5 ms·

This is why our two-party political system needs to change. It's proven inadequate to reflect the people in a nuanced enough way.

menacingly 9y ago
It's the same as the old cable company model. Slicing the list of available concerns up just perfectly enough that you can't get what you want without a bunch of shit you don't.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  But it's almost worse. In the cable system, if I want channel 1 from package A, and channel 2 form package B.. I can get mad they aren't in the same package.. but I can ultimately just buy the super package and for $200 a month get all channels. How do I do that in politics? Get one view from party A and one view form party B? I can't. I have to pick my priorities and only get one. or maybe guess which party has more things I like.
sharemywin 9y ago
The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. We also, need to rank candidates: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidates-more-accurate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidate...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jrs95 9y ago
  At this point, the fringes are the only groups that have any interest in changing this aspect of the tax system
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    So great, let's make a system of government where fringe groups can get more things done. Your fringe group wants to reform the tax code. Awesome. Another wants to build a wall with Mexico. Another wants to ban immigration by non-whites. Another wants to take away voting for women. Another wants to legalize the right to carry AK-47s in public. How do you get your "fringe" change through, but not other crazy changes through?
    - jrs95 9y ago
      By making either making the establishment embrace what are currently fringe ideas, or replacing the establishment entirely
    - icebraining 9y ago
      In Parliament, the fringe groups are usually still in the minority, so they can only pass whatever the non-fringe groups vote for. That may lead to some concessions, but not "take away voting for women" level of crazy. These fringe groups know their growth comes from mainstream voters trying to push some change, so if they push for crazy ideas, they'll lose those voters and the non-fringe groups can force new elections to "steal" them back. My Western European country is currently being governed by a centrist party with support by two "far left" parties, including our national Communist party, and the demands they make are for a somewhat higher minimum wage, not an imposition of Marxism-Leninism.
- danudey 9y ago
  > The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. But as demonstrated, a two-party system can (will?) eventually lead to polarization, causing one of the only two options in the system to become a fringe element, and unfortunately the only option the people have now are the democrats or a party of right-wing extremists who are anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-education, anti-science, and white supremacists, all while lying about anything they can to make people afraid of anything that will drive them to vote Republican. In other words, a multi-party system might end up with fringe elements, but we've proven that the two-party system can not only do that but effectively force a huge number of people to vote for that fringe element.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    I don't have time to go into the length I want, but this comment is a perfect example of the myopia that polarizes peoples opinions. Both parties are equally part of the problem, and the people on both sides who fail to see that are also, including comments like yours. Please, don't try and turn this into a whataboutism and argue how much worse one party is, that's the trite and cliche response we always here that never addresses root causal issues. Rant about your comment aside, after long deliberation this is why I support the unparty movement, the people could get enough third party people in to take away the majority from both parties. Congress (and the rest of gov) needs to be reminded they work for the people. Right now, both parties work for themselves and those that corrupt/black mail/threaten them.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > Both parties are equally part of the problem, and the people on both sides who fail to see that are also, including comments like yours. Be careful not to cause useless agurments. Both sides are at fault, of course, and it should be obvious that one side is currently more extreme than the other, just like the post above said. Such partisanship is a failure of the two-party political system that amplifies an us-vs-them mentality that people naturally get when under stress. > this is why I support the unparty movement I assume the unparty movement is a movement to completely remove parties, which wouldn't work in my opinion. It ignores the human tendency to form groups, and makes negotiations difficult if you don't have at least some centralization of power or method of organization. A multiparty system is a better balance IMO because it maintains natural human hierarchies while easing the adaptation of the government to changing demographics with different needs.
brianwawok 9y ago
This sounds like perhaps the top fix, to get my personal view better represented. But then I see how coalition governments work in other places. I am not sure that is overall better? Better in some ways, but I think it has a lot of downsides also.
- mac01021 9y ago
  What are the biggest downsides, as you see it?
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    The tiny minority has tons of power. Think of a three party system with 45 / 45 / 10 of the votes. The 10% party gets to see which of the big party will support their measures. The party that gives in can now have a combined 55% of the vote, and can then railroad through all the laws of both the 45% and the 10% party, totally ignoring the wishes of the other 45% party. So effectively, a tiny 10% party now has more political say than a party that represents 45% of the population!
    - mac01021 9y ago
      But the 45% party and the 10% party form a coalition because their platforms are more closely aligned to one another than either is with that of the second 45% party, right? Isn't that exactly what we have in our current 2-party system, with factions forming coalitions against the other groups that they most disagree with? Might the only difference be that, on one side of the Atlantic, the individual factions have explicit names while the coalitions go unlabeled, and on the other side of the Atlantic we explicitly name the coalitions while the factions they comprise go (mostly) unlabeled?

