--- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > we can expect a couple of large parties to split that vote. > > Fred Foldvary > > Polls show these positions are supported by large, not slim, > majorities--landslide majorities. So why don't the two established > parties seek to split the vote of the great majority on these issues--in other words, why aren't they competing for the median voter on the basis of the median voter's political opinions?<
I'm with you on that. There was a discussion here earlier on median voter versus special interests. My belief was and is that special interests have much clout, and override the median voters in such issues as you mentioned. That is partly because voters must select candidates on a package of issues. On such issues, the special interests can have clout, whereas the median voter is influential mainly in the most visible or basic issues. It does also show why the two political parties are close together on the most basic issues. > Is there some > way the market for votes could be made more competitive? Yes, see my paper on "Recalculating consent": http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/foldvary.htm Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
