I think the point is that J, Q, and X could all be candidates somewhere on the left, for example, while most people who hear the term “centrist” would assume otherwise.
But in that case the example probably would be a Democratic primary, and within the Democratic party Q would be a centrist. The meaning is also context-sensitive.
This is exactly what I was heading off with
It doesn’t matter that you think the word works that way if your audience considers it differently. They use their interpretation of the word, not yours.
“Centrism” is an aspect of a pervasive conceptual illusion of “leftism” versus “rightism” which has long been touted by a corporate pirate regime. The true contest has always been between social pirate regimes and the common people (the demotic population).
The electoral two-party/few-party lock-in effect, in conjunction with “leftism”/“rightism” ideation, has been an aspect of a divide-and-conquer strategy of the corporate social pirates. Therefore I refrain from using certain emotionally loaded terms such as “centrism” in the typical political sense.
Yep. If it’s a Marxist Party internal election, there aren’t any centrists.
Also it’s the “center” relative to the candidates, not relative to the voters.
Alright, fine, I stand corrected on “centrist” – but “center” squeeze still applies because if you can define an N-dimensional issue space, you can define a “center”, and which candidate(s) is/are closest to that center.
Any finite plane (2-dimensional entity) may have members “m” (points) on the plane (Pm), and others not on it (!Pm). Also there will exist one central member on it (Pc).
Any finite line (1-dimensional entity) may have members “m” (points) on the line (Lm), and others not on it (!Lm). Also there will exist one central member on it (Lc).
Any Attribute (0-dimensional entity) may have members “m” of it (Am), and others not of it (!Am). But there will exist no central member, only (Am) and (!Am). There does not exist any (Ac). (The “excluded middle” concept applies here.)
We may claim that Winston cigarettes are (relatively) Mild (Mw), and Camel cigarettes are not (relatively) mild (!Mc). However, this whole argument raises a category error because cigarettes are not really about flavor – rather, they are about the addictive chemical nicotine.
Analogously, politics is not ultimately about political ideology – rather, it is about the addictive social phenomenon of power, and whom may be the true beneficiaries of the exertion of that power.
Meditations on questions of “left,” “right,” and “center” are analogous to questions about the virtues of Winstons and Camels. Therefor I say it is better to contemplate power and its true beneficiaries, rather than ideologies.
Generally politicians are either with the common people or with the corporate pirates, not somehow in some middle.
We really need to have a thread about what, actually, to do about the coming “IRV”/“RCV” fests (to be dominated by corporate pirates for sure), such as the one in about two weeks in Nashville.
Yes, but center-squeeze is relative to candidates,
not voters, nor on an absolute scale. Blue and Green get squeezed out under Plurality and IRV, but the candidates are not near the center, and the voters are not near the center, either.
I guess simpler version is better:
And this ambiguity of the word “center” is a key point in FairVote’s excuses for not meeting the Condorcet criterion:
Condorcet winners are centrist by nature, regardless of the preferences of the electorate. … So choosing the centrist candidate every time is just falling into the fallacy of the middle ground.
But Condorcet and utilitarian systems are trying to find the best representative of the electorate, the closest to the ideological center of the voters. Not the “center” on an absolute scale or relative to the set of candidates.
Actually wait, that comment is misleading. The center-squeeze effect only happens when the voters shift to the left and are centered nearest the green candidate. Otherwise blue just wins outright. The bars are showing many elections not just one.
There are many centers, a center relative to all Americans, a center relative to voters (because only about 50% of people voted in the 2016 election), a center relative to candidates in an election (which is what voting theorists often refer to when saying that a voting method has a pro/anti centrist bias).
And then there is also what most people mean when they use the word centrist: the center relative to the political atmosphere in Washington DC, which is very skewed. Congress’s approval rating peaks at 20% even right after an election (!!!), and when it comes to economic issues that effect people in power the center relative to DC is definitely to the right of the center relative to all Americans.
Utilitarian voting methods tend to elect centrists relative to the electorate, not centrist relative to DC. The reason why a lot of voters despise “centrists”, is because they don’t like centrism relative to DC (who’s approval rating max’s out at 20%!!!).
How about an analogy: There is a well defined geographic center of the United States mainland. There is also a well defined geographic center of the state of California. The geographic center of CA is nowhere near the center of the US mainland, yet the word “center” still applies.