5 ms·

> The duopoly controlling today’s political competition has no accountability for results. Sums it up perfectly...

SkyMarshal 9y ago
Not really, it's that the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants. Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings, so even within each party they can't agree, and then when the two parties are pitted against each other in campaigns or in the practice of governing, they again can't agree. Double whammy. It shouldn't be any surprise that under these conditions not much gets done. Also, controversial opinion here I'm sure, but imho that gridlock is mostly good thing. The less the government is able to do, the more of a stable and predictable state the country is in, making forecasting and planning more reliable. The one exception is the government's inability to reign in deficit spending, and perhaps their longer term inability to ensure solvency of social programs.
- TheCondor 9y ago
  This last election is a poster child for the gridlock system being a good one. When things go your way, they never move fast enough, when they go against your wishes, it’s always too fast.
- yock 9y ago
  > the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants Which will always be true of sufficiently large groups of humans. The more we insist that we all share common goals, the wider the schism between us becomes.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    The system of federalism is helpful on this front, as it allows a higher degree of self-governance, since policy decisions can be made more locally.
- dsjoerg 9y ago
  Not so; on many issues, the country as a whole (its citizens) knows what it wants but the parties and duopoly can't deliver it because of how they're structured. For example there are improvements to healthcare, taxation and financial regulation which a supermajority of citizens would agree with, but the current system cannot/will not deliver. These improvements do not particularly align with either party's agenda. Another example, closer to people here on HN; merit-based immigration. Support among citizens is broad and I am guessing it would be a supermajority; however more politically active and powerful people in the US on the left and right oppose it.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration. So you’d be talking about shifting more of the existing immigration quotas to merit away from family reunification. Americans don’t like that either.
    - komaromy 9y ago
      > The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration Evidence?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > merit-based immigration Isn't this what the green card system already is?
    - yahna 9y ago
      God no.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings This is simply untrue and false equivalence.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    What? You have the Bernie socialists vs the Clinton centrists on one side, and the Trump MAGA warbirds vs the McCain moderates on the other. It sure looks fractured to me.
    - curiousess 9y ago
      This is a "both sides are the same" fallacy. Just because it looks fractured doesn't mean it is equally so: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-republican-party/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-r... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-po... https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592 https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592
      - richardthered 9y ago
        Agree. Also, see the DW Nominate scores for congress. https://voteview.com/parties/all https://voteview.com/parties/all Liberals are at 0.38, and the most extreme they've ever been was 0.39. They have been somewhat more liberal than they were in the 40s, but they've generally been within the same band of scores for the last 100+ years. Conservatives, on the other hand, are at 0.49, which is the most conservative they've been in the last 200 years. They've basically doubled since the 1970s. So, objectively, conservatives are more extreme (0.49) than liberals (0.38) today. Also, the most extreme conservatives are more extreme than the most extreme liberals.
- pizza 9y ago
  I think it may be true that the country can't decide on what it wants, but instead because the public wants something it isn't getting, something it can't get. Obviously people don't want to feel uncertain because of volatility in government. The gridlock is intended to curtail legislative havoc a single party might cause if it got too big. The problem is partisan gridlock only staggers when party interests conflict. Even then, that type of legislation is likely less unreasonable because of its partisan origins - the originating party has to make it palatable through willingness to include concessions, listen to the other party's concerns, address them in modifications and reattempt getting it passed. The thing is both parties share much in common, and much of what they'd both agree to expand is concerning if not disenfranchising. - uncritical fealty to institutional authority - endless war - the disregard for our privacy in their approval of expanding surveillance - their disavowal in the strongest terms of any obstacle to their right to secrecy because national security - deregulating campaign funding - complicating a law, legislating it, and then relying upon that expertise to guarantee a cushy retirement in the private sector - a worsening addiction to defense spending If anything, I'd say the gridlock actually makes it easier for government to grant itself inadequately-justified powers and broaden its scope beyond deemed appropriate. Voters in this political climate see more of its potential going towards negating a vote for the other guy rather than signaling which problems need most attention. We have a situation where Congressmen/women ignore their constituents and avoid their own town-hall meetings. And when in Washington (to the voter's frustration) much time is wasted, and bitterly. I guess it makes sense that they exhibit the ability to agree mostly on measures that make the government more ruthless, but it's disappointing nonetheless.
adolph 9y ago
Seems the problem may be a lack of competition.
- metalliqaz 9y ago
  I think we can take it to mean that more competition would lead to even less individual accountability for results. But perhaps if there was a parliamentary system where one party wins leadership, then they would have to take the blame for bad results.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  In the past presidential election in the U.S., there were 22 candidates, including a socialist, a libertarian, borderline theocrats, establishment politicians, and whatever you classify Trump as. There's usually a ton of competition, but most people simply don't care. Ask people who they voted for in the last primary for state legislator, and the reasons they voted for them over their opponents. In my experience, people often have a hard time remembering who they voted for the next day, and it's extremely rare for someone to have a good reason why they voted for them. I've seen a lot of reformist candidates run against corrupt incumbents and lose. It's depressing, but even more so when you see that almost no one bothered paying attention to the race. And then you see the same people complain later - "Why's the government so bad? How come there's no choice and all candidates are the same?"
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    it's because in a winner-takes-all system like we have, voting for anything but the top two parties is a waste of a vote. Voting third party in our system just means that the opposing side has a better chance of gaining office
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - OtterCoder 9y ago
      That's a fallacy. If neither party is on your side, then voting third party is absolutely the correct decision. Both parties believe that a third part vote is a vote for their opposite number, but it really, genuinely isn't. Winner take all doesn't change that. Third party votes harm both major parties equally, by showing visibly a reduced voter confidence in them in the polls, and the only way to escape the deadlock is to erode their support over time. If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote?
theseatoms 9y ago
Which is why I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out: https://ivn.us/2017/03/08/breaking-fec-wont-appeal-ruling-debate-commission/ https://ivn.us/2017/03/08/breaking-fec-wont-appeal-ruling-de... Of course, we'll eventually have to change the voting system to an automatic runoff, to prevent the least popular of three candidates from winning due to the other two splitting the vote. And I'm sure there are other electoral specifics that maintains the two party equilibrium. All things said, like other commenters here, I'm not entirely displeased with the current gridlock. Edit: see dforrestwilson's comment below to see the update
pjc50 9y ago
No, there's definitely accountability for results. It's just that the results are delivered to the donors rather than the voters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network-piggy-banks-closed-republicans-healthcare-tax-reform https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network...
- humanrebar 9y ago
  It's more complex than that. Trump ran against better funded opponents throughout the campaign. Sanders put on a very good showing despite worse funding. I guess you could argue that it's a winner-take-all system for donors, but maybe that's better phrased as "the winning donors" or "the donors in power" instead of "the donors" to show that it's not just some monolithic group playing I-win-you-lose with American elections.
georgeecollins 9y ago
The problem is not that there are two parties, the problem is that there are two brands that most Americans have an unquestioning loyalty to, like a sports team. If the parties were strong, they would be able to use their influence to make legislation happen and govern effectively. This was how things used to work in the LBJ era. Powerful people in either party could get members with diverse opinions to vote to get things done. They could even offer favors to members of the opposing party and get them to come along. Bi-partisanship was always transactional. But because we oppose "deals" and favor ideological purity (on both sides) nothing gets done. Now the power is with donors, not parties.
JakeAl 9y ago
Bi-partisan does not mean non-partisan.

