Thread: Why is "flip-flopping" a bad thing?

Well, everybody knows how to vote for the ideal candidate, unfortunately that really doesn't exist. So at the end it's a representative democracy at work - the candidate with most support wins and then gets some time to do things that may be unpopular.

The question that is interesting to me is - does this system improve in the long term? But what is 'long term'? After all there's only roughly 200 years that this thing has been running - do you think overall it's getting better, or it's getting worse? Of course there is much idealization of the past, but if you try to look objectively at the political system, does it seem to be evolving in a positive direction or in a negative?

As far as flip-flopping goes, to me this seems to be the result of where the political system is right now. Like it or not negative campaigning is more powerful - just look at all these political threads and 'two evils' posts. It's much easier for us to be negative, but I don't think any of us has a magic recipe that would solve all the problems. I can look at a problem and all proposed solutions and say 'I don't like this' and 'I don't like this either', but at the end of the day I have to pick something.

So with this in mind the politicians are often in the position of choosing to either put a negative spin on whatever their opponent is doing, or their chances of winning are getting rather low. McCain of all people knows how this works and he would rather be the victmizer than the victim.

I would really like if people would be thinking critically except of just blindly buying whatever soundbites their favorite media serves them. Unfortunately from all I've seen that is not going to happen and the politicians who can raise most money will get elected. All I'm saying is that the politicians don't actually spin things in one way or another because they want to - they do it because it is necessary to get elected.

A flip-flop is a bad thing because it demonstrates a real lack of virtue in an individual. It isn't a reasoned, gradual change in opinion or even a populist response motivated by a clear and quantified change in your electorate's demands; it is an often hasty change, of no little consequence, in one's voting on legislation in reaction to political events, like a party leader's demand, a media sponsored opinion poll, lobbying by a special interest group, etc.

When you campaign, for example, on lowering taxes and you're elected you are given a mandate to lower taxes. If you don't, if suddenly on a certain bill you vote to raise taxes, then you flip-flopped. Think the electorate has changed its opinion? Hold a referendum, use a large opinion poll, knock on doors. Chances are nothing has changed though, changes like that usually require a change in demographics or a major economic or political event in a people's history.

Also, people have this idea that a candidate should share each and every one of their ideas. That's bogus. That's why politicians lie, because people won't vote for somebody that isn't everything to them. How can an honest man compete with a liar when people want the liar, because he's exactly what they want when he talks to them? There are honest candidates but there aren't enough realistic people to prop them up.

Parliament really shows how people, in general, are.

Changing your mind after due consideration of the facts is one thing. Pandering to who ever you happen to be talking to in the hopes that you might fools someone into voting for you is another thing entirely. Most political flip-flopping is actually pandering, not a good thing.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, everybody knows how to vote for the ideal candidate, unfortunately that really doesn't exist. So at the end it's a representative democracy at work - the candidate with most support wins and then gets some time to do things that may be unpopular.

The question that is interesting to me is - does this system improve in the long term? But what is 'long term'? After all there's only roughly 200 years that this thing has been running - do you think overall it's getting better, or it's getting worse? Of course there is much idealization of the past, but if you try to look objectively at the political system, does it seem to be evolving in a positive direction or in a negative?

As far as flip-flopping goes, to me this seems to be the result of where the political system is right now. Like it or not negative campaigning is more powerful - just look at all these political threads and 'two evils' posts. It's much easier for us to be negative, but I don't think any of us has a magic recipe that would solve all the problems. I can look at a problem and all proposed solutions and say 'I don't like this' and 'I don't like this either', but at the end of the day I have to pick something.

So with this in mind the politicians are often in the position of choosing to either put a negative spin on whatever their opponent is doing, or their chances of winning are getting rather low. McCain of all people knows how this works and he would rather be the victmizer than the victim.

I would really like if people would be thinking critically except of just blindly buying whatever soundbites their favorite media serves them. Unfortunately from all I've seen that is not going to happen and the politicians who can raise most money will get elected. All I'm saying is that the politicians don't actually spin things in one way or another because they want to - they do it because it is necessary to get elected.

I think the best way to improve the system would be to open its doors wider. The way things are set up right now we have two political parties who can act in concert only when it makes it less likely that any third party will be able to rise up.

Our voting system is set up to penalize anyone who votes for a third candidate as well. The system is set up not to select for the preferred candidate but to select for the one who has the most original positions. For example, if you had three candidates, two with similar positions, and one out in left field, the guy out in left field could win the election with only 34% of the vote. That would mean that the least preferred candidate would actually get into office. I think we ought to have run off elections, where you either number your selection from worst to best giving your preferences, or have say anyone taking less than 20% or the lowest vote count eliminated from contention, then a re-vote until you are down to a clear favorite.

As far as money goes, the best way to get over the money is to open the field but track the donations. I don't care how much any one person gives to a campaign, I just want to know who is supporting whom. Right now the system makes it important to and easy to hide your donors, thats a problem. You can tell a lot about a person by seeing who his friends are.

Money and the third part disenfranchisement brings up another point. Did you know that there are states where a candidate can't get on the ballot, no matter how many people want him there, unless he has raised a certain amount of money in political donations? Hows that for blatant money in politics.

I would think that there should be at least a half dozen viable parties available so that there would be true competition amongst them and probably a greater amount of actual representation of the people, more like coalitions in congress, where being the majority does not necessarily makeyou the king. As it is now you have a choice between one faulty dogma or the other. Pick your poison.

While there's some merit to the criticism of the two-party system, I think between the primaries and election, we get plenty of choice, particularly this year. Take the Republican primary-- we've got everything between pure libertarian all the way to liberal (well, at least that's how he governed Massachusetts.) If a third party candidate would have any chance at all of actually winning, he'd certainly have enough oomph to start to change his closest aligned party from within. It might take some time, but our whole government seems to be designed such that major changes take place slowly-- which, IMO, is a good thing.

You're right Mr. Tim, politics needs to be transparent. You're also right that a proportional representation voting system would help break up the two-party system that many countries using a plurality voting system are plagued with.

Better two than one, though, right?

Originally Posted by Whiggamore

You're right Mr. Tim, politics needs to be transparent. You're also right that a proportional representation voting system would help break up the two-party system that many countries using a plurality voting system are plagued with.

Better two than one, though, right?

When control in a Parliamentary government flips, changes can be fast and furious. Not necessarily great in terms of stability. The founding fathers were well aware that they could have set up such a system, and opted not to.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Parliament is just another word for a legislative assembly. Maybe you mean the Westminster system? The Westminster system uses a plurality voting system, just like the United States, and often suffers from the same two-party problem.

Proportional representation can create instability, especially when power isn't shared between the legislative assembly and the executive. But, that isn't the case in the United States. Not only do you have a strong executive, but also a strong judiciary, and a strong citizenry. This system of voting would more likely create a legislative assembly plagued by legislative gridlock as opposed to rapid change.