Arlen Specter to switch parties - Page 2

Yeah, because it's totally about the arbitrary "picking" of parties. You sure have the rest of us figured out.

Yeah no.

Ill put it this way:

yt, for instance, loves what the Democrats are in the process of doing right now. On topics such as the economy, healthcare, national security, etc she thinks they are the bees knees. Sometimes I see the merit in her arguments and to a certain extent I agree with her on a few things, but in general I dont like what the Democrats are doing right now.

Snaieke, on the other hand, loves what the Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years and what they are in the process of doing right now. On topics such as the economy, healthcare, national security, etc, he thinks they are the bees knees. In general, I disagree with him.

I respect both of their opinions. If you search out my posts youll never see me call someone "wrong" (unless they state something that is just factually incorrect and can be proven as such). I realize that all of us are trying to get the country from point A to point B but we have different ideas as far as the route to take.

Now, I would like you to explain to me (and try not to use big words as Im only trying to sound smarter than everybody else) why should I have any reservations whatsoever about looking at 95% of those who are currently in charge and expressing my distaste of them? If I do not like the job they are doing, why should I be compelled to state otherwise?

If you could make sense of that for me I would appreciate it, because Im going over and over this and Im at a loss.

Let me try to summarize this from a non-american point of view:

The USA has a 2-party-system, yet calls itself a democracy because in theory, it might have more parties... only that the system works/is rigged in a way that makes it hard enough to have 2 parties share the pie.
Now, over the last years, partially thanks to a media eager to pitch it as a sort of gladiatorial battle, the 2 parties became something like, I dont know, feuding soccer teams in Britain, where the fans of each hate the other, are MEANT to hate the other, and will never consider the other side as anything but enemies. The number of undecided/independant voters on both sides are dwindling as it seems american politics has become a game of "are you a democrat or a republican?".

Now, I dont mean to be offensive. I read this forum every other day or so, and I see a lot of discerning individuals, mostly capable of a good discussion and mutual respect across party lines. Unfortunately, the moment they vote "R" or "D", that all goes down the drain, as the system you guys vote for has no place for shades of grey. At least it makes you believe that.

The problem in such a system starts, and it has started, when one party starts towing their party line with all hands on deck. At that point, the other party either follows suit, and all discourse, all differences and any third point of view go down the drain, or they dont , and split up their votes on issues while the big steamroller of lockstep voters/representatives wins, every time.

Its not really a matter of R or D. Its whoever starts that practice first basically redefines the rules, out of necessity.

Guys like this Specter are the HOPE of your system to ever become something other than a coin toss again. You know what I find really galling? That so many people, some on these boards actually, already use terms like "traitor" or "turncoat" when a guy, for whatever reason, leaves his party.
You are already entrenched in this "we against them" mindset to the point where there cant be a normal reason to leave one group and move to the next, because its all about where you belong, and whose line you follow.

America really, really needs a third party. But barring that, I believe a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats is the closest thing to a working government you guys can have for now.

As history shows, and if anything it has gotten worse, the republican party is going to block, filibuster, delay and poison almost anything that irks them the wrong way, or scores major points for the democrats. This is something that is NOT the same on both sides.
For the all the talk about "politicans are the same" etc., the past really tells us that the two parties dont act alike at all when it comes to being the opposition. And frankly, to me it seems that nowadays, a lot of the republican powerhouses are more about "winning the game" against the democrats, than doing their fucking job.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with feeling that way, but that's not what you said. You said:

"That is correct. Aside from a letter next to their name, I don't see a difference between a Republican and a Democrat. They're both self-serving politicians."

So which is it? There's no difference, or there's huge differences that make yt like one, and Snaieke like the other? Maybe you worded your first statement poorly and this one better explains your thought process. If so, then fine, but not liking either party is a very, very different thing that saying there isn't a difference.

In retrospect it seems as I worded my first phrase poorly.

My apologies for the confusion.

The only way a third party can become viable in America is if it survives party realignment after a presidential election.

EX:

1992 Presidential Election:
GHW Bush - 39 m
Clinton - 45 m
Perot - 20 m

1996 Presidential Election:
Clinton - 47 m
Dole - 39 m
Perot - 8 m

Why did this happen?

