Unfortunatly the Israeli and American electorial systems are completely different and whatever the merits of a "middle way" party in the U.S., the structure of this electorial system will not allow it to happen for two reasons.
First, Israel is a parlementary, multi menber district system and as such, has a lot more flexibility. A prime minister like Sharon can form a new party with like minded members at any time and as long as they can get a majority vote of confedence they can retain power. Also, if needed, he can disolve the Kenesset and call for a new election to gain an additional term in office and time to implement policies. In America, fixed term elections guarentee the government continued power until the next scheduled election takes place. A new party can realistically threaten the power base in a parlementary system by stealing enough votes from the majority to cause the government to fall, something that cannot happen here. Gaining a "middle majority" can only happen here if enough moderates in both parties are willing to give up the advantege of either being in the majority or a strong minority party with prospects of gaining power soon in favor of a party with no fundraising base and no single member districts that have a history of voting for them.
Those single member districts are the second and even larger problem. In multi member districts, a new party can win whatever percentage of seats they earn from the votes counted. The American system is "winner take all" and a situation much like the 1850's when the Whigs disentergrated making room for the Republicans, would have to occur for a new party to emerge. Of course, many including myself have wondered if one party or another might implode the way things are going. IMHO, that's the only way I see a new party emerging, but, except for the 1930's it's more likely to happen now than at any time scince the civil war
Posted by rlp at December 11, 2005 03:55 PMY'all have to see Syriana. Fantastic movie! Clooney does it again! It's important like Farhenheit 9/11, complete with suicide bombers and crooked PNAC'ers. By the way, whatever happened to Michael Moore?
Posted by Mal Feasance at December 11, 2005 05:07 PMdream on.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html
Michael Moore is shooting his next movie.
Posted by pessimist at December 11, 2005 05:58 PMdream on.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.htmlm on.
Yes. Last month, under the username of TravelerDiogenes and with a diary title of "Is the Gang of 14 Party Being Born Before Our Very Eyes?" I floated the idea on dailykos.com that these 14 should band together and form a moderate party. I spelled out several characteristics of how they were actually ACTING as if they were a party at that time. The country would gain from such a move, such as giving moderates and independents in the U.S. a real option, and a real party to belong to (should they wish).
The idea elicited a minimum of interest (6 comments) before the diary was shunted off the front page of kos and into oblivion. The link is at http://travelerdiogenes.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/4/25440/6490
I do think it would be the best chance at an alternative party in many decades - even including the Reform Party of Ross Perot.
So, you have at least one person who agrees on this idea.
Posted by SteveGinIL at December 11, 2005 08:48 PMMichael Moore is working on a movie about the pharmacutical industry. My best friend is in management at Merck and has been told to NOT TALK to Moore under any circumstance. Knowing Michael Moore, the pharmacutical companies are not going to be happy campers when the film is released.
Posted by Judith at December 11, 2005 11:25 PMI just can't see how the gang of 14 is a group from the 'middle.'
Posted by Gail at December 12, 2005 07:27 AM