What I don't understand about the US pre-elections is that republicans don't all vote for the least conservative candidate. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like a hyper-conservative like Santorum doesn't stand a chance in winning over the moderates and will never become president, while a moderate republican candidate would have a much better chance. If they want a republican president, shouldn't they vote for a moderate candidate? I know this goes against the idea of voting for whoever matches best with your own ideology, but a two party system doesn't support that philosophy anyway.
What bothers me about US-politics is the importance of the personal life of the candidates. Having a perfect family or going to the temple of some god has nothing to do with ones ability to govern, and it is all for show anyway. Elections seem to be mostly about mudslinging. (That's one of the reasons I like Obama: I had the impression he kept his focus on his program rather than slinging mud at contenders). If in Belgium e.g. politician A says something bad about politician B during the elections, B very often gain in popularity, while A looses.
Concerning polarisation: a relatively small and new party managed to gain popularity fast in Belgium, because the other parties are all the same (somewhere to the far left of the American spectrum), and the only alternative apart from them was unelectable (extreme right and extreme racist) or stupid (populist party with incessant internal struggles). So it is a nice example of a "
middle ground" party rising to success between "extremes". I don't think it is possible in a two party system though, but neither democrats or republicans have any incentives to change that system.
What bothers me about US-politics is the importance of the personal life of the candidates. Having a perfect family or going to the temple of some god has nothing to do with ones ability to govern, and it is all for show anyway. Elections seem to be mostly about mudslinging. (That's one of the reasons I like Obama: I had the impression he kept his focus on his program rather than slinging mud at contenders). If in Belgium e.g. politician A says something bad about politician B during the elections, B very often gain in popularity, while A looses.
Concerning polarisation: a relatively small and new party managed to gain popularity fast in Belgium, because the other parties are all the same (somewhere to the far left of the American spectrum), and the only alternative apart from them was unelectable (extreme right and extreme racist) or stupid (populist party with incessant internal struggles). So it is a nice example of a "
I'd guess somewhere around the democrats on the political spectrum...? |