3 ms·

> My other objection is that Boaty McBoatface, somehow represents the will of the people. No it doesn't. It represent the will of people who bothered to vote on

> My other objection is that Boaty McBoatface, somehow represents the will of the people. No it doesn't. It represent the will of people who bothered to vote on an issue most people likely don't give a dam about. If a choice was demanded of the whole population then Boaty McBoatface would never have won. The point is that if it does represent the will of the people and the people in power don't like it, the will of the people will still lose out. The two party system in the US is a problem, but it turns out it's natural consequence of Democracy. There's no law against other parties, it just turns out that with direct voting in a large country, over enough time, we arrive here with two parties. If you look at the Democratic party, in 1968 an unfavored candidate was nominated based on votes, and so the DNC decided to institute the concept of super-delegates from thereon out. They did this because letting normal democracy run its course didn't work because the people elected someone the party elites didn't think was the best. The super delegates composed of party loyalists and high ranking party members that could ignore DNC votes. This essentially gave the party more control over who would win and removed voting power from normal people. In the current election, Donald Trump is doing the same thing to upset the Republican party leadership. The Republicans haven't implemented anything as undemocratic as super-delegates yet, but if Trump wins they might be encouraged to (since it's the type of Democracy-giving-poor-results scenario people in power try to avoid).

kuschku 11y ago
> There's no law against other parties, it just turns out that with direct voting in a large country, over enough time, we arrive here with two parties. Wrong. It turns out that with First-Past-The-Post, we arrive with two parties. In many other countries, over centuries, even more parties develop, and fail again.
- chrischen 11y ago
  At best a handful of parties, and it only works in small elections. You get to bigger and bigger elections the system always reduces the choice, which means that the bigger the system is, the less effective democracy becomes. Of course democracy was never meant to be the most efficient or effective system of government. It's simply the most compromising one.
  - BBlarat 11y ago
    Tell that to india, which has 6 National parties[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_I...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Brazil has 25 national parties in parliament. Though nowadays their system might not sound like something to emulate :|
  - takno 11y ago
    You say "at best a handful" like there isn't a meaningful difference between "2" and "3 or 4". The US is deeply unusual in their persistent two party system. Germany probably has nearly as many voters (given higher registration and turnout rates) as the US, and certainly doesn't operate as a two party system
Manishearth 11y ago
> but it turns out it's natural consequence of Democracy. There's no law against other parties It's a natural consequence of the specifics of how the US does elections. The US isn't the only country with democracy and plenty of others have more than 2 significant parties.
- chrischen 11y ago
  See reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11547983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11547983 Most countries where there are more than two parties are smaller. Just like in the US at lower level elections independents and other party members might win.
  - dalke 11y ago
    For that matter, most countries are smaller than the US, both in size and population. There are only two countries with a larger population. China has one ruling political party, and India has had prime ministers from many different parties. For a full accounting, look back to the rise of the two party system during the Jacksonian era, or the current system of Democrats and Republicans (replacing the Whig party) started in the 1850s. An explanation based on population size would have to be able to explain why it is that the current two party system in the US started when it was a much smaller country. The US population in 1860 was 31,443,321. There are now 42 countries with a population larger than that.
    - KON_Air 11y ago
      I am always mystified by how a country with such diverse geography and socioeconomics can be represented by just two parties.
      - JBReefer 11y ago
        The parties are more varied by state than you'd expect - for example, the GOP in New York State tends to be pro-transit, while the DNC in Wisconsin still loves to build huge highways through minority neighborhoods.

kuschku 11y ago

> There's no law against other parties, it just turns out that with direct voting in a large country, over enough time, we arrive here with two parties. Wrong. It turns out that with First-Past-The-Post, we arrive with two parties. In many other countries, over centuries, even more parties develop, and fail again.

chrischen 11y ago
At best a handful of parties, and it only works in small elections. You get to bigger and bigger elections the system always reduces the choice, which means that the bigger the system is, the less effective democracy becomes. Of course democracy was never meant to be the most efficient or effective system of government. It's simply the most compromising one.
- BBlarat 11y ago
  Tell that to india, which has 6 National parties[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_I...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Brazil has 25 national parties in parliament. Though nowadays their system might not sound like something to emulate :|
- takno 11y ago
  You say "at best a handful" like there isn't a meaningful difference between "2" and "3 or 4". The US is deeply unusual in their persistent two party system. Germany probably has nearly as many voters (given higher registration and turnout rates) as the US, and certainly doesn't operate as a two party system

Manishearth 11y ago

> but it turns out it's natural consequence of Democracy. There's no law against other parties It's a natural consequence of the specifics of how the US does elections. The US isn't the only country with democracy and plenty of others have more than 2 significant parties.

chrischen 11y ago
See reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11547983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11547983 Most countries where there are more than two parties are smaller. Just like in the US at lower level elections independents and other party members might win.
- dalke 11y ago
  For that matter, most countries are smaller than the US, both in size and population. There are only two countries with a larger population. China has one ruling political party, and India has had prime ministers from many different parties. For a full accounting, look back to the rise of the two party system during the Jacksonian era, or the current system of Democrats and Republicans (replacing the Whig party) started in the 1850s. An explanation based on population size would have to be able to explain why it is that the current two party system in the US started when it was a much smaller country. The US population in 1860 was 31,443,321. There are now 42 countries with a population larger than that.
  - KON_Air 11y ago
    I am always mystified by how a country with such diverse geography and socioeconomics can be represented by just two parties.
    - JBReefer 11y ago
      The parties are more varied by state than you'd expect - for example, the GOP in New York State tends to be pro-transit, while the DNC in Wisconsin still loves to build huge highways through minority neighborhoods.