The question is why there seems to be a > political duopoly in most countries. I think that may be due to the > bell-shaped curve of political views. If most voters are near the median, > we can expect a couple of large parties to split that vote. > > Fred Foldvary > > ===== > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Let's see. In the United States, opinions polls show: 1. Most voters want less immigration. 2. Most voters want prayer in public schools. 3. Most voters support restricting abortion to rape, incest, and imminent danger to the mother's life. 4. Most voters think no one should pay more than 25% of his income in federal income taxes. 5. Most voters want a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. 6. Most voters want congressional term limits. 7. Most voters want less money spent on foreign aid (even if they don't know how much money is currently being spent). 8. Most voters oppose race-based affirmative action laws. 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? The only answer that comes to mind is that some special interests opposed to the majority of voters wield enough influence to generally keep these questions off the table. Is there some way the market for votes could be made more competitive? Also, how much capital does it take to launch a serious third party challenge to an entrenched duopoly? ~Alypius Skinner
