Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 9

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< March 8 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 10 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


March 9

edit

Why don't third parties in the USA have any political power?

edit

The political seats are either Democrat or Republican. Third parties don't seem to have any political power, no incumbents, no political office holdings. Do third-party affiliates really vote for the third party, or do they actually choose to vote for one of the two powerful, dominant parties? Also, once registered as a Democrat/Republican voter, can people unofficially or officially change parties? Maybe a person may officially be listed as Republican (because he used to be Republican) and then vote for a mix of Democrat and Republican candidates but then the word "Republican" still gets listed because that's what he chose when he first registered to vote at 18 years of age? 140.254.70.165 (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voters don't have to register with either party, and if they do register with a party, it is for that election only (not for life). The Democratic and Republican parties were, at different points in history, third parties themselves. See Political_parties_in_the_United_States#History. The way things have worked in the past, if the people voted for Libertarian candidates in a way that made the Libertarian party a mainstream contender rivaling the big two, it would do so by absorbing the Republican party (with the less-Libertarian inclined Republicans forming new third-parties). Likewise, if the Socialist party became a mainstream party during the next election cycle, it would be at the expense of the Democratic party.
However, the current big two do what they can to pander to a variety of groups. Republicans appeal to certain types of corporations, the religious right, libertarians, and the tea party. Democrats appeal to other types of corporations, socialists, third-way advocates, and social liberals. In many other countries, many of those groups would go with their own parties. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In most U.S. jurisdictions, if you register with a party, you are a member of that party until you specifically change it. But it's always easy to change. Another reason smaller parties have no real power is that, unlike Westminster system governments, where small parties may hold disproportionate power because they can join with other parties in forming a coalition to elect a Prime Minister, the American head of government is elected by popular vote. - Nunh-huh 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would quibble with your wording. In a closed-primary state, registering with a party gets you that party's ballot, but it doesn't make you a member of the party. If you want to actually be a member, you have to talk to the party, not to the Registrar of Voters.
Second quibble, no, actually, the president is not elected by popular vote. The president is elected by vote of the several states. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long term stability of a two-party system is not a uniquely American phenomenon, though perhaps it is more stable in the US than most others. That article has some explanations about why. Some other countries oscillate periodically between two-party (as the two main parties shift their policy positions to compete with minor parties) and multi-party (as disenchanted voters of one or both main parties drift to minor parties).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Party affiliation really only applies to Primary elections and caucuses (you vote for who you want to be the candidate for your registered party)... But in the general election you can vote for anyone, regardless of party. If you don't like the guy (or gal) who was chosen to be your party's candidate, you can vote for the candidate from another party. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything (in law or in what voters sign up to when they register) that stops a whole bunch of party A supporters registering as party B voters in order to nominate an unelectable candidate for party B? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laws vary. Many states have Open primaries in the United States. Some voters say they take advantage by sabotage. Others are closed, requiring registering in advance. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're allowed to switch every 4 years (2 if your location has a governor or something that's elected every 2 years). Sometimes, people change support. It's unlikely that anyone sane switching major party every election for decades never tried to sandbag anyone but I don't think there is a quota to keep the rate of party switching down to realistic levels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every jurisdiction in each of the United States has at least one officer with a two-year term: its federal Representative. —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Well I haven't voted a primary ever or a Rep in 6 years (and I cared about beating that governor candidate and not my Rep's safe seat (whoever s/he is)). My primary vote might actually matter for once this year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know who gets more done than the red team or the blue team? The red and blue team! Why risk losing an election if you want constant power? These other "third parties" do alright, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of those Top 20 puppetmasters, only three don't use red and/or blue in their logos. Two are orange and one is purple. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
So the Business Roundtable must be secretly New Democratic Party of Canada, eh? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Either that, or it goes all the way to the top. See also You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
To see what could happen when there's many parties in a non-parliamentary system not built for that, look at this US state's leader election, 1991. David Duke (the leader of the white supremacist movement which does things like chain a black man to a truck and drag him for miles until his head comes off (in 1998)) won almost 40%. Also Duke's a convicted felon for lying that he needs donations to save his house and then using the cash to gamble for recreation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, in 1991, voters couldn't so easily access news and views from the future. Or from the theoretically possible alternate future. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the main driver of the two-party system is that Americans want to vote for a potential winner, so often don't pick the candidate or party they consider the best, if they think he can't win. This pretty much means they will only vote for the top two. Some other factors include:
1) Rampant gerrymandering, which allows whichever party is in power following a census to redraw the districts to choose their own voters. Since that's either going to be the Democrats or Republicans, they will take districts away from their rivals, including any third parties.
2) The pork barrel system, which only candidates in a major party have enough votes to pull of, to bring taxpayer dollars to their district at the expense of the nation. Since voters are selfish, this results in them voting to keep such a person in office.
3) The system is rigged for insiders in other ways, such as senior Reps and Senators getting important committee posts, while freshmen are all but ignored, so have little chance to impress their constituents. Since these members of the "old boys network" are likely to be in major parties, they support others in their party.
4) Taking large donations from rich people and corporations puts Reps and Senators in the pocket of those special interests, who work hard to keep them in office, with soft money PACs, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your first (unnumbered) point is good, and I think is a simple consequence of the manner in which we vote, the most naive first past the post method that everyone knows is also the worst method for multiple candidate elections. But it's also the best method for two-candidate systems, and it essentially turns multi-candidate elections into two candidate elections. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this factor can lead to a tipping point, where a 3rd party get more votes than one of the established parties, and everyone therefore jumps from the old party to the new one (with some readjusting to and from the other established party), since they again don't want to "waste their vote". However, my numbered points may tend to favor the old established party a bit longer, until the new party can become similarly established (could take a generation, if we're talking about #3). StuRat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no one single "right" answer. Lots of factors play in to this. Here's one that I don't think has been mentioned: We are stuck with two parties because we don't use ranked voting (not at the federal level, some hip local governments have caught up with 18th century democratic technology). It's not impossible to get 2-party systems with ranked voting, but it's very hard to keep three or more parties with any strength when about half of the votes are wasted every election. This organization [1] intends to increase and spread ranked voting in the USA, but they also have good information. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq map 1990 online?

edit

Here is a 1990 Iraqi presidential decree, outlining the creation of the Kuwait Governorate and its three districts. As per the boundaries, the decree mentions an attached map. Any chance this map exists online somewhere? I couldn't find it so far. --Soman (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany's intelligence operations against the USSR during World War II

edit

Hi,

I am currently looking for sources available online on the following topics, in pursuance of an article I intend to write imminently:

  • German intelligence operations against the USSR generally, 1941-1945
  • The roles of Fremde Heeres Ost (FHO), the Abwehr, and the SD (as well as other agencies) in said operations
  • German parachute operations behind the Soviet lines
  • German cooperation with nationalist partisans behind the Soviet lines.

I greatly appreciate any help, and feel free to email me any sources that you believe would help.

GABHello! 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some information at The Brandenburger Commandos: Germany's Elite Warrior Spies in World War II by Franz Kurowski, The Soviet Union and the Iran: Soviet Policy in Iran from the Beginnings of the Pahlavi Dynasty until the Soviet Invasion of 1941 by Miron Rezun (p. 348), Acta Historica Tallinnensia (p. 75), Germany and the Soviet Union by Gerhard L. Weinberg and The Kings And The Pawns: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_March_9&oldid=936103941"