5 ms·
Amazing predictions, IMHO, except for the last one: The study also predicted a much greater diversity in the American political power structure. ''Videotex mig
by msluyter 15y ago
Amazing predictions, IMHO, except for the last one:
The study also predicted a much greater diversity in the American political power structure. ''Videotex might mean the end of the two party system, as networks of voters band together to support a variety of slates - maybe hundreds of them,'' it said.
Am I alone in thinking that it we're more polarized and entrenched in our two party system than ever, with internet aided confirmation bias being one of the primary causes? (I.e., political "filter bubbles.")
- marshray 15y agoI've heard other people thinking that. If it makes you feel any better, I don't really agree with you. :-)
- MichaelApproved 15y agoLook at what the internet did for Ron Paul. More people make individual small donations to candidates online. The more this grows, the less each candidate will rely on a formal party to get them elected. Hopefully this will allow them to splinter off into smaller political parties.
- philwelch 15y agoRon Paul got less than 1% of the vote.
- iamdave 15y agoThat's still a large number of people, and his name still reached critical acclaim during the primaries. The projection made wasn't about resulting presidential elections, it was about a permeating balkanization of political lines.
- philwelch 15y agoThere were fringe candidates before the Internet, too. Many of them were more successful than Ron Paul.
- a3camero 15y agoMay I suggest: Ross Perot @ 19%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaig... Ralph Nader @ 3%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campai...
- philwelch 15y agoJohn Anderson, 7%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson#1980_Presidential_campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson#1980_President... George Wallace, 14% and 46 electoral votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_campaign,_1968#General_election_results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_cam... Eugene V. Debs, 3% three times and 6% once: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
- InclinedPlane 15y agoKeep in mind we're operating on a very small sample size (a few years where the internet has been a major component of news, communication, and debate). As such it's probably too simplistic to label every political development of the last 15 years as due solely to the rise of the internet, rather than to the development of political trends with entirely different roots and causes.
- nl 15y agoGive it time. Obama gained the democratic nomination due in huge part to networks of voters band[ing] together Am I alone in thinking that it we're more polarized and entrenched in our two party system than ever, with internet aided confirmation bias being one of the primary causes? (I.e., political "filter bubbles.") Confirmation bias is a problem, but the two-party system isn't the same as it used to be. Some would argue that the Tea Party is almost a third party, that the Republican party has attempted to swallow.