NewsAndAnalysis.org

Asking "Who in '08?" is premature; First ask "What in '08?"

19 July 2006

George Washington's warning in his farewell address against the formation of political parties went unheeded, in part, because people desire an organizing principle to help define their views.  They desire something lasting and tangible to grasp.  Individual candidates come and go, but parties remain for decades.  So, a system was devised in which parties were formed from competing ideologies and candidates were selected as representatives of those ideologies.  Today, the political ideologies of the two major parties are becoming less clear, so seeking candidates to represent those ideologies is premature.

For some political issues, we can arguably claim that the parties are fracturing.  Some pundits even claim that "America may be ready for a new political party."

Democrats are heavily divided over Iraq, with Leiberman and Clinton (Hillary) somewhat in one corner and Kerry and Murtha in another.  Some Democrats have become Republicans and vice versa.  Leiberman has promised to run as an independent ("petitioning Democrat") if he loses his upcoming Democratic primary, which is possible because Leiberman is a Democrat who largely supports the Republican-inspired invasion of Iraq.

The Republican party appears more fractured by the day as issues such as immigration, intelligence, and the war in Iraq divide its ranks.  Further, the brewing storm on the horizon for Republicans surrounds fiscal policy.  Although high tax revenues recently bought the Republicans time by lowering the deficit, the slowing economy will not likely continue to be as accommodating to an arguably spendthrift Republican congress.  High government spending is anathema to one of the defining traits of many, if not most, Republicans: fiscal conservatism.

Options amid political confusion

Two approaches exist for deciding a party's political platform.   The first approach is to let the people tell the party what issues are most important so that the party can search for a candidate that best represents that ideology.  The second approach is to search for a "cult of personality" who can attract the masses by appeal rather than substance.  "Flip-flopping" among politicians is an indication that they have no clear ideology to follow and are trying to grope for positions that resonate with voters.  Today's premature search for "who" falls prey to this second approach.  The parties may find a candidate that can carry them through an election by temporarily appealing to the extremes, but it will not solve their fundamental problem of finding a unifying ideology and appealing to the less-vocal majority.

Citizen groups have emerged that recognize these issues and seek a way ahead.  For example, Unity 08 argues that "neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money."  Its approach to solving the problem is to elect a split "unity" ticket, wherein both political parties are represented.

In addition to a split ticket being unrealistic, the problem is more fundamental than the mere need for better cooperation among the existing parties.  The center of gravity of American politics has shifted.  Yet, it remains unclear how it has shifted.  To better understand this shift, there exists a need to determine two things about the American voter:

As the data from such a survey is examined, clusters of people with common ideologies will emerge that will illuminate the desired makeup of today's party platforms.  More than two platforms may emerge.

A way ahead

Traditional polling analysis (yes, I'm talking about math) examines each issue as though it were largely independent of other issues.  Occasionally, a few issues are examined together (notional example: 43% of voters who prefer skim milk to whole milk also prefer sharp over mild cheddar), but their type of math (statistics) is inherently limited in its ability to examine many issues at once.  Political platforms consist of many issues (e.g., abortion, homeland security, immigration, etc.) and therefore, cannot be properly surveyed using traditional analysis.  A new approach is needed.

We offer a survey that seeks the answer to these questions (vote here).  It uses a type of polling analysis (yes, again I'm talking about math) that is not used by traditional pollsters.  The approach goes beyond the inherent bounds of issue-by-issue statistical analysis and examines all issues comprehensively - a political platform - using fuzzy set theory.  Using this approach, which we call Ideology Clustering, the issue-by-issue answers for each participant will be aggregated together into a single ideology that represents that voter.  Each voter's ideology will then be compared to the ideologies of all other voters.  Those ideologies that are most common will define the political platforms.  Trust me, the survey is easier to swallow than this explanation.

We encourage you to take our 14-issue survey so that we can help determine where American voters currently stand across a spectrum of issues that make-up a likely political platform.  Perhaps then, you can help influence the direction of your party, rather than letting the vocal minority do it for you.

Vote Here