Party realignment. Because the Republican and Democratic Parties are so powerful and their members control the three branches of government along with creating election laws, third parties have to jump through a series of unattainable hoops to gain traction within the American people. Also, the parties are so pervasive in the American fabric that they attempt to cater to the voters of the previous third party candidate. The 1994 Contract for America was created partially on the ideas pushed forth by Ross Perot. The Contract gained the popularity of Perot voters, which in turn pushed out Congressional Democrats. Those Perot voters either did not vote, voted for Clinton, or voted for Dole.

What America needs are the creation of election laws that can help start up third parties. That will not happen as long as this dangerous cycle of party realignment continues.

I'm not convinced Americans actually want a significant third party. I don't.

Why not?

Two things we can do if we want additional parties are to support public financing for all elections (and instant run-off voting) and to support the breakup of the media monopolies. Those are the two greatest factors in the D/R stranglehold. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich got zero mainstream media coverage during their respective campaigns, were largely ignored by the moderators in those few debates in which they were allowed and did not raise the zillions of corporate campaign contributions that the D/R candidates did (nor would they want to since neither has the potential to sell out to corporate interests, which is why they are not allowed in "the club"). I see it as that simple: the need for public financing of elections and the desperate need to break up the media monopolies.

And The Closer, in your reinterpretation of both my argument in this thread and my opinion of "the Democrats," neither comes within sniffing distance of my actual opinions on those two issues, and I think it's completely strange that you're speaking for me in the latter case. I haven't even posted what I think of "the Democrats" beyond that which a Dem majority is capable of doing versus what a Republican majority has done.

For entirely pragmatic reasons. Strategically speaking, it wouldn't work. I vote Democrat, but I have issues with the party. Off the top of my head they're much more conservative than I'd like on abortion, gay marriage, health care, privacy, etc.

Let's say tomorrow someone forms the Pinko Lib party that agrees with everything I believe in and pushes those issues, and they suddenly become national players. What does that get me? It gets me less than I get now. The Pinko Lib party might have power, but there's no way it has the membership of the Democratic Party, and with the formation of the Pinko Lib party the membership of the Democratic Party has presumably also shrank considerably. Now the Republican Party becomes, by default, larger and more powerful. My situation will actually be worse in terms of having a party with power that can push issues I believe in.

That's the way it's going to work, every time. People will form coalitions to benefit themselves. If the choice is to compromise with a more conservative than I'd like Democratic party, or be completely marginalized with a more liberal Pinko Lib party, I choose compromise.

Reforming the electoral college would go some ways to opening up the process to 3rd parties also, but I don't want to veer too off-topic.

Obviously, you cannot form a third party on the fringes in your system. A viable third party would have to be centrist in order to draw sufficient votes from both sides of the spectrum, also allowing democrats to get a bit more liberal. My point was and is, having more than 2 parties allows for the concept of an issue having more than a "right" and a "wrong" answer, and right is whichever party you are in.
This binary understanding of issues hurts the USA a lot, as it seems to have become ingrained in the heads of too many by now.
Terms like "pro-life", "pro-choice" "anti gay marriage" etc. already insinuate its a matter of being for, or against them, with no middle ground and certainly no alternate viewpoints or compromises. Its be with me, or be my enemy. Thats poison for a democracy.

That's only true in the case of, for example, presidential candidates, where it's a "winner take all" system. But if this theoretical Pinko Lib party captured, say, five seats in the Senate, they could wield power by parlaying those crucial votes into concessions from the Democrats. And that's more true than ever right now, when people are overwhelmingly willing to keep a Republican from getting in in many districts. (If the Dems had a minority, then obviously the PLs would have limited power, but imagine if Specter or Lieberman was a PL. They could literally have the entire Senate at their feet.)

It would never happen in our American political system as long as the two parties are as strong as they are. The parties consist of fungible policy systems and are pragmatic with time. If the parties know what works, they will adapt and squeeze the lesser known and lesser funded party out of the way.

As long as the parties remain as strong as they are, they will snuff out the third party movement as if it was a fad. Fads do not stick around by definition.

