Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason writers around town

Tim Cavanaugh | 11.1.2004 12:02 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

At the National Post, Matt Welch straddles the national divide.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Will World Get a Shock...

Tim Cavanaugh
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (3)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Jason Ligon   21 years ago

    The degree of public certitude we see these days is not unique in history, and it is a product of the winner takes all electoral system. Such a system means that, inevitably, two coalitions will form.

    It is, to me, a mistake to characterize these coalitions as being defined by opposing ideologies. Rather, these coalitions are formed out of the One Issues that drives each of their members to vote. People may or may not like various aspects of a candidate, but the degree to which they are motivated to actually vote for their guy is the degree to which either A) Their guy is right on their One Issue or B)The other guy is horribly wrong on the same issue.

    Looking to myself, I am a little 'l' libertarian for whom the right of self defence is non negotiable. I abhor Republican proposals like the Marriage Amendment, but if you put me in a situation where the Dems are right on that civil liberty issue but are very wrong on guns, the Dems lose my vote - and I will campaign against them if I feel sufficiently threatened on that issue.

    I seem to recall some local commenters splitting with me on this issue, as they weight the issues differently. By the same reasoning I apply to my own values, I absolutely understand that their votes will almost never go to the Republican.

    So, voting in a winner takes all election is an exercise first in holding one's nose about the unpleasantness contained in one's own coalition and second in backing the coalition, warts and all, to the hilt, for fear of one's Big Issue being compromised.

    The other guy has to be the devil, because the whole coalition is trying to win the election, and they get nothing if their guy doesn't win. Glorious intra-coalition cooperation is what this is.

  2. metalgrid   21 years ago

    Republican's aren't pro-2nd amendment. Just like small government and economic freedom, it's just an afterthought that they play lip service to. I wouldn't discount the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures being revived once the elections are over, no matter who wins. So it's not surprising that crossover groups like the Pink Pistols (pro-2nd amendment and pro-gay rights) end up endoring candidates like Badnarik. After all, Bush was elected in 2000 on a platform that included renewing the assault weapons ban.

  3. Highway   21 years ago

    How much of the 'coalition building' is made possible by the ballot access laws? If anyone could get their name on the ballot, say like the California recall election, with a minimum of effort and money, would some of these coalitions built on an amalgam of One-Issue voters splinter, because they can get the ACTUAL candidate they want on the ballot? Or would it have a minimal effect, since people will still be drawn to a small number of candidates who are deemed to have 'a chance to win' and who are closer than the other guys on their one issue?

    I actually don't think that kind of ballot access would be all that overwhelming nationally. Yes, California had hundreds of people stick their name on, but if it was a recurring thing, the novelty of it would wear off quickly, eliminating, say, 1/2 of those people. Then there would be people who could conceive of being governor, but not US President, reducing the list more. Also, the cost of getting on a significant number of ballots in different states would add up fast, meaning that the frivolous ones wouldn't spread to every state.

    Any opinions?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

A Broad Ruling Against Trump's Immigration Policies Illustrates Alternatives to Universal Injunctions

Jacob Sullum | 7.3.2025 4:40 PM

Environmental Regulations Are Literally Baking Europeans to Death

Jack Nicastro | 7.3.2025 3:38 PM

Federal Prison Guards Allegedly Beat an Inmate to a Pulp. The Supreme Court Says He Can't Sue.

Billy Binion | 7.3.2025 2:48 PM

Jurassic World Rebirth Chases Summer Movie Nostalgia

Peter Suderman | 7.3.2025 1:40 PM

The $4 Trillion 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Breaks the Bank and Violates Congress' Own Budget Rules

Veronique de Rugy | 7.3.2025 11:25 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!