Political Logic The Moderates, L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary “The Light Amidst the Mong” Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.
The Centrice, Moderates, and Independents Are Un-Informed On Core Political Party Positions.MEO L.A.M. Norman Oetker Missionary "The Light Amidst the Mong/MEO" Hmong Thailand, Reynosa Mexico, English Class, St. Charles Missouri US.
WANTED… A WRITER FOR A BOOK ON MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY
CONTACT: email@example.com October 2009
The Results…. When Two Parties Won’t Change Their Core Values! Such As The Democrats, And The Republicans.
This Paradigm Was Written About In The Late 1800’s
Quote, …“In the classic simile, becoming identified with a political party is like being born into a religion: a loyalty acquired early in life; indeed, handed down from parent to child, and maintained, more often than not, through life; a loyalty which imparts a sense of identity and supplies an integrated set of basic principles and action proposals (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, 1954; Campbell, et. al, 1960).”
Was then Senator Obama elected because the country wanted change? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was the first black? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because the white man had a guilt ridden conscious because of the US.history about racism? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of then President Bush’s failed policies? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was a Liberal? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his opposition to the war in Iraq? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his green policies? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of global warming? No!1
Was then Senator Obama elected because of Rev. Wright’s races statements? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because many were against Hilary Clinton? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of his answers, and or, proposals to the current economic US. situation? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because he was a Democrat? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of the Kennedy’s endorsements? No!
Was then Senator Obama elected because of torture? No!
I was doing some checking on a related topic, and found some interesting information, that I thought some might like to read in part.
There are several sources included here, in as much, that I have found each article interesting and informative. I have taken the liberty to cut, the majority of the text out, and in so doing, it wasn’t my desire or intent, to change the meaning of these well written articles.
Furthermore, it’s my understanding of the articles that I have read, so, in that, it’s my “opinion” of these articles, that I want to express, the message, and article truth’s, that they have conveyed to me.
Why did the current President win the election?
There seems to be a very simple explanation for it, In brief, at looking at the articles below, one can see the political logic used in the final analyzes of the 2008 Presidential Campaign Drive.
The article is stating that when two opposite are equal, and neither, is going to change their positions.
The median -the center, the moderate, the independent- voters comes into play, even though, the center, the moderates, and independents are unaware of either parties core reasoning’s, for the cen-trice, the moderates, and the independent are looking at another set of circumstances, that plays a leading role in their voting decisions.
They are thinking, quote, "how much government intervention in the economy there should be ‘FOR ME’," and how the parties will control this, that is, that for me.
Another quote from below implies, …“We conclude, that the constraints of the median(centrice, moderates, and independents) voter are less stringent than they have been supposed and that partisan elites, have more freedom of maneuver than has been appreciated…
In other words, the candidates has to speak the party line when with the party, but, when speaking to the uninformed, centrice are moderates, and independents. He or she speaks, to the desires of what’s in it for them, for the centrice, for the moderate, and for the independent.
Those in the middle, aren’t interested in either parties platform, neither their core beliefs, but what they can get out of it, for themselves and theirs.
Again, What I take away from this quote is that, the candidate, is in lock and step, with the true partisans of the party, and their issues at hand. However, the candidates can manipulate the centrice, those in in the center, those of the center, who are ill informed, of either parties core positions.
Why? because the center, the moderates are less informed, than the party regulars, and thus, are looking at other issues as their deciding factor, as to who to vote for.
The Republican, or the Democrat party’s candidates, can manipulate the center, the moderates, who are uninformed.
The candidates new, or proposed governmental policies involvement into their lives. if elected, and to how it will alter policies of the future, is basically unknown, are isn’t of concern to the moderates, independents, or those of the center.
The center, these moderates, are uninformed of the further consequences, of what either party is proposing, in regards to their immediate situations.
The centrice, and moderates, are looking to how to fulfill their needs, and how much government, should be used to supply their wants, needs, and desires.
The promise of either candidate, to fulfill, all of one’s need, speaks to the centrice, the moderates and it is all that is necessary to gain their vote.
This theorem is well known and practiced, yet, the constant continues, of a “no change of either party positions,” and then, with them going to the center, telling the moderates or median voters all that is good to theirs ears, and for their desire’s to be fulfilled.