The only way a third party could exist in today's era would be if the fiscal conservatives left the Republican Party and established a framework that could withstand party realignment and funding issues. Third parties must survive more than one (maybe even two or three) presidential campaigns in order to stay relevant. Once the third party has a cultural framework along with proper fundraising apparatuses, we could see a third party exist outside of the Cult of Personality stage, i.e. Ross Perot and others.

I doubt they'd have the entire Senate at their feet. After all, isn't say Russ Feingold already someone who would be in the Pinko Lib party? He plays ball within the framework of the party, and get concessions on things that are important to him. How is that any different? Plus he doesn't have to deal with multiple challengers.

I don't disagree with you in theory, but I just don't see how in practice something like that will ever happen, or how it's any different than what we have now.

Even then, all that would happen is this third party would turn into the new Republican party as everyone flocked to it to prevent their smaller party from being dominated by the monolithic Democratic party.

I remember playing Risk in junior high with four or five friends. It was a great game... at first. Everyone had their favorite starting territory on the map, and during the army placement phase we'd begin trying to dominate our strategically favorite area. Then, after someone started building up an army in one spot, someone would dump a few armies there to keep them from getting the continent bonus without a fight. Problem was, you'd eventually lose those armies because you were surrounded, so you were essentially weakening yourself just to slow down one other person, and everyone else who didn't block was at an advantage by not having to sacrifice armies.

Once everyone figured that out, the game was essentially ruined because nobody would sacc an army to stop someone from dominating a continent. For all intents and purposes, whomever won the roll to place the first army won the game.

This is that. For a third party to form and gain national significance, one of the two sides has to sacrifice their army and put themselves at a disadvantage. That won't happen.

You're such a class act.

If Specter plans to run as a Dem in 2010, I hope he loses his primary challenge. We don't need more conservative Dems in the Senate who offer worthless support. I'm not saying we need lock-step support but Senators like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson are worthless and pandering. I can at least stomach Senators like Jim Webb who I don't always agree with but he's a man of conscience and has gone to the mat for controversial issues like prison reform.

Ah, the "purity" argument.

Rush Limbaugh is "happy" and wants Specter to take Snowe, McCain and Graham with him ... but I forgot about the Democrats who think Specter is too conservative to join the party.

Supposedly the side-change came with a promise that the party mechanism will support him and not a Democrat challenger.

That sentiment is the beginning of what the Republican Party is going through right now. Once the party becomes powerful, it's majority tries to eliminate the minority and thus... back to where we started.

The lesson that people should learn about Specter and his switch is that moderates within a political party shouldn't be treated like garbage.

There was a deal done with Biden, Rendell, and Specter. The White House will back Specter in the primary.

Obama and Biden are having a press conference with Specter tomorrow. Talk about twisting the knife.

I prefer two large umbrella parties as well, one on the left and one on the right of the political spectrum. Which ever party has the most centrists at any givin time should be able to win the most votes in this country.

I feel sorry for all those countries who coalition governments keeping falling apart because the smaller parties keep bouncing back and forth based on which important government positions they are offered.

I only find 3rd parties useful as source of new political ideas. If any of those ideas gain enough traction with the public, one of the large parties can adopt that idea to win over those voters.

Hardball had an interesting discussion about this Senate race.

It was brought up that Tom Ridge should challenge Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. This would be a fantastic idea. Ridge is well-liked in Pennsylvania and he would create a race that would be fantastic if he took on Specter in the general.

Ridge was a great governor and a great congressman. His popularity and his moderation would certainly pull in independents as well as Obama voting Dems and former Republicans.

I'm a Pennsylvanian and a big fan of both Specter and Ridge. A race between the two would probably cause me to lean towards Ridge, but I think Specter is just a great candidate.

I am from germany and currently live in austria, so I know two countries with multi-party democracies pretty well. What you point out is a logical-sounding theory based upon your experiences in a two-party system and some applied logic.
Happily for us europeans, thats not how it works here. I dont really got time right now, but in case you are interested, I can sketch out quickly how and why this works. However, I will admit that I did not think of the financial aspect well enough.
Since the rules and the system in the USA that regulates this part is different, it is indeed a lot about money, and not that much about votes or ideas.
So yes, in that regard, it probably does not work at this point, when parties can actually boast entire networks to broadcast their message.

