4 ms·

> I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 year

> I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM So the trend does not seem to be ideal here. It seems like the proposed act will directly impact this increasing split. More details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...

twoodfin 9y ago
Partisanship didn't increase in a vacuum. The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. There are fewer Southern conservative Democrats, but that's because they became Southern conservative Republicans. Liberal Northern Republicans became liberal Northern Democrats. It's not clear to me how this proposal would change that fact. And it could very well do the opposite. If 51/49 super-districts are always electing one Republican and one Democrat, what incentive does either representative have to play to the center?
- vowelless 9y ago
  Interesting point about the north/south split -- I hadn't considered that. It very likely is just the parties stabilizing over time. Here is an article on this divide during the Civil Rights era which, proportionally, was supported more by "Republicans" than "Democrats" but the true story is a little more complex (and largely geographical). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ...
- masklinn 9y ago
  > The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. They don't though, for instance the dixiecrats ultimately had to choose between (to use the political compass's axis) left or authoritarianism with no party providing both. I'm sure there are left-authoritarian or right-libertarian voters in either main party which have to choose which they value most, unable to vote for any party which actually represents them as US politics puts them not just on a linear axis but on a completely bipolar one.
boona 9y ago
> This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years I've worked in government, and when we were asked to generate reports, there was a conclusion that they wanted to draw and they were looking for data to back it. If you ever hear something like "during the Carter era" it's likely because that's the only time the data showed what we wanted to make a point. In this case, I would need to see why they chose 60 years rather than say 100 years. 60 seems like an arbitrary number that needs to be investigated. They may be right, but having read their pitch, there are a bunch of red flags that scream that this is ideologically driven rather than actually being "fair". I'd be interested if someone did a deeper analysis.
- vowelless 9y ago
  True. There indeed could be a selection bias in this range. The one reason why I was initially okay with that date range is because it is from after WWII (which was an exceptional event).
- haltingthoughts 9y ago
  You can look up DW nominate scores from since late 1800s and you'll see the rise since 1975 https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm
  - gmiller123456 9y ago
    There's an xkcd that used the same data to produce a graph since the beginning: https://xkcd.com/1127/ https://xkcd.com/1127/

twoodfin 9y ago

Partisanship didn't increase in a vacuum. The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. There are fewer Southern conservative Democrats, but that's because they became Southern conservative Republicans. Liberal Northern Republicans became liberal Northern Democrats. It's not clear to me how this proposal would change that fact. And it could very well do the opposite. If 51/49 super-districts are always electing one Republican and one Democrat, what incentive does either representative have to play to the center?

vowelless 9y ago
Interesting point about the north/south split -- I hadn't considered that. It very likely is just the parties stabilizing over time. Here is an article on this divide during the Civil Rights era which, proportionally, was supported more by "Republicans" than "Democrats" but the true story is a little more complex (and largely geographical). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ...
masklinn 9y ago
> The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. They don't though, for instance the dixiecrats ultimately had to choose between (to use the political compass's axis) left or authoritarianism with no party providing both. I'm sure there are left-authoritarian or right-libertarian voters in either main party which have to choose which they value most, unable to vote for any party which actually represents them as US politics puts them not just on a linear axis but on a completely bipolar one.

boona 9y ago

> This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years I've worked in government, and when we were asked to generate reports, there was a conclusion that they wanted to draw and they were looking for data to back it. If you ever hear something like "during the Carter era" it's likely because that's the only time the data showed what we wanted to make a point. In this case, I would need to see why they chose 60 years rather than say 100 years. 60 seems like an arbitrary number that needs to be investigated. They may be right, but having read their pitch, there are a bunch of red flags that scream that this is ideologically driven rather than actually being "fair". I'd be interested if someone did a deeper analysis.

vowelless 9y ago
True. There indeed could be a selection bias in this range. The one reason why I was initially okay with that date range is because it is from after WWII (which was an exceptional event).
haltingthoughts 9y ago
You can look up DW nominate scores from since late 1800s and you'll see the rise since 1975 https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm https://legacy.voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm
- gmiller123456 9y ago
  There's an xkcd that used the same data to produce a graph since the beginning: https://xkcd.com/1127/ https://xkcd.com/1127/