, even with 40% hard popular support. Trump can not gain 98% approval from his fellow elected "flock" on their loudly proclaimed number one priorities.

Trump had not been able to get 98% of elected Republicans to agree with him on health care, infrastructure, balanced budget, border wall, ...

The only thing he wins on is free lunch promises.

Tax cuts and higher spending, plus punishing the very rich who got rich by living in the land of the rich Democrats: metro NYC, California, etc. plus attempting appointing an unelected religious body to protect the faith, to be more like Iran, seems to be the only wins for Trump. But as the GOP extremists discovered, candidates who seem sufficiently extreme turn out to be moderate chief justices.

Meh.

The polarization of the legislature determines the polarization of the legislature.

And with folks like Occasional-Cortex getting in there, it's very much on the upswing, much to the chagrin of the old guard. The upcoming Dem civil war is going to be very, very enjoyable.

Roger that ...

Voters changed, as Kling would point out, they are not the same people.

In AOC's case, these new voters had one demand, they ain't paying for all the stuff they never voted for. They are yellow vesters, do not be fooled. The new voter has a common condition, youth, and they are right, they never voted for this stuff.

The disruption in the legislature follows. AOC is right, her voters ain't paying for all this stuff. AOC is a disturbance because the moderates say otherwise, and it is the moderates who are radical authoritarians, because AOC's constituents never voted for any of this stuff.

This is kind of dumb, what do you think the average age of the people who voted for AOC is?

I'd be pissed off if I spent $200k for what was described as an education which left me more ignorant that when I started. Especially if the education consisted of finding a long list of people to blame for my problems.

There are a few things that are intolerable. The education debt is one. The extraordinary high cost of 'institutions' who have feather bedded quite well for themselves, leaving high maintenance costs in return for little service. The pension crisis is going to be interesting. The cost of health care is another. Also the cost of housing, which is the result of a bunch of decisions made probably before you were born but you have to pay for.

AOC is an idiot for suggesting socialism is an answer to anything, but it is compelling and a nice story for people to fall for.

Do you know what the issue I face in training and retaining people? They hit a marginal tax rate that they won't tolerate and then figure out ways to live better in another country on 1/3 the money. The not so smart ones get involved in socialist parties which end up raising their costs even more.

And yes, people should make better decisions. What is happening is that you need to have more wherewithal than average to navigate the pitfalls that can make your life very difficult, and many of them are set up and encouraged by government. Too many people are falling off the edge.

Are you by any chance Mulp’s conservative twin brother?

Or is this more of a Fight Club situation?

I farted!

This is speculoation, but the average age of the AOC voter is under 40 yrs. Now I will check if I am right. Here we go, the first hit on a search:

WHEN CANVASSERS FOR the campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reconvened in the Bronx last Tuesday evening, they swapped stories about what they’d seen. With no exit polling, anecdotes were all they had — but they were adding up to something that warranted optimism.

The volunteers had fanned out across the district, focusing particularly on areas in Queens and the Bronx where an influx of young people was changing the character, complexion, and politics of the neighborhoods. Whether the volunteer had been in Astoria, Sunnyside, or Woodside, all gentrifying neighborhoods in Queens that the campaign targeted heavily, they shared the same story: Turnout seemed higher than usual, and the people turning out were young, they were diverse, and they were pumped for Ocasio-Cortez.

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/01/ocasio-cortez-data-suggests-that-gentrifying-neighborhoods-powered-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-victory-over-the-democratic-establishment/

So,.. I am absolutely right, her constituents do not want to pay for this stuff, they never voted for it and the boomers had already run up to debt before they ever had a vote.

Notice I didn't need to check at first. I discovered something unusual, voters do not like to to pay for crap they never ordered. Boomers weren't paying for all that vietnam crap, they never voted for. They defaulted on gold. Go back a generation, ditto with FDR. Go back again and again.

Do you think if AOC's socialist revolution succeeds, that her voters will be happy that the government for which they will then be paying with everything they have has eliminated their ability to fly in an airplane, drive a car, heat their home, eat a hamburger, or have a job, all in service of an allegedly cooler planet?

"Don't give me no hand me down world. I got one already."

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Apparently CNN is relishing their ability to promote edgy billionaires spoilers and will do a free national cable TV town hall for Howard Schultz.

So who finds it easy to run in this moment American history? Billionaires.

Who finds it easy to promote them? Billionaires again, with cable empires.

It remains to be seen if billionaire funded blogs fall in line.

Is this the authentic faux-moderate quondam Republican "anonymous" or his doppelgänger?

This might seem at first like a non-answer, but bear with me.

It sometimes strikes me that there are two reasons to vote, especially in contests as dramatic as the presidency. I would say the altruistic reason is to get the best *possible* person into the job. The other more egocentric path is to choose the person you feel the best voting for.

Do you see the difference? One hand it is who becomes the president, on the other it is who you voted for.

Any number of fine moderate people may run outside the system, but unless they are possible winners, they primarily appeal to the second kind of voter.

This is especially true if the polls tell you leading into the vote that your choice is not going to win, and it becomes clear that your vote is all about you

It might please you to know that the candidate that spent by far the most money in the last Presidential election lost.

Just curious, did anyone total the allied and sometimes suspiciously coordinated "spends?"

Thinking of both NRA campaigns and free CNN airtime here.

Read "What It Takes" by Richard Ben Cramer. A great book. Within it is a portrait of Bob Dole, a great man. To this day I'm saddened that he lost to Clinton. Of course, Clinton was excoriated by for his actions by people who now champion Trump for his. I was crushed by Clinton defeating Bob Dole, but Clinton was competent and a moderate. There are areas I agree with Trump, like the Fed's recent actions, but, if you voted for Trump, you forfeited any right to lecture anyone about character. Dole would have been marvelous, this is a farce.

I do realize Bob Dole supported Trump, which I think was a mistake, but I cut him slack because he earned it. He's still a great man.

I don't care whether billionaires run for office; of more import to me is the quality of a tycoon's interests (Rockefellers - wilderness, parks, historic preservation; Carnegie - libraries; heck, a cool museum house-and-garden is more than enough for me).

I'm not as enamored of these new-style billionaires, some of whose hobbies seem to center around committing treason.

But whether or no, I see no reason to prefer that they should operate behind the scenes than running for office themselves.

Upthread y'all were talking about untreated sewage pipes.

My state's longtime governor was a true man of the people - well, if the mass of Americans may be supposed to have grown up without running water, which I'm pretty sure he did. In which case his family could only dream about a sewage pipe originating in the house.

But he cleaned up nicely; made a career of running for office, and was eventually selected by the guvmakers. They gave him "running around" money. The instance we were told about: backer X loaned him a modest sum of money with which to buy a spare property of Backer Y, well under market value; some years later, Backer Y bought his old property back, now for double the tax roll value. Something along those lines. Nothing terribly egregious - it's customary for people to get bonus-pay for public service in my state: at the lower levels, it will usually be sinecures-for-life for family members (the local electric co-op nicely illustrated the low-wattage nature of this cronyism), or admission to flagship U or law school for their 800 Sat-scoring extended family; the legislators ordained state insurance for all their kids until age 35, that sort of thing. (They set it up, too, so that they appear not to get paid much for their duties, but the pension plan is to die for. Or to live for, rather.)

I don't think corruption at this low simmer, is much less aggravating than ultra-rich people getting themselves into a position to run for office and air their ideas.

Comments for this post are closed