I do have to say I am glad to live in countries that do not have 2 umbrella parties

Either way, one aspect of this thing doesnt sit all that well with me: All this theoreticizing about who gains a filibuster-proof majority or not, it really depends on EVERY SINGLE VOTE being cast along the party line.
Now, I heard a lot about especially republicans falling in line etc., but I usually took that for sweeping generalisation in order to make a point.
But well.... do you actually have that situation commonly? Where everyone votes strictly along party lines, and you can render it down to a single vote or two making all the difference?

Maybe I am just dense, but doesnt this give a mad incentive to bribe/lean on/influence/lobby/jeditrick one or two guys from the other side to throw a wrench in the workings of their party? It sounds like its beyond easy to continuosly delay, cockblock and outright stalemate a lot of decisions.

You should change your user name to Port-A-Potty because you're full of shit.

Lobbying for votes by other politicians is more than commonplace in Washington. White House staffers and the President do plenty of lobbying for votes. The return usually comes in intangible agreements such as a stop during the President's campaign to say what's up and vote for Jo Schmo. It's quid pro quo for sure, but it's not as severe because its all intangible political stuff. It's nothing really like Blago and Roland Burris. I could give you a 100 page response on how lobbying by non-lobbying organizations occurs in national politics.

As for single vote differences, we saw that with the President's stimulus package. Without the votes of Specter, Snowe, and Collins, the package would have died.

As for other votes, I can point you to THOMAS, which is the Library of Congress's database. There, you can access hundreds of thousands of bills. If you have any other questions regarding the process, let me know. I used to work in Congress and have a couple of degrees in political science.

Of course it did. Fucking Dems.

I'm assuming Obama's support of Specter comes with a price. Endorsing a right-of-center Dem in a primary who then turns around and doesn't support your political agenda would be broderline idiotic for both people involved. What is the incentive for the Dems to abandon a perfectly good primary candidate like Stesak (sp?) what with their huge margin of registered voters. That is, unless the polling data showed a 3-way race would result in a Repub winning Specter's seat.

Even Lieberman, who I'm no fan of, has been fairly mum since Obama swung for the guy.

My take on the Senate is that the procedures are arcane and often times a single vote doesn't tell the whole picture as to what a senator might actually think on an issue. A senator's actions have to be placed fully into context. Votes are often symbolic and used for political partisan purposes, or sometimes they are the only bargaining chip they have to get something for their state. Since the insider Hardball types have been saying that Rendell and Biden (two people who I like personally if not all their policy ideas) were working on Specter for a while now, I suspect he'll turn out to be pretty good Dem, not a great or terrible one.

Who knows? Maybe Specter'll jump over the right-of-center line and be a left-of-center Dem. He did used to actually be a Democrat. It's a big party, I can deal with that. Although I do take Matt's point about milquetoast Dems who don't stand for much more than making a statement about how centrist (in the worst meaning of the word) they are.

I don't get all this "the minority voice will not be heard" discussion in regards to the Specter switch and a fillibuster proof Dem majority. The minority voice is not heard to begin with. Neither the Democrat or Republican party represent, as a whole, a minority perspective in this country. They represent the two competing, dominating ideologies of American society that jockey every so often for the position of the power party. Both sides do have factional components within their frameworks but they are, with a few notable exceptions, overall marginalized in the name of centrist, election winning policies.

I swear to God if someone starts talking about the Constitution Party or the libertarian movement or the goddamn Tea Parties, I am going to jump through the internet tubes and punch a motherfucker in the throat.

What's funny to me is the conclusion you've automatically jumped to. Why do we assume that any dissent or discord with a two party system is rooted in fanciful, fiscal conservatism or a party based around an obtuse opinion of the historical record? Why not discuss Chomsky, Proudhon, LaFollette, Goldman, Debs or even someone like Nader? Why does dissatisfaction with the political process or government always equal a right wing concern?

Not that your displeasure doesn't have merit but I'm always interested in people's first honest and emotional reactions to a topic.

