Switching Political Parties

It was on the news last night and in today's local paper. Another politician has switched his political party. Sen. Arlen Specter is going from Republican to Democrat. Its clear to me that he is only doing this because he knows he won't get re-elected as a Republican in 2010. But this got me thinking about the whole process.

How is a politician able to switch up like that? How is that legal? Specter was elected as a Republican by Republicans in a primarily Republican state. Shouldn't any elected official be required to finish out their term prior to changing political parties?

I used to be a supportor of Spector but changed my mind about him after he helped pass the biggest wasteful spending bill in the history of the US.

You are just talking about one or two persons switching the parties. :rolleyes:

Over here (in India) the situation is even worse. The political parties that caused the govt to collapse would join hands together with each other after the elections. Take Lalu and Paswan here. Lalu's govt collapsed because Paswan denied support. And now they are hand in gloves with each other again ready to form a coalition government. All parties are opportunist with no concern for the public. All they look for is how to form the government and grab the ministries. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

It was on the news last night and in today's local paper. Another politician has switched his political party. Sen. Arlen Specter is going from Republican to Democrat. Its clear to me that he is only doing this because he knows he won't get re-elected as a Republican in 2010. But this got me thinking about the whole process.

How is a politician able to switch up like that? How is that legal? Specter was elected as a Republican by Republicans in a primarily Republican state. Shouldn't any elected official be required to finish out their term prior to changing political parties?

I used to be a supportor of Spector but changed my mind about him after he helped pass the biggest wasteful spending bill in the history of the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pradeep1210

You are just talking about one or two persons switching the parties. :rolleyes:

Over here (in India) the situation is even worse. The political parties that caused the govt to collapse would join hands together with each other after the elections. Take Lalu and Paswan here. Lalu's govt collapsed because Paswan denied support. And now they are hand in gloves with each other again ready to form a coalition government. All parties are opportunist with no concern for the public. All they look for is how to form the government and grab the ministries. :mad:

---

Politicians are more or less the same everywhere. India or the United States, all a politician wants to do is stay in power and exert his control directly or indirectly over other people.


From the Devil's dictionary:

Politician
n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

Quote:

---

How is a politician able to switch up like that? How is that legal?

---

I Agree, although rather than disallowing it, i think that they should have to face a by-election (i believe it is called a special election in the US).

Basically this would mean that they would have to seek re-election to the post as a consequence.

This would certainly stop opportunists from using the tactic to stay in office !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I Agree, although rather than disallowing it, i think that they should have to face a by-election (i believe it is called a special election in the US).

Basically this would mean that they would have to seek re-election to the post as a consequence.

This would certainly stop opportunists from using the tactic to stay in office !

---

Only if the cost of that by-election is coming out of the politician's pocket. :mad:

This is really no big deal. Or at least not as big as the news media makes it out to be.

Specter's been voting with the Democrats for many years - he's only making it official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

This is really no big deal. Or at least not as big as the news media makes it out to be.

Specter's been voting with the Democrats for many years - he's only making it official.

---

True but what bothers me is that any politician can swap parties after being elected. Arlen is only doing that for survival. Then again, maybe he was a Republican only because that was his best chance of getting elected in the first place. :confused:

How would people react if Obama decided to switch to Republican? A lot of people elected him based on the fact that he was not Republican.

Well, he probably wouldn't get re-elected if he did that. How difficult is it to change parties? In many states the only way you are affiliated with one party over another is if you declare it to be so. It's not like a contract, or anything. What keeps most politicians in the party that sent them to power is the recognition that if they switched parties they'd lose the next election. Specter calculated that he'd lose the next election if he DIDN'T switch parties, so the calculus of staying became backwards for him. There aren't any rules beyond that.

The political system is broken anyway. I guess I shouldn't be shocked at some of the things they can get away with. :sick:

Nothing to get away with, though. Political parties in this country are largely theoretical institutions. There's no test required for membership, no dues to join, no cost to leave, at least not in a financial sense. There IS a party leadership, but they guide the stated principles of the party, at best, and often they don't even do that. A party is an ideological mass that has coalesced around one or more principles, but which could, and has, broken apart, or morphed into a totally different animal at any time.