menacingly 9y ago

It's the same as the old cable company model. Slicing the list of available concerns up just perfectly enough that you can't get what you want without a bunch of shit you don't.

brianwawok 9y ago
But it's almost worse. In the cable system, if I want channel 1 from package A, and channel 2 form package B.. I can get mad they aren't in the same package.. but I can ultimately just buy the super package and for $200 a month get all channels. How do I do that in politics? Get one view from party A and one view form party B? I can't. I have to pick my priorities and only get one. or maybe guess which party has more things I like.

sharemywin 9y ago

The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. We also, need to rank candidates: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidates-more-accurate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidate...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jrs95 9y ago
At this point, the fringes are the only groups that have any interest in changing this aspect of the tax system
- brianwawok 9y ago
  So great, let's make a system of government where fringe groups can get more things done. Your fringe group wants to reform the tax code. Awesome. Another wants to build a wall with Mexico. Another wants to ban immigration by non-whites. Another wants to take away voting for women. Another wants to legalize the right to carry AK-47s in public. How do you get your "fringe" change through, but not other crazy changes through?
  - jrs95 9y ago
    By making either making the establishment embrace what are currently fringe ideas, or replacing the establishment entirely
  - icebraining 9y ago
    In Parliament, the fringe groups are usually still in the minority, so they can only pass whatever the non-fringe groups vote for. That may lead to some concessions, but not "take away voting for women" level of crazy. These fringe groups know their growth comes from mainstream voters trying to push some change, so if they push for crazy ideas, they'll lose those voters and the non-fringe groups can force new elections to "steal" them back. My Western European country is currently being governed by a centrist party with support by two "far left" parties, including our national Communist party, and the demands they make are for a somewhat higher minimum wage, not an imposition of Marxism-Leninism.
danudey 9y ago
> The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. But as demonstrated, a two-party system can (will?) eventually lead to polarization, causing one of the only two options in the system to become a fringe element, and unfortunately the only option the people have now are the democrats or a party of right-wing extremists who are anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-education, anti-science, and white supremacists, all while lying about anything they can to make people afraid of anything that will drive them to vote Republican. In other words, a multi-party system might end up with fringe elements, but we've proven that the two-party system can not only do that but effectively force a huge number of people to vote for that fringe element.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  I don't have time to go into the length I want, but this comment is a perfect example of the myopia that polarizes peoples opinions. Both parties are equally part of the problem, and the people on both sides who fail to see that are also, including comments like yours. Please, don't try and turn this into a whataboutism and argue how much worse one party is, that's the trite and cliche response we always here that never addresses root causal issues. Rant about your comment aside, after long deliberation this is why I support the unparty movement, the people could get enough third party people in to take away the majority from both parties. Congress (and the rest of gov) needs to be reminded they work for the people. Right now, both parties work for themselves and those that corrupt/black mail/threaten them.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > Both parties are equally part of the problem, and the people on both sides who fail to see that are also, including comments like yours. Be careful not to cause useless agurments. Both sides are at fault, of course, and it should be obvious that one side is currently more extreme than the other, just like the post above said. Such partisanship is a failure of the two-party political system that amplifies an us-vs-them mentality that people naturally get when under stress. > this is why I support the unparty movement I assume the unparty movement is a movement to completely remove parties, which wouldn't work in my opinion. It ignores the human tendency to form groups, and makes negotiations difficult if you don't have at least some centralization of power or method of organization. A multiparty system is a better balance IMO because it maintains natural human hierarchies while easing the adaptation of the government to changing demographics with different needs.

brianwawok 9y ago

This sounds like perhaps the top fix, to get my personal view better represented. But then I see how coalition governments work in other places. I am not sure that is overall better? Better in some ways, but I think it has a lot of downsides also.

mac01021 9y ago
What are the biggest downsides, as you see it?
- brianwawok 9y ago
  The tiny minority has tons of power. Think of a three party system with 45 / 45 / 10 of the votes. The 10% party gets to see which of the big party will support their measures. The party that gives in can now have a combined 55% of the vote, and can then railroad through all the laws of both the 45% and the 10% party, totally ignoring the wishes of the other 45% party. So effectively, a tiny 10% party now has more political say than a party that represents 45% of the population!
  - mac01021 9y ago
    But the 45% party and the 10% party form a coalition because their platforms are more closely aligned to one another than either is with that of the second 45% party, right? Isn't that exactly what we have in our current 2-party system, with factions forming coalitions against the other groups that they most disagree with? Might the only difference be that, on one side of the Atlantic, the individual factions have explicit names while the coalitions go unlabeled, and on the other side of the Atlantic we explicitly name the coalitions while the factions they comprise go (mostly) unlabeled?