The Democrats and the Republicans are about to lose badly to the Internet

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 11, 2004 | Everett Ehrlich

[bcoffey]

Dean's candidacy poses this paradox: For all his talk about wanting to represent the truly Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, Dean is essentially a third-party candidate using Internet technology to achieve a takeover of the Democratic Party.

While I disagree with the article's conclusions, the statement above rings very true.

[WOSG]

A wonderful *misapplication* of Coase's theorem.

Winning a campaign takes organization.

The correct point to make is that organizing with the internet is lower-cost than before. HOWEVER, there is the same relative cost of organizing for one political campaign versus over a longer period.

The misapplication of Coase's theorem is that it is about the market versus internal organization, not between forms of internal organization. The observation that informational organizational "costs" have declined with the internet doesnt say much about the role of parties versus other organizations. With one exception ...

Here is the great insight that is missing from this article, but FREEPERS TAKE HEART:

Just because you can build an organization quickly doesnt make that more efficient than longer-term organizations. What happens after the election? And the next election? And the next? The fact is, our political interests *continue* across election cycles. THAT is the reason for Political Parties, not the organization needed for one race, but the continuous organization needed for several.

Why should FREEPERS TAKE HEART? Because, contrary to the authors point, it is not the Dean campaign that is the interesting story here at all. That's just another variation on the ol 'grassroots campaign', using internet instead of phone trees or walk lists. The interesting story is that non-political party groupings can be more effective now in an internet 'virtual team' world.

The principles of how to organize effectively still hold. See my tagline!! Being 3rd party is a waste because of election dynamics which gives a 'winner-take-all' to the party that can create a 51% coalition. But as conservatives, we dont have to just be 'bots for the GOP. We can influence the GOP politicians to be more conservative, using our independent conservative activist organizations to mobilize support for issues.

So the final lesson is that parties still do matter, but that 'virtual organizations' have greater utility and precedence.

[WOSG]

"Third parties aren't likely to be any more successful now than they have been for the last hundred years. "

Agreed. This has to do with voting dynamics. The internet age changes the informational patterns, not the dynamics of elections.

[dvwjr]

Exactly. We have a winner take all system. This drives people to form coalitions that result in 51% majorities, which make them the winner. Parliamentary systems that reward proportional representation allow for lots of third parties. That's why Israel, Germany, Italy and the rest all have them and we don't. Our system is deeply ingrained and hard to change (notice how far Hillary! got on the elimination of the Electoral College). Therefore I think we'll see two parties for the foreseeable future. The Internet may help people take over one of them, as Dean has tried to, but soon everyone will use that equally and it will be just another factor.

Excellent analysis. The Internet will not result in the demise of the two large National Parties, even though they may die and be replaced as has happened in the past to the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans and the Whigs. One of the best defenses of the Electoral College which backs your analysis was a US Senate Minority view of the subject of the Direct Popular Election of the President United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary August 14, 1970. This was after all the populist hoo-raa after the three party electoral college race of 1968 between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace. This was the last election in which a third-party (American Independent) made and electoral college impact and just went away, just as happened in 1948 with Strom Thurmond States Rights party, and in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive (Bull Moose) party came in second to the Democrat Wilson and shoved the Republican Party to its only third place popular and electoral finish in history.

Third parties either pop-up to no electoral effect, have their message/cause absorbed by one of the two National Parties or become one of the two National Parties. Thank the Founders for unintentionally keeping us away from the silly factionalism of most of the parliamentary systems.

dvwjr

[Gorjus]

Forgive me for a somewhat dated response, but I didn't have time to absorb the article before now.

The problem with 3rd Parties in this country is ego. If they can't elect a President, they don't want to play at all. And the Electoral College makes it virtually impossible for a third party to win. But . . .

There are two major options that could lead to a significant 3rd party. First and most obvious is if the Elector votes were proportional. A third party that could get 1/3 of the popular votes in ALL of the states (red and blue) might become a power if that carried with it 1/3 of the Elector votes (recognizing that would mean the election was determined in the House of Representatives). Clinton won with not much more than 1/3 of the popular vote, but that was enough to squeeze Perot out completely in the Elector votes. It should be noted that this doesn't even require a Constitutional amendment. It is up to the various State Legislatures to determine how Electors should be constrained on voting. For the record, I really don't think this will happen. It dilutes the power of the States as States, so the little States won't want to do it, and the big States certainly won't do it first, no matter how much they'd like to have the little States do it.

But there is a more important option, and it can be strongly influenced by the internet. Any serious third party should start at the House of Representatives level. They can target specific districts - maybe a lot of them, but they can be treated as small, quantum 'bites' instead of eating the whole elephant at once. They could use the internet as described to get their message out despite the duopoly obstruction. And if a third party could get as few as ten seats in the House, they would become a major power broker. (Assuming they were not so 'extreme' that their vote could be taken for granted by one or the other main parties.) Once a third party gained national visibility through their power-broker role in Congress, they could move UP the chain rather than starting with "President or Nothing" because those that try that do indeed get nothing.

[Jack Black]

Good idea. The Green Party seems like the only party that might be able to pull off your strategy. The Libertarian party seems unable to tie it's shoes.

[Bluntpoint]

How do I, Joe Six Pack, get on this "Internet?"

[Gorjus]

The Green Party seems like the only party that might be able to pull off your strategy. The Libertarian party seems unable to tie it's shoes.

I think the Green Party is over, at least for a few cycles. They were spoilers in the last election, and while the froth-at-the-mouth fringe will still want them, too many of their supporters will see that their votes led to Bush in the White House instead of Gore, and they'll go back to the Dems.

The Libertarians have made themselves fringe with their obsessive focus on legalizing drugs. Frankly, I think they're right on that, but they have become such a single-issue party that they have no credibility with any moderates. After all, if Ann Coulter is unacceptable to them because she refused to actively campaign on the 'legalize drugs' plank (though she would have been willing to keep silent on the issue), then they've lost their vision.

I wouldn't mind a less-fanatic Libertarian party - one that wanted to work toward smaller government, but did not fall on their swords if they couldn't have it all at once. Unfortunately, if such a party arose, it couldn't even use the name anymore. I made a few (rather lengthy) posts on another thread about where the parties really line up, if you're interested.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1059410/posts?page=34#34

Also posts numbered 9, 39, and 47.

[autoresponder]

click picture for music

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[MeekOneGOP]