If you look back through history to the Civil War, the party of states rights, small government, and slavery, was the Democratic party. The south was solidly Democrat up until the 60s because Lincoln was Republican (big government, strong federal system, liberal views, etc.). When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he stated that he was doing so though it would cost the south for the democratic party for the next generation (that would be a direct quote, except that I forget whether he said generation, decade, or forseeable future). He was right. The south went strongly Republican, and the Republican party is now the party of States Rights, small government, and any assualt on civil rights. The Democrats turned into the big government, strong federal system, liberal attitudes, party.

Whenever a third party shows up (Perot), one or the other of the regular parties adjusts its stance to pick up that segment of voters, and the third party dies out as the voters decide to back the major candidate who they feel is more likely to win. Up until the Civil War, we had a variety of parties morphing into this and that or fading out altogether. Since the Civil War, we have had only two reliable parties, but those two have changed their positions on things so often that they can appear to be doing a bit of a waltz. Politicians are not leading that dance, they are pushed by it. The parties have no obligation to remain static, they change as their constituencies change. Nor do the politicians have any obligation to remain unchanging as the people who vote for them change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

How is a politician able to switch up like that? How is that legal? Specter was elected as a Republican by Republicans in a primarily Republican state. Shouldn't any elected official be required to finish out their term prior to changing political parties?

---

I suppose the same thing could be said for those whom leave their party and then form a new political party! Although, I suspect it is just like a normal job in the fact that if you don't like the way something is done or someone is being treated and you already have taken steps to prevent it such as talked to your boss, etc but they have failed then you can resign.

...the third party dies out as the voters decide to back the major candidate who they feel is more likely to win...

That's very accurate. A lot of people only vote for those who will "win". The fact that the two major parties always say you are "wasting" your vote by going third party only adds to the problem.

The best person should win. We should do away with primaries and parties. If a person can change political parties on a whim what purpose do they actually serve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

True but what bothers me is that any politician can swap parties after being elected. Arlen is only doing that for survival. Then again, maybe he was a Republican only because that was his best chance of getting elected in the first place. :confused:

How would people react if Obama decided to switch to Republican? A lot of people elected him based on the fact that he was not Republican.

---

If you are going to vote for a candidate merely because of his label, you need your voting license removed. Issues are what you should be voting on. The problem with the two parties is they pretty much disagree on everything. Well, what if you're against the war but for abortion? Which party should you apply to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

If you are going to vote for a candidate merely because of his label, you need your voting license removed. Issues are what you should be voting on. The problem with the two parties is they pretty much disagree on everything. Well, what if you're against the war but for abortion? Which party should you apply to?

---

I've talked to many people who go into the voting booths and just pull the Republican or Democratic lever. They blindly support or hate one particular political party. Way back in ancient times (when I first starting working) I was told by a union rep that I should be a democrat because I was a union member. Traditionally unions have supported democrats. The only time it matters which democrat is running is during the primaries.

The major problem with our system is "one person one vote" coupled with the American system of government. Some parliamentary systems have multiple parties because the government can be formed out of a coalition of parties and each party gets a portion of the parliament relative to their vote. We have an all-or-nothing system. It is entirely possible to elect a third party candidate to a seat in Congress, but they will have ZERO power unless a large number of other districts also vote in members of that party. At times in our history (such as the leadup to the war of 1812), one party gained such a prohibitive majority as to make the other party insignificant (some states are like that now).

With two parties, if you vote on one issue, whether it is unions, civil rights, some social or business issue, or who won the Civil War, you get the whole package of views that come with the party. Being in a resource agency, my Republican friends are distressed at the anti-environmental tone of the party they otherwise favor.

A good alternative would be any of a handful of rank voting systems.

Let's not mention parliamentary systems and the US anymore. That would be the disaster I see so many Brits complain about in the BBC HYS forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

With two parties, if you vote on one issue, whether it is unions, civil rights, some social or business issue, or who won the Civil War, you get the whole package of views that come with the party. Being in a resource agency, my Republican friends are distressed at the anti-environmental tone of the party they otherwise favor.

---

also my complaint.

If your beliefs are half in one party and half in the other, really does it matter what party you belong to? You really just will be deciding which of the issues you believein are the ones you can work on without committing political suicide. Perhaps this guy accomplished everything he wanted to in the one party. Now it's time to do the other half!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

also my complaint.

If your beliefs are half in one party and half in the other, really does it matter what party you belong to? You really just will be deciding which of the issues you believein are the ones you can work on without committing political suicide. Perhaps this guy accomplished everything he wanted to in the one party. Now it's time to do the other half!