He's just a dim, hateful, showboating cunt filled with sour grapes. I don't know why people are surprised by anything that comes out of this fucking guy's mouth anymore.

I'd also like to point out that Canada has managed to muddle through with 4-5 parties. Right now we have the Conservatives, the Liberals (despite their name, just slightly left of center) and the NDP (who are what Americans would think of as left-wing.) There's also the Bloc Quebecois, who at this point are a left-wing favour-trading party with a bias toward Quebec (duh). IN theory, at least, the Conservatives (who are currently the ruling party) can't piss off the left or they could be cock-blocked by the other three parties banding against them. Of course, they nearly formed a coalition last winter, and that didn't work out too well, but the theory there is sound. Parliamentary systems are better, in general, IMHO.

It's mostly because I am rather new to these boards, and in my experience at other boards, most people are jackasses that don't know shit. 99.9 percent of the time, as soon as someone starts talking about the minority, you've already boarded the train to crazy town. This is obviously not one of those cases. Carry on.

oh hell, he switched parties just so he'll stay in his position. Good chance he could have lost if he ran as a republican.

While Agee is right that a lot of viewpoints (including my own) represent a truer minority of the American public, the minority in Congress is the voice that must be heard.

The minority is not just a group of disillusioned (in my opinion, in a lot of ways) politicians, but also roughly 650,000 constituents for each minority MC. If the majority has a grasp of power, the folks with minority members take in less benefits, along with the pol themselves (for the sake of this post, they don't matter all that much.)

For example, in Pennsylvania, there was a large group of the Democrats (led by Gov. Rendell and Sen. Casey... Speaker Pelosi was also a figure in this plan) to make Interstate 80 a toll road, which was to benefit mass transit in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. This would have been a disastrous idea because of the problems that would result of it, especially in the small towns bordering I-80. Most of these towns were in Republican districts, especially in the Western and Central parts of the state.

Without the minority having a voice, we would have seen the majority in the state push out those voices and there would have been this toll, which would have destroyed back roads with freight traffic along with obliterating the bottom line for cash-strapped trucking companies across the country.

I know this is just an anecdotal example, but the point remains the same. The minority should have a right to have a voice, regardless of what party is leading. The minority also has great ideas that should be discussed rather than thrown away because they didn't win the last election. Sure, the Republicans lost 2006 and 2008 elections... they don't deserve the power they've had since 1994. That's fair. But to say that because the Republicans lost that they deserve a small, if not minimal voice is drowning out the views of not only 200 or so Republican politicians, but also millions of constituents that voted these officials in.

My guess would have been that Specter would have lost the primary race to Toomey and his campaign funds would have been depleted. Next, he would have challenged Toomey as an Independent with any of the Democratic candidates following.

Then, if the DSCC got involved, the Democratic candidate would probably win due to the funding.

If the DSCC stayed out of the race (very rare), Specter could have possibly won by name recognition. He's very popular with PA Democrats, so he could have squeaked out past Toomey and the PA Dem nom. Sestak is a decent candidate, but he's not well known on the Western part of the state. Neither is any other candidate the Dems can throw out there, unless it's Rendell.

But that is, to a certain extent, how representative democracy works. It's hard to say exactly what constitutes a "minimal" voice, but a filibuster-proof majority is not some kind of unprecedented aberration. It's built into the legislative branch that the voice of the minority can be drowned out completely if there is a high enough level of consensus within the rest of the house.

Of course, this can be frustrating to downright terrifying if you support the current minority (and you clearly don't do so unequivocably, so don't think I'm lumping you in there). Dissent is always valuable, but for the most part, losing elections means exactly that a party deserves a small voice in the government.

Yeah, I agree with you, but there's a difference between listening to the minority and snuffing out minority opinions.

And yet, how is pure obstructionism helpful or productive? If the minority would like their small voice in this current political climate to be heard, then it is their responsibility to make sure that voice is as rational and well-thought out as possible. If it isn't, then why should the majority abide them? And isn't it, by definition, bad government to entertain them when all they are doing is stoking the emotions of their winger base? (Which is what they are doing when they filibuster, oh just about everything without offering plausible alternatives or compromises.)