Not really, it's that the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants. Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings, so even within each party they can't agree, and then when the two parties are pitted against each other in campaigns or in the practice of governing, they again can't agree. Double whammy. It shouldn't be any surprise that under these conditions not much gets done. Also, controversial opinion here I'm sure, but imho that gridlock is mostly good thing. The less the government is able to do, the more of a stable and predictable state the country is in, making forecasting and planning more reliable. The one exception is the government's inability to reign in deficit spending, and perhaps their longer term inability to ensure solvency of social programs.

TheCondor 9y ago
This last election is a poster child for the gridlock system being a good one. When things go your way, they never move fast enough, when they go against your wishes, it’s always too fast.
yock 9y ago
> the country as a whole can't decide on the results it wants Which will always be true of sufficiently large groups of humans. The more we insist that we all share common goals, the wider the schism between us becomes.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  The system of federalism is helpful on this front, as it allows a higher degree of self-governance, since policy decisions can be made more locally.
dsjoerg 9y ago
Not so; on many issues, the country as a whole (its citizens) knows what it wants but the parties and duopoly can't deliver it because of how they're structured. For example there are improvements to healthcare, taxation and financial regulation which a supermajority of citizens would agree with, but the current system cannot/will not deliver. These improvements do not particularly align with either party's agenda. Another example, closer to people here on HN; merit-based immigration. Support among citizens is broad and I am guessing it would be a supermajority; however more politically active and powerful people in the US on the left and right oppose it.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration. So you’d be talking about shifting more of the existing immigration quotas to merit away from family reunification. Americans don’t like that either.
  - komaromy 9y ago
    > The supermajority of Americans would decrease or keep the same the level of legal immigration Evidence?
- pjc50 9y ago
  > merit-based immigration Isn't this what the green card system already is?
  - yahna 9y ago
    God no.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme wings This is simply untrue and false equivalence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  What? You have the Bernie socialists vs the Clinton centrists on one side, and the Trump MAGA warbirds vs the McCain moderates on the other. It sure looks fractured to me.
  - curiousess 9y ago
    This is a "both sides are the same" fallacy. Just because it looks fractured doesn't mean it is equally so: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-republican-party/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-r... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-po... https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592 https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592
    - richardthered 9y ago
      Agree. Also, see the DW Nominate scores for congress. https://voteview.com/parties/all https://voteview.com/parties/all Liberals are at 0.38, and the most extreme they've ever been was 0.39. They have been somewhat more liberal than they were in the 40s, but they've generally been within the same band of scores for the last 100+ years. Conservatives, on the other hand, are at 0.49, which is the most conservative they've been in the last 200 years. They've basically doubled since the 1970s. So, objectively, conservatives are more extreme (0.49) than liberals (0.38) today. Also, the most extreme conservatives are more extreme than the most extreme liberals.
pizza 9y ago
I think it may be true that the country can't decide on what it wants, but instead because the public wants something it isn't getting, something it can't get. Obviously people don't want to feel uncertain because of volatility in government. The gridlock is intended to curtail legislative havoc a single party might cause if it got too big. The problem is partisan gridlock only staggers when party interests conflict. Even then, that type of legislation is likely less unreasonable because of its partisan origins - the originating party has to make it palatable through willingness to include concessions, listen to the other party's concerns, address them in modifications and reattempt getting it passed. The thing is both parties share much in common, and much of what they'd both agree to expand is concerning if not disenfranchising. - uncritical fealty to institutional authority - endless war - the disregard for our privacy in their approval of expanding surveillance - their disavowal in the strongest terms of any obstacle to their right to secrecy because national security - deregulating campaign funding - complicating a law, legislating it, and then relying upon that expertise to guarantee a cushy retirement in the private sector - a worsening addiction to defense spending If anything, I'd say the gridlock actually makes it easier for government to grant itself inadequately-justified powers and broaden its scope beyond deemed appropriate. Voters in this political climate see more of its potential going towards negating a vote for the other guy rather than signaling which problems need most attention. We have a situation where Congressmen/women ignore their constituents and avoid their own town-hall meetings. And when in Washington (to the voter's frustration) much time is wasted, and bitterly. I guess it makes sense that they exhibit the ability to agree mostly on measures that make the government more ruthless, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