---

Nope. Its obvious he is only switching parties because he will not be elected as a Republican.

Also your beliefs are your beliefs. You should not have to shoe-horn yourself into one party or the other. You should be able to pick the person who's beliefs most closely match your own. But this cannot always happen because the "best person for the job" might be voted out during the primaries and if you were not registered with their party you could not vote for them.

In some states (not sure how many, but I think it's common) you can vote in whichever primary you choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

In some states (not sure how many, but I think it's common) you can vote in whichever primary you choose.

---

im pretty sure this is the norm. If it wasn't, elections wouldnt be necessary. they could just look at the membership rolls and count. Plus every office would have been filled by the same party.

In my state, during primaries, you can only vote for your registered party. Primary elections are held to elect a single person to run for Dem or Reb. There is no way to determine a vote count based on membership since the membership votes within their own party for different candidates. General elections are different in that you can vote for whomever you want.

My state is trying to close the R primaries. I'm not sure why. They seem to think that a bunch of Ds (ok, both of them) are switching over for the primaries and thereby defeating the radical right candidates. How they can say that I'm not sure, since this state elected some of the farthest right candidates in the country (and a few of the dumbest). Perhaps it's the fact that a few of our current representatives know how to get along with people in their own party (not to mention anybody NOT in their own party), that is so aggravating to the Rs in this state.

On the other hand, the primary debates out here are thoroughly entertaining. For the last few cycles, we've had a guy running who changed his legal name to "Right to Life", and the moderator, naturally, has to address him by his legal name. Oddly, in the last election, I found him to be more of a centerist for the group of primary candidates in the debate. The guy who was rabidly against education (as far as I could tell, he supported bible study for boys, but otherwise nothing) was pretty much the farthest out. The main R candidate (and eventual winner) ducked the whole set of debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

In my state, during primaries, you can only vote for your registered party. Primary elections are held to elect a single person to run for Dem or Reb. There is no way to determine a vote count based on membership since the membership votes within their own party for different candidates. General elections are different in that you can vote for whomever you want.

---

primaries, that's different. That's just to determine who is in the general election. I really think the dems stole the elections this year because of all their primaries. They got so much free press, and meanwhile "who's the republican candidate?" people had barely heard of McCain. Obama vs Clinton ensured that one of them would be president.

Bush ensured that one of them would be president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Bush ensured that one of them would be president.

---

if bush ensured the other party would be elected, then why did he get reelected?

The Republicans, in general, ensured that Dems would win. That backlash is happening at the state and local governments as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

if bush ensured the other party would be elected, then why did he get reelected?

---

Fear worked well in 2004. You may remember that the threat level was bounced around every other week in the runup to the election, but then was elevated only once or twice in the following couple years. This country doesn't stay focused on anything for long (which is why American Idol is an annual show). Bush had lousy approval ratings prior to 9/11, then sky-high approval ratings for a time after 9/11, then attention drifted. By the 2004 elections, terrorism was still enough of an issue that people voted on security. After that, though, in the following years, gas prices soared, the economy tanked, and the blame was squarely on the Rs, right or wrong.

Neither Rs nor Ds make up enough of this country to elect anybody to the White House. The winner is the party that can swing enough of the undeclared middle to their side. In 2004, the Rs could make the claim that their party would keep the US safer, and security was kept on peoples minds (in case their attention had wandered). It was still a VERY close election. By 2008, the economy had trumped security, and the Rs received virtually ALL of the blame. Bush didn't cause that, he just handled it ineptly (not the economy, the blame). He actually had the tools to prevent the R collapse, he just didn't know how to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

The Republicans, in general, ensured that Dems would win. That backlash is happening at the state and local governments as well.

---

If Bush was so bad as everyone said he was then why was Obama only able to get 53% of the vote? I guess if you only watched the main stream media you would think the big O descended from on high with some kind of mandate or something.

And fear worked well in 2008 as well. Fear of the declining economy was used really well by the Dems in the election. McCain was actually winning in the polls before the economy hit the skids.

X

I never said Bush was bad. The Republicans in general were. That's the reason why the Dems are doing so well election wise. Perception is more powerful than reality. It doesn't matter how involved Dems were with the current economic problems. They succeeded in pushing the bulk of the blame on the Reps.