Well, yeah - the two are mutually exclusive by definition. Are you saying that a filibuster-proof majority can include listening to the minority or that it inescapably leads to snuffing out minority opinion?

I'm not saying obstructionism is productive, but the problem with a majority is so much power is that really good ideas from the minority can be pushed out by the majority for the sake of well, politics. The majority should not bow to the minority... I'm not saying that. But, I am saying that the minority can bring forth really great ideas or needed ideas for their constituency (like earmarks). However, a lot of the time, the majority will dump plans made by minority lawmakers to make them vulnerable in future campaigns. Then, when the campaigns start, the majority party's candidate will attack the incumbent for not getting the job done. Yet, it has nothing to do with the incumbent other than the letter next to their name.

There are a lot of ways that the majority party in Congress can grasp power in back rooms. What you see on television is only a small portion of what actually happens. Deals are made, compromises are made, but also... we see power grabs done for the sake of party politics, not the benefit of the country.

It absolutely can and should listen to the minority when the minority brings forth ideas that they can support. However, a lot of the time, bills are cut out solely because of who brings the bill to the forefront. Then, when the minority is attacked for not doing anything, it brings an advantage to the majority in future campaigns.

Minority incumbent: "Hey, look what I've done for you these past 20 years!"

Majority challenger: "You didn't vote for this bill! You couldn't get these funds to people in our district that need it! I can do it!"

The majority challenger wins because of the perceived incompetency of the minority incumbent, but the real reason why things didn't happen is because of the majority pulling bills to prevent the minority incumbent from benefiting from its approval in the district.

This is just one of the problems with the "tyranny of the majority." I have others, but finals are approaching and I gotta start studying.

One problem he had was that Pennsylvania's "sore loser" law would block him from running an in independent if he lost the primary to Toomey. It seems he had to either jump ship now, or take his chances of losing to (what I assume is) a more conservative opponent. Thus ruining any chance of re-election.

Ahh... I didn't know we had a law like that. That changes things. Thanks for pointing that out.

If a party that has recently been in the majority truly has "really good ideas," they're probably not going to be consigned to a severe minority within 3 years. And when Republicans again find some "really good ideas," they'll likely get some of those seats back.

Right, but that's not what is actually happening right now. In fact, the inverse is happening, which is why a filibuster-proof majority not only is within grasp for the Dems, but also seen as something of a positive way to get the basic levers of government functioning again.

The only problem I see with your reasoning is that it's theoretical. Its not that I don't understand your point-- you're making a very classic argument about 2 party rule. It's that your argument isn't currently relevant for the most part. We all just witnessed legislative processes where the majority made overtures to the minority and they were rewarded with 0 votes. Eventually the Dems will over reach and when that happens I'm sure they will lose seats. Right now however, obstinate, non-goal oriented opposition is all the Republicans have to offer the public. The question then becomes; how does one go about actually doing good work in DC when this is what you're up against? A filibuster-proof majority is one answer.

The problem with that idea is that there are plenty of Republicans with great ideas that do present them. The only thing is that these ideas are meaningless when it comes to the media. The media is focused on only several key issues like Iraq, the economy, and torture.

There are thousands of bills thought of and analyzed every day, but they are usually on the backburner when it comes to the media. These bills are the ones that no one really knows about until the campaign season kicks up in respected districts.

I wouldn't go overboard regarding what the Dems concessed to the Repubs. Many of the Republicans were furious because the Dems concessed to the Repubs before the Repubs could even get a word in. That, to me, was the problem with the bill to begin with. The minority didn't really have a say in the making of the bill, but the majority created concessions that would entice them to join up. Those are two completely different ways to build a stimulus package.

I would also challenge the "good work" idea as well. As we've seen, a filibuster-proof majority can lead to some pretty dangerous things. I refuse to believe that the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" argument does not apply to the Democrats as it does to the Republicans. Democrats can be just as dangerous to the political process if given the right tools and opportunities to do so. They just do it in different ways.

Then again, it's all about your political persuasion. There are plenty of people here that would love to see the Republican Party in constant minority. I'm not one of them.

