Who else here is a moderate?

[Radagast]

Who else goes out of their way to oppose the lefties and righties? Of course I lean a little bit to the the green and libertarian side, so I am not strictly moderate. The Moderate Party espouses the following ideals and platforms, among others:

Oppose extremists from either party. The correct politician is one with a proven track record of voting against their party on key issues. Even if someone leans away from my libertarian and green impulses, I will still vote for them if they seem likely to vote against their party. The only worthwhile politicians are the ones who are willing to stab their party in the back and betray their own most deeply held values, again and again.

Oppose gerrymandering. Voting districts should be determined every ten years by a computer algorithm that creates the most geographically compact districts.

Eliminate primaries. Run the presidential election like the NCAA basketball tournament. Each state nominates one candidate according to its own rules, plus one for DC and one for the combined territories. The remainder are awarded to a few states in proportion based on population, 64 total (perhaps 52 so people have less to consider in the first round). Then the country is split into four parts with approximately equal population (geographically compact by state lines) and the candidates must campaign around the country with the highest-voted half progressing to the next round. At the end the last four candidates are voted on by the whole country, and then the best two if nobody gets above 50%. The whole process will take a year, November to November. Presidents can serve unlimited non-consecutive terms, but they have to go through the wringer each time.

Plenty of other moderate platforms exist, but in general they are centered around fixing inefficiencies, correcting injustices, simplifying complexities, internalizing externalities, and the like. And always vote against extremists who know the solution to any issue without even thinking.

[fdhs_runner]

Ahh, but what's extreme?

Many states have legalized marijuana, ten years ago that was an "extreme" position to even talk about. Ditto for same sex marriage.

The trick in politics is to paint your opponent as an extremist. Don't prove that they're wrong, just call them or their positions "extreme". If your PR guys are good enough it might stick.

[Metric Mouse]

Ahh, but what's extreme?

Many states have legalized marijuana, ten years ago that was an "extreme" position to even talk about. Ditto for same sex marriage.

The trick in politics is to paint your opponent as an extremist. Don't prove that they're wrong, just call them or their positions "extreme". If your PR guys are good enough it might stick.

While I would not qualify as a moderate under the above definition, I approve of the methods of debate you've pointed out. "Anyone who disagrees with me is extreme." :D

[waltworks]

Given that most of your suggestions would require a rewrite of the US constitution and many state constitutions as well, I'm not sure "moderate" is the term I'd use to describe them.

[Radagast]

The trick in politics is to paint your opponent as an extremist. Don't prove that they're wrong, just call them or their positions "extreme". If your PR guys are good enough it might stick.

Exactly. I didn't used to consider myself a moderate, but then I realized that actually this practice was the thing I was most opposed to.

[Radagast]

Given that most of your suggestions would require a rewrite of the US constitution and many state constitutions as well, I'm not sure "moderate" is the term I'd use to describe them.

Heehee. But they would be detrimental to extremists, and would otherwise not be extreme in themselves.

[waltworks]

I think I just have no idea what you're saying then. You are proposing basically tipping over the applecart/throwing out the constitution to try a new system of democracy. That might be good or it might be bad, but it's hard to call it "moderate".

I think it might be more useful to just think about electing people who will make evidence based decisions. So if I decide, that, say, lowering the speed limit to 55 will save lives - and then the data show that it didn't work, I'll change my mind and admit I was wrong. Most successes are the result of a lot of learning from failures and it drives me crazy when politicians (or just people discussing politics) hold the government to a standard that they'd never hold themselves. Of course some policies will fail! That's fine - the knowledge we gain will let us make better ones in the future.

-W

[Radagast]

I think I just have no idea what you're saying then. You are proposing basically tipping over the applecart/throwing out the constitution to try a new system of democracy. That might be good or it might be bad, but it's hard to call it "moderate".

Do you not perceive the primaries as driving people apart to extreme camps for essentially no reason? At this point it almost seems that the next president will feel beholden to those ~25% who elected them, and out to screw over the rest. My suggestion would require a constitutional change, but its not like the existing system is defined by the constitution. I'd much rather have a system where everyone got to chose the president as a consensus where everyone has a chance to vote for their favorite candidate over several elections. I am not much of a fan of the current system where the extreme 5% on each side choose a candidate good for themselves, leaving the rest of the country to deal with it.

I think it might be more useful to just think about electing people who will make evidence based decisions. So if I decide, that, say, lowering the speed limit to 55 will save lives - and then the data show that it didn't work, I'll change my mind and admit I was wrong. Most successes are the result of a lot of learning from failures and it drives me crazy when politicians (or just people discussing politics) hold the government to a standard that they'd never hold themselves. Of course some policies will fail! That's fine - the knowledge we gain will let us make better ones in the future.

-W

I agree that evidence based decisions are important and that is also one of the things I look for. On the other hand, you can reach completely differing conclusions based on what data you look at, which is why I also like to see politicians that do not look only at data from a pet cause, especially a clearly defined partisan cause.

Also, moderation does not mean you cannot be an extremist on some issues. Sometimes the most moderate course of action is quite extreme. As you say, the difference is correctly interpreted evidence, while at the same time looking at competing evidence to see if your interpretation is correct.

Moderation is not a trait anybody admires. I should probably become a libertarian :).

[waltworks]

You are talking about the structural issues of winner-take-all election systems, not the primaries or parties themselves. Read up on Duverger's law here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

You probably would need to move to a proportional representation system to solve the problem you're talking about, rather than rejiggering the existing first-past-the-post.

-W

[Mississippi Mudstache]

You are talking about the structural issues of winner-take-all election systems, not the primaries or parties themselves. Read up on Duverger's law here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

You probably would need to move to a proportional representation system to solve the problem you're talking about, rather than rejiggering the existing first-past-the-post.

-W

+1

[Proud Foot]

Oppose extremists from either party. The correct politician is one with a proven track record of voting against their party on key issues. Even if someone leans away from my libertarian and green impulses, I will still vote for them if they seem likely to vote against their party. The only worthwhile politicians are the ones who are willing to stab their party in the back and betray their own most deeply held values, again and again.

Maybe I am not reading this how you intended but I like politicians who oppose the extremists from either party but will work within their party and the other party to advance issues which will benefit society.  IMO a politician who always votes against their party on key issues is someone who will never get reelected. 

As far as the presidential elections, I have no problem with having primary and general elections.  I do think the whole primary system needs overhauled.  There is no longer a need to have it spread out over such a long time period and the advances in technology have made it so there is no reason why all the primaries cannot be held on the same day.