adolph 9y ago

Seems the problem may be a lack of competition.

metalliqaz 9y ago
I think we can take it to mean that more competition would lead to even less individual accountability for results. But perhaps if there was a parliamentary system where one party wins leadership, then they would have to take the blame for bad results.
Chathamization 9y ago
In the past presidential election in the U.S., there were 22 candidates, including a socialist, a libertarian, borderline theocrats, establishment politicians, and whatever you classify Trump as. There's usually a ton of competition, but most people simply don't care. Ask people who they voted for in the last primary for state legislator, and the reasons they voted for them over their opponents. In my experience, people often have a hard time remembering who they voted for the next day, and it's extremely rare for someone to have a good reason why they voted for them. I've seen a lot of reformist candidates run against corrupt incumbents and lose. It's depressing, but even more so when you see that almost no one bothered paying attention to the race. And then you see the same people complain later - "Why's the government so bad? How come there's no choice and all candidates are the same?"
- notfromhere 9y ago
  it's because in a winner-takes-all system like we have, voting for anything but the top two parties is a waste of a vote. Voting third party in our system just means that the opposing side has a better chance of gaining office
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    That's a fallacy. If neither party is on your side, then voting third party is absolutely the correct decision. Both parties believe that a third part vote is a vote for their opposite number, but it really, genuinely isn't. Winner take all doesn't change that. Third party votes harm both major parties equally, by showing visibly a reduced voter confidence in them in the polls, and the only way to escape the deadlock is to erode their support over time. If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote?

theseatoms 9y ago

Which is why I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out: https://ivn.us/2017/03/08/breaking-fec-wont-appeal-ruling-debate-commission/ https://ivn.us/2017/03/08/breaking-fec-wont-appeal-ruling-de... Of course, we'll eventually have to change the voting system to an automatic runoff, to prevent the least popular of three candidates from winning due to the other two splitting the vote. And I'm sure there are other electoral specifics that maintains the two party equilibrium. All things said, like other commenters here, I'm not entirely displeased with the current gridlock. Edit: see dforrestwilson's comment below to see the update

pjc50 9y ago

No, there's definitely accountability for results. It's just that the results are delivered to the donors rather than the voters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network-piggy-banks-closed-republicans-healthcare-tax-reform https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network...

humanrebar 9y ago
It's more complex than that. Trump ran against better funded opponents throughout the campaign. Sanders put on a very good showing despite worse funding. I guess you could argue that it's a winner-take-all system for donors, but maybe that's better phrased as "the winning donors" or "the donors in power" instead of "the donors" to show that it's not just some monolithic group playing I-win-you-lose with American elections.

georgeecollins 9y ago

The problem is not that there are two parties, the problem is that there are two brands that most Americans have an unquestioning loyalty to, like a sports team. If the parties were strong, they would be able to use their influence to make legislation happen and govern effectively. This was how things used to work in the LBJ era. Powerful people in either party could get members with diverse opinions to vote to get things done. They could even offer favors to members of the opposing party and get them to come along. Bi-partisanship was always transactional. But because we oppose "deals" and favor ideological purity (on both sides) nothing gets done. Now the power is with donors, not parties.

JakeAl 9y ago

Bi-partisan does not mean non-partisan.