About The Dividist

Dividists Unite

Dear Reader,
In this blog I presume to tell you how to vote. Consequently, you have a right to know where I stand. Politically, I describe myself as a social liberal, fiscal conservative, civil libertarian, independent dividist, discordian provocateur, and a bad golfer. That last bit is not particularly political, but it does seem to be a core part of my being. I thought you should know.

Dividist according to Political Compass
The Dividist according to Political Compass 
This image is extracted from my Political Compass test result. The site positions you politically along a two dimensional axis. They peg me as a centrist with right leaning libertarian tendencies.  My Nolan Chart from The World's Smallest Political Quiz pegs me as a bit more leftist, not far from the center, but still showing libertarian tendencies.

Dividist Nolan Chart
The Dividist according to World's Smallest Political Test 
I like to think of this positioning as "libertarianish". I also have a bit of an anarchist streak, particularly on social issues.
"Man is not free unless government is limited." - Ronald Reagan (Republican) 
"Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa." - Mikhail Bakunin (Anarchist)
I agree with the sentiment and philosophy articulated by Ronald Reagan in that quote, disagree with many of the policies and deficits that emerged from the Reagan administration, and am amused by the similarity of his quote to the Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin.

Although I voted for Reagan, I am usually registered as a Democrat (In EssEff local politics, the only game in town) but that will vary depending on the latest demands of the dividist voting heuristic. I guess that also classifies me as a 'Reagan Democrat'.

I started this blog 16 years ago to advocate a straight Democratic vote in the 2006 midterms and end One Party Republican Rule. For the 2008 election I called myself a 'Hagel Republican'  in the primaries, but voted for McCain in the general hoping to avoid One Party Democratic Rule. Fat lot of good that did. In the 2010 midterms I voted straight Republican to end One Party Democratic Rule. Winning!  In 2012 I voted to reelect Barack Obama to avoid the possibility that Romney could win with a coat-tail sufficient to flip the Senate and restore One Party Republican Rule. For the 2014 midterms I again advocated a straight Republican vote to ensure our government stays happily divided. In 2016, with the Republicans a virtual lock to retain the House majority and their surprising strength in regaining the Senate majority, the Dividist vote was to elect a Democratic President. That didn't turn out too well. When Republicans reclaimed Unified One Party Republican Rule we came full circle. Flipping the House of Representative majority was the best chance to restore divided government in 2018 and American voters delivered and emphatically restored divided government. In the 2020 election we went back to one party rule, this time for the Democrats. That said, it arguable whether the resulting 50/50 Senate with a VP Kamala Harris tie-breaker was truly "Unified One Party Democratic" rule. Not that we had a choice, but we considered Senator Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema as sufficiently moderate to maintain some semblance of divided government restraint in our Federal Government. In the 2022 midterms divided government was restored with a razor thin GOP majority in the House, although the anticipated "Red Wave" turned into a "Red Trickle" due to the preponderance of Trumplican clown candidates infecting the GOP. On to 2024. 

The divided government argument summarized:

If you agree that...
Federal government should be limited in scope, provide for common defense, protect and respect individual rights, spend and tax in a fiscally responsible manner, provide effective oversight of elected and appointed representatives, legislate carefully and slowly, enter into armed conflict only when absolutely necessary, and pass only laws tempered in the fire of partisan debate.
And you understand that...
Both major political parties and candidates pay lip service to these goals, but there is no empirical evidence that either Republicans or Democrats can be relied on to consistently move our government toward these objectives.
And you recognize that...
Historically, voting for a 3rd party like the Libertarians also does nothing to move the country toward these objectives.
Then you should know this...
There is a way to vote that is documented to move the country toward these objectives (or at least slow down our movement away from these objectives). These objectives can be accomplished at the ballot box. Not by voting exclusively Republican, Democratic or 3rd party, but by voting consistently for divided government.
On this blog we advocate a specific voting heuristic that can be implemented by a relatively small percentage of the electorate, perhaps as little as 5%.   The target readership are voters who are willing to cast their ballot based on a rational evidence-based voting strategy that will result in better federal government.

The strategy requires that the voter be capable of casting their vote without consideration of party loyalty or political ideology. The voter must even be willing and able to vote for candidates they dislike, based on accomplishing a greater goal of more fiscal responsibility, stronger oversight, less spending, more deliberately considered and carefully crafted compromise legislation and better governance.

This blog is for those potential voters.  Since this criteria excludes over 80% of the American voting public who are rabid partisans or claim to be Independent but actually vote like rabid partisans, the odds are that you, the reader, are part of that 80%, and this blog is not for you. That's okay. Feel free to hang around and take a look. Some of my best friends are rabid partisans. Enjoy, but please - just understand  - this blog is not for you.  I already know how you will vote at the federal level, so you are kind of a waste of time. Thank you for your consideration.


MW reading Mayhews Divided We Govern

Mike Wallach
AKA - The Dividist

Dividist on Facebook:

The Dividist | Promote Your Page Too

Dividist on Twitter:


Anonymous said...

Misquoting 'united we stand, divided we fall' to read instead divided we stand, united we fall is extremely disingenuous.

Dividist said...

Nonsense. The definition of disingenuous:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

I am being candid and completely sincere with that title for this blog. It is a succinct and accurate description of my political philosophy and how I vote as explained in detail here.

Moreover, although he was making a different but complementary point about religious freedom, the phrase itself is a 100% accurate quote from Thomas Jefferson, which you can see written in his own hand linked here.

Thank you for your comment.