tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post562932769242632604..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": Spoilers: A DefenseLester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-17235220669604940612008-06-05T09:49:00.000-05:002008-06-05T09:49:00.000-05:00I'm not sure about the expert part but you are rig...I'm not sure about the expert part but you are right about the point I was trying to make. The US Civil War is a good counterpoint to what I was saying. I am not sure if the USCW was the result of the failure of federalism or the failure of one side to respect the rules of federalism. Though, federalism in its purest form (and we know what to think about purity) would allow for secession, or at least nullification. My inclination is that if certain regions or groups are given enough autonomy they will not have a reason to secede. But then if that's the case, why have union if that much autonomy is granted? Moreover, if someone is "granting" the autonomy then that same entity has the power to take it away eventually, thus revealing the autonomy as a fiction. For federalism to live up to the billing secession must be part of it. But, can secession be preserved legally/constitutionally since by seceding you are breaking away from that law, thus it wouldn't be binding? Or would it?<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Kyle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-51532721200813551042008-06-05T08:38:00.000-05:002008-06-05T08:38:00.000-05:00Kyle,"Break up can be subverted if a multi-party/f...Kyle,<BR/><BR/>"Break up can be subverted if a multi-party/federalist system is in place."<BR/><BR/>Well, you're the expert, but I would think that the relevance of federalism depends on the type of federalism you have. Before the civil war, we had a federalist system (central government with state sovereignty) and it was the main reason the south seceded (or tried to). <BR/><BR/>As a general rule, though, I would agree that decentralization can make secession unnecessary or unattractive, which is probably your point.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-43462828001692494082008-06-02T14:32:00.000-05:002008-06-02T14:32:00.000-05:00Break up can be subverted if a multi-party/federal...Break up can be subverted if a multi-party/federalist system is in place. Though, this matters only if you are opposed to secession. Good comments on secession appear in Kit Wellman's new book.<BR/><BR/>I think the terms spoiler and electable prevent true change as anyone is electable once they are elected, and the only way to know for sure if someone is electable is after the fact. Sure there are traits that indicate whether someone might win, but the political science research indicates that the factors that determine the winner has more to do with external factors (war, economy) and party identification than anything specific about the candidate. Though this research may not apply to the current election given that the Dem. nominee will not be a white male. <BR/>Voters can make anyone electable, and thus a viable candidate, by voting for him/her.<BR/>Thanks for another interesting post.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Kyle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-63794932033683093472008-05-31T13:27:00.000-05:002008-05-31T13:27:00.000-05:00Anon, I love it when countries break up. I haven...Anon, I love it when countries break up. I haven't researched this thoroughly, but my impression is that breakups, when the are permitted to happen, are good for the people within the states that break up. On the other hand, <I>resistance</I> to breakups seems to be the largest single cause of civil wars, which as everybody knows are the most destructive, deadly, and merciless wars there are. So, thanks. You've given me hope.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-58312101379201843072008-05-31T12:20:00.000-05:002008-05-31T12:20:00.000-05:00The less homogenous our country becomes - and the ...The less homogenous our country becomes - and the demographic trends suggest it is going to become exponentially less homogenous in the coming decades - the less likely it will be that two parties can satisfy people. Our winner-takes-all system means, I believe, that there can only realistically ever be two viable parties (one of the two parties will change to absorb third-party voters whenever a third party makes headway). So instead of having a situation like, say, Iceland with a very homogenous population that will differ basically only along a couple lines of thought, we will have a situation with sharp divisions along racial lines, religious lines, cultural lines, and ideological lines - yet have a system really only designed for two parties. To me this sounds like a recipe for louder, angrier, more partisan politics in the years to come. And to look even further into the future, I see a breakup of the country a la Yugoslavia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-4143044381305465342008-05-30T11:54:00.000-05:002008-05-30T11:54:00.000-05:00Yes, right. Gotcha.Yes, right. Gotcha."Q" the Enchanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01246928390589072951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-75686994217441977212008-05-30T11:30:00.000-05:002008-05-30T11:30:00.000-05:00"q," Yes, exactly. Because my argument applies to..."q," Yes, exactly. Because my argument applies to more-socialism voters too. The best you can do here is give parties <I>a</I> reason to do something. If they then do it, someone else may as a result give them a reason to do the opposite. There is no guarantee your reason will be the strongest.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-91712241649876729912008-05-30T10:53:00.000-05:002008-05-30T10:53:00.000-05:00The soundness of this argument really depends on w...The soundness of this argument really depends on whether it's possible to carve up the coalition space in the desired way. The "less socialism" strategy might be zero-sum (or worse) for a Democratic candiate, for example, since it's just as likely to encourage leftier Dems to vote for a more socialist 3d-party spoiler the next time around."Q" the Enchanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01246928390589072951noreply@blogger.com