I am interested. I have read many times that Merkel's Coalition in Germany is what prevents her from achieving any goals or reforms. Is this true or just used as an excuse? Do you consider this a problem or a desired result?

I prefer the leading party of a country to have a mandate with over 50% of the vote. I want a strong leader who has the electorate behind him like an Obama. A weak leader who's afraid to lose confidence votes from a coalition partner who only represents a tiny portion of the population doesn't sound good to me.

Alright, here is the rundown on how the system works in germany (and austria too, though with different players) with multiple parties.

Basically, you have 2 rather large-ish parties (30% give or take most of the time), one that is more right-leaning (actually, its centrist from a US perspective) and one more left-leaning (which is pretty damn liberal by US standards, again), and added to that you have several smaller parties. Now, two of them are important enough (one strictly liberal, and another one being a "green" party) but they arent actually gunning for governing, they are primarily a way for voters to express concern and support for their narrow set of ideas and concepts.
Since there is no serious outer right-wing party in germany, and since the communist party is not really a serious player outside eastern germany, we ll leave that aside.

Now, come election time, there has not been a single party in power all on their own in a long time now, due to the fact that the green and liberal parties usually get between 6 and up to 13 percent, thus making them important for coalitions.
Angela Merkel is from the CDU, which is , for german terms, the conservative party. The problem for them has always been the lack for a good coalition partner. Nobody would ever dream of teaming up with any of the tiny extreme-rightwing parties, and lately these dont even get any seats anymore anyway, so the conservative party needs allies from the left of their position. The lefty-liberal big party, the SPD, has been in bed with the green party (at 9-12 percent a rather big player, too) for a long time now, whereas the leftover liberal party, a party more or less known to be the epitome of opportunistic and shapeless, running only on a small subset of ideas all the time, is not big enough to push a coalition with them over the threshold of being able to push issues through congress/senate equivalents.

The thing is, people do not strictly vote party line here at all. It is possible and actually quite common that a policy brought up by the governing party gains support of a smattering of votes from the "other side", so to speak, and gets passed without trouble even if some of their own guys vote against it. Due to the nature of our multiple parties, it is also quite common that the smaller coalition partners not only get a few bones thrown their way (cabinet positions etc.) but get a say in a subset of policies as well.

So, if Angela Merkel intends to, for example, set a policy about reducing exhaust fumes by the industry, but intends to pay that with taxpayer money, thus making it an unpopular solution with the SPD ( a social/worker party for the most part), it may still gain traction with THEIR coalition partner, the green party, since it pretty much falls into their category of interests, and they would vote in favor of it.

In the end, this usually means that as a voter, I can vote for any party I can see doing a good job, because the resulting policies are usually colored and heavily influenced by all parties, varying with their relative success, rather than having to decide for one party which gets to push through ALL their plans their way.

I hope this made sense.

Austria is a slightly different beast, as it is, for european standards, extremely right-wing. Fully 30% of the population has voted extreme right this last election if I remember correctly, with a populist republican-style rightwing-nutjob party gaining a lot of traction through tactics directly borrowed from the playbook of the recent USA elections. Either way, Austria is a small country which is mainly concerned with itself, and it shows in politics... for a long time now, the two big parties have been in a coalition that gets them absolute majority, but internal squabbles prevented much from happening at all. The only reason they are now forced to acknowledge they did a shit job is that numerous smaller parties, among them the aforementioned rightwing nutjobs and also a green and a communist party have gained a lot of votes, whereas the big two have lost them. Austria has a history of wildly varying election results, a decade ago the nutjobs (back then under a different name, but mostly same personnel) had 4 years of government after a surprising landslide victory, but as most of these european "issue" parties, they dont do a good job actually running the entire thing, so they lost a lot of voters afterwards.

In the end, the one big advantage the USA has in your party system is that you really dont have to give much thought to voting for the most part, as there is just one party for each side of the political spectrum. Also, there cannot be any surprise upsets (as happened in Austria) which catapults a crappy but charming guy to the top who runs the country into the ground within a few years..... oh wait, didnt that just happen a couple years back?

I really like the fact that every election, I have to think and decide who I vote for, and I get the impression that it really matters whether, for example, the green party got 8 oder 12 percent, and not just who won overall.