I also never said that Obama was god's gift either. Frankly I am tired of constantly being beat over the head with how great a man he is. He hasn't done anything yet. The media would have you believe that his election is the cure-all for everything that ills the country.

Bush only had one positive; he kept the country safe, that is about it. His unfunded mandates like no child left behind, and his huge increase in government by instituting Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) set the country on the wrong path financially. Bush did nothing to shrink spending or the size of government and his willing accomplices in the Republican controlled congress just went along with this policies. This is why the Republicans were voted out.

So what did we get in its place? A democrat controlled congress and a democrat president. We now have a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit and a president who thinks cutting 18 billion from a 3.6 trillion dollar budget is a huge accomplishment. People are finally waking up to all this out of control government spending. Voters in California rejected any new taxes even in the face of threats from the governor of cutting police, fire, and letting prisoners roam the streets. I think now is the time we throw anyone out who will not get spending and taxes under control, regardless of what party they belong too. Throw them all out I say.

X

Unfortunately, cutting even one dollar out of the budget is a huge accomplishment. Every senator and congressman has a pack of lobbyists pushing and prodding (and paying) them to protect and expand each and every program. Take a look at health care. Most people feel that we could do better than the current system, but how many people think we will? Once the influence peddlers get done with it, health care reform will give us the current, failing, system, but at a higher cost.

Quote:

---

Voters in California rejected any new taxes even in the face of threats from the governor of cutting police, fire, and letting prisoners roam the streets.

---

The trouble is that this is the only way you're going to reduce your national debt. Like it or lump it you're going to have pay more taxes for less services in order to start redressing the balance. Of course, any politician running on the ticket isn't going to stand a chance of getting in so your economy is going to continue to spiral. Same here in the UK. It sucks but that's human nature I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

It was on the news last night and in today's local paper. Another politician has switched his political party. Sen. Arlen Specter is going from Republican to Democrat. Its clear to me that he is only doing this because he knows he won't get re-elected as a Republican in 2010. But this got me thinking about the whole process.

How is a politician able to switch up like that? How is that legal? Specter was elected as a Republican by Republicans in a primarily Republican state. Shouldn't any elected official be required to finish out their term prior to changing political parties?

I used to be a supportor of Spector but changed my mind about him after he helped pass the biggest wasteful spending bill in the history of the US.

---

This is essentially the problem with a two-party system. You illustrated quite well that he is perfectly entitled to do what he did. Just as YOU changed your mind about supporting him, why can he NOT change his mind about who he supports?
In the UK however if an elected member of parliament (MP) changes their political party they lose their seat and a local election is called for residents to choose their MP again

well you know how it is. So far the record for a government is about 500 years before running a country into the ground. We're about 1/2 way to that time and plummeting fast. I just can't get over how retarded 99% of the population is. They want to give less money but demand more services such as free schooling. The fact is every single free service the government gives is socialism, but they still want to claim its a republic. IS IT?!?

Somebody once stated something along the lines of "Democracies last until the populace realizes that they can vote to give themselves large handouts from the public till." Maybe there is a cap on how long a country can remain. Success seems to spoil countries and failure ruins them.

i wonder if california's system is superior? they vote on pretty much every single thing the government wants to do. "propositions".

No he has a point. Eventually a country's power will always deteriorate. Look at the former British Empire which controlled almost 40% of the worlds population. Now they can barely control the British population! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

This is essentially the problem with a two-party system. You illustrated quite well that he is perfectly entitled to do what he did. Just as YOU changed your mind about supporting him, why can he NOT change his mind about who he supports?
In the UK however if an elected member of parliament (MP) changes their political party they lose their seat and a local election is called for residents to choose their MP again

---

Of course he can switch parties BUT he should have to step down from his elected position. He was elected as a Republican. Based on what you just said it seems the UK has it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Somebody once stated something along the lines of "Democracies last until the populace realizes that they can vote to give themselves large handouts from the public till." Maybe there is a cap on how long a country can remain. Success seems to spoil countries and failure ruins them.

---

I think that was attributed to Ben Franklin.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

Of course he can switch parties BUT he should have to step down from his elected position. He was elected as a Republican. Based on what you just said it seems the UK has it right.

---

he was most likely elected on his beliefs, not his label. Really, does it matter?

He was elected because he ran as a Republican. He switched parties because he knew the Republicans would no longer back him. If he was elected solely on his beliefs there wouldn't have been a need to change parties.

That quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler but hasn't been proven.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.