What is "Consensus Politics"?
913332
When the supposed poles of the parties are aligned  in enough agreement as to pass some bill palatable to both sides. This is the time to guard your wallet, mouth & life. McCane / Feingold is a typical example; a consensus bill to limit what you can contribute to a candidate, b/c these consensus polititions just can't help themselves.
248523
It refers to a situation in parliamentary systems where a party wins less than 50% of the vote, but more than half the seats in parliament. That would be something akin to winning the electoral college, but not winning the popular vote.
46474
Want really conservative views? Try Little Green Footballs. Want really liberal views? The Daily Kos might be a little dry for you. Try Metafilter.
1064646
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jim_darwinism/\n\nits been around since may 18\n\n\nthe basic rule is think for yourself,  most of the members do think like i do on a lot of issues but we've had a few disagreements and people have changed my mind on a few political issues
1039607
I'm insanely interested in politics, but I've never aligned myself to one party or the other. The ideology behind politics is amazing to me, but to blindly follow ANYTHING in this world today is asinine to me.
690224
Institutional insincerity and disinterest are results of multiple forces acting upon our political system.\n\nFirst, there is the issue of campaign finance.  Candidates often feel that they need to raise large sums of money in order to win an election and that they must pander to large corporations in order to secure that funding.  Because politicans are addicted to this money, corporations are able to make use of legalized bribery to successfully influence the political process.\n\nCorporate values often conflict with civic values; and when politicans act in the interest of large corporations, rather than their constituents, they are often seen as insincere or disinterested.\n\nThe solution to this problem is full public financing of public elections.  Allow each qualified candidate an equal amount of money to campaign and communicate their message.  Voters have a right to know the candidates and where they stand on the issues--this is an essential part of the infrastructure of our democracy and is at least as important as government-funded printing of the ballots, renting of polling places, or hiring of election judges.  Shouldn't candidates compete based on their ideas--not on who is the best fundraiser, as is often the case today?\n\nChildish cross party sniping is a result of a political system, rooted in parliamentary procedure, which makes use of winner-take-all elections and win/lose solutions.\n\nThe United States is a common law country and former English colony.  Decision making in American government is based upon the parliamentary procedure of the British Parliament.   This is an ancient system that values majority rule--the majority wins and the minority looses.  There are other forms of decision making that are not based on majority rule but rather on the principle of consensus.\n\nConsensus decision making is not the same as unanimity.  In consensus, the goal is to reach a mutually acceptable solution that addresses the concerns of everyone involved.  This does not mean a compromise--while each party may not agree to what they feel is the BEST solution, they attempt to at least agree to one that meet all of their needs.\n\nQuakers are pioneers in using consensus-based decision making, and they've been doing so successfully for a very long time.  The Green Party of the United States is also known for using a consensus decision making process.  Last, many Anarchists use some form of consensus decision making, as most see majority rule as a form of tyranny over the minority.  A consensus decision making process has the potential to reduce childish cross party sniping.\n\nAnother way to attack this problem is to implement proportional representation.  Proportional representation is an alternative to winner-take-all elections, where candidates win election to a whole district, even though they may only have the support of a portion thereof.  For example, a candidate receiving 51% of the vote gets 100% of the district in a single-seat race, even though 49% of the voters don't support that candidate.\n\nIn a system using proportional representation, smaller single-seat districts are combined into larger, multi-seat districts; and candidates are elected in proportion to their fair share of the vote.  If there are four seats, 75% earns you three seats, and 25% earns you one.  This is also sometimes called a system of full representation.\n\nOne last reform to consider is instant runoff voting (IRV).  Most elections in the United States are plurality elections.  A plurality winner is the candidate with the largest number of votes, even if there is no majority winner with greater than 50% of the vote.  The more candidates in the race, the lower the percentage needed to win.  For example, only 34% is needed to win in a three-way race or 26% in a four-way.  This means that it is possible to win an election even if a majority of the voters prefer another candidate, an effect sometimes known as splitting the vote.
879156
Definitively number 3. It is a "consensus".
868989
A centralist is some who sees both the promise and the stupidity of both parties. They don't care much for ideology, they just want things that work.\n\nBTW, use the Check Spelling function. Shortened spelling is OK for text messages, but in the real world, correct spelling and grammar matters.
846812
It means that it's a "poll on conservative values".  Meaning that the outcome of the election will tell us whether the American public is favoring or opposing neo-conservative values.
654643
There is no fixed definition. Sometimes it means what some politician wants it to mean. Here's a few good discussions on the subject.
800443
I was told earlier today that 'War on Terror' is 'political narrative', its an ideal, an abstract concept that gains popular belief in order to justify a political action. It has no bearing on why those actions are being performed at all. Which makes sense for me anyway.
632825
It refers to two groups agree on the same terms.  In the US Congress, if you see bipartisan that means both parties (Democrats and Republicans) are supporting a certain legislation.
889293
In some ways that is a problem.  But in reality ti goes:\n\nI believe in _____________so I must be a ____________.\n\nParties form around a core of beliefs, their platform.  If the members of the party feel that the platform isn't right for them, they change parties.
1023839
Couldn't the same be said about all political parties?
1048160
a subject stydin societies and their politics.
920578
I'm an independent voter and have never belonged to either party - I guess I'm just not a joiner. I've tried to get a handle on liberal vs. conservative labels to see where I stand but there's so much overlap between the two, as well as differences within each label, that I'm not sure these generalizations have any distinct meaning. \n\nDescriptions for liberalism include classical American liberalism, modern American liberalism, and paleoliberalism. Conservatism can be classical, ideological, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, or libertarianism. Some of these labels, on either side of the semantic fence, seem to share pretty much the same beliefs so, outside of the generalizations made by political parties and the media, there's a good deal of commonality. In addition, it seems both Democrats and Republicans, as well as liberals and conservatives all seem to believe in individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law. I have my own issues but neither party nor nor any ideology satisfies me. I guess I'm too particular to let other people do my thinking for me.
622269
Party politics is useful only to divide people against themselves. The lemmings will follow the party line, damn the consequences.