Downsian Axis (google)
In his seminal work An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Downs introduced a left-right axis to economic theory. He placed socialists and communists on the ‘left’, Christian democrats, social democrats and liberals in the ‘center’, and conservatives and fascists on the ‘right’, where ‘communism’ allows 0% private ownership, and ‘fascism’ 100% private ownership.
Norman…He claimed that most voters have incomplete information when voting for political candidates in a democracy, and therefore will resort to economic issues of "how much government intervention in the economy there should be" and how parties will control this.
The Political Logic of a Downsian Space*
Robert P. Van Houweling
Anthony Downs (1957) applied the concept of spatial voting to understand electoral competition between political parties.
His paradigm has become the dominant frame for the formal analysis of the strategic decisions of candidates, although what most have taken as its central implication—that candidates will converge on the median voter—is often at odds with facts….. …We find strong evidence that voters’ partisan biases distort their spatial choices…
One familiar with the American Voter might anticipate this distortion, but its magnitude is quite staggering, particularly under typical conditions.
Contrary to the American Voter, however, we also find that voters’ partisan ties appear rooted in party reputations, reputations that, in turn, place limits on the freedom of politicians to exploit the biases of their partisan supporters.
We conclude that the constraints of the median voter are less stringent than they have been supposed and that partisan elites have more freedom of maneuver than has been appreciated.
In 1957, Anthony Downs applied the concept of spatial voting to understand electoral competition between political parties. Within a decade, Downs’ and the “Michigan” approach were on equal footing when it came to understanding people’s voting decisions. Downs’ paradigm, however, has become the dominant frame for the analysis of the strategic decisions of candidates and, hence, the electoral connection.
The decision rule for voters in a Downsian space is to choose the candidate whose position is closest to their own.
The median voter theorem, which flows from this modeling assumption combined with a uni-dimensional policy space and perfect information, has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding politics.
But it has also generated a deep puzzle.
The theorem suggests that political parties should moderate their positions in two-party systems.
Yet, in the American case at least, the positions of parties and candidates periodically polarize (Fiorina 1974; Ansolabehere, Snyder and Stewart 2001, Alesina and Rosenthal 1995, Poole and Rosenthal 1997).
Why do parties and candidates demonstrate regular, though variable, ideological divergence when, under the median voter theorem, there are always strong incentives to converge?….
The Democrats and the Republicans
The brand of the Democratic party signals a liberal program; that of the Republican, a conservative one.
To the extent that this is so, then a voter in Downsian space presented with party-denominated candidates receives two policy-related signals – the issue positions of the candidates and the brand names of the parties.
Typically, the two signals are concordant.
Candidates for different offices, at different times, and in different regions take varying positions on the ideological spectrum, but the Democrat is regularly to the left of the Republican.
But what if the signal is discordant and the Democrat is to the right of the Republican?
In atypical situations like this we anticipate that the distinctive consequences of the policy-based reputational roots of party loyalty come to the fore.
More specifically, when the positions of the candidates are roughly in concordance with expectations, more and less sophisticated respondents alike have reason to rely on party reputations rather than pure spatial reasoning.
But if candidates take positions that diminish the credibility of the signal sent by their party label, then the more politically sophisticated respondents are more likely to recognize when party labels don’t fit the candidates’ positions.
Their own attitudes are more crystallized and accessible and their positions on policies are more coherently organized (e.g, Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992). Thus, our expectation is that in cases where candidate and party signals are in discord, more sophisticated respondents will tend to attach less weight to partisan labels and more weight to the issue positions of candidates in their decisions.
They will approximate true Downsians in this unusual circumstance. Conversely, the less politically sophisticated respondents will be more likely to continue to rely on their partisan loyalties for guidance, loyalties that approximate the affective and instinctive ones described in the American Voter.
In sum, both behavioral research on partisan attachments and formal research on party reputations direct our attention to basic questions about how voters make choices that undergird models of strategic choices by candidates. …
The more general point, however, is that the dynamics of electoral competition may well prevent us from using election surveys to explore the roots of voter choice.
The second problem caused by our dependence on real world election surveys is that we cannot reliably know where individual respondents stand relative to candidates. Scholars interested in the ability of voters to make decisions based on policy considerations have long recognized a problem of endogeneity. When voters are the source of estimates of both their positions on issues and those of the candidates, it is not possible with the standard surveys to determine if one is also the source of the other, and if so, which is cause, and which effect….