4 ms·

>Secondly, why are people re-electing the politicians who suck up to Intuit then ? In US you have less choices AFAIK, just seen yesterday that one party owns a

>Secondly, why are people re-electing the politicians who suck up to Intuit then ? In US you have less choices AFAIK, just seen yesterday that one party owns a big TV network and some HNer commented that the other party should also buy a similar big network, there is no consideration that maybe there should me more then 2 choices, from what I see from outside US is that it is impossible to have a 3rd or 4rd option so you have to chose between 2 bad options each cycle. If I am wrong please correct me, again this is how the things appear from us outside US (I never heard of a 3rd party or 3rd president candidate with a real chance)

humanrebar 9y ago
In the U.S., the major parties compete with each other. Over the decades, what they actually do varies a lot. As one party has success generally or on particular issues, the other party will adjust to attract voters. Positions held by (relatively) successful third parties are quickly absorbed to some degree by one major party or both. The net result is a weird mishmash of positions on either side of the aisle that no individual would actually choose. It also means disproportionate benefits for things that intensely benefit small portions of the population with mild downsides for the rest. Despite all the concern, the national legislature has been fairly evenly divided over the last 25 years or so, giving control back and forth. This is even more true of the presidency. It's exceptional that a party will hold the presidency for more than two terms of office. All that being said, I do think there could be some national consensus about things with little more explicit horse-trading. I could see a carbon tax passing, for instance, if it were attached to a bill requiring a balanced budget. But no major party could propose something like that without angering its base.
Amezarak 9y ago
It's worth keeping in mind that the party system works differently in the US than it does in most other countries. Almost anyone can up and announce they're running as a Republican or a Democrat regardless of their prior actions or current beliefs, and vote however they want with few consequences. Consider that Bernie Sanders was a member of a third party as a senator, but ran as a democrat for president without changing any of his positions. Similarly, Trump had little relation to the modern Republican party and essentially took it over anyway. When Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and John McCain are all in the same party, you're talking about a pretty big tent. In the USA, "parties" are more analogous to coalitions in parliamentary democracies. The party primaries play a tremendous and oft-overlooked role in the actual elections.
- simion314 9y ago
  Can you explain why do you think the following is not happening in US: A new party is created, as an example, a green party, that is all for green energy, ecology, privacy (just an example) This party could grab 10% then if the other 2 parties are balanced, they would have around 45% each, then the major parties would need support from the small party to pass some laws, for this support the green party would get back some of their ideas implemented. Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen?
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    > Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen? There are no laws backing it, and in fact the Green Party and many other parties do exist in the US. Some make it to Congress. The Presidential ballot is usually filled with a variety of different parties. State legislatures and even the federal legislature often have a little more variety. The smaller parties choose to caucus with the larger ones in what Europeans would call a coalition. There are two political reasons it doesn't happen. Most people focus on the winner-take-all aspect of (some) final elections. This is a little misleading since not all elections are one round of winner-take-all in the first place), and almost all elections have at least a primary beforehand, making it minimally something at least akin to two-round voting. The other reason is there's no need to. There is extremely little intra-party policing. I (I have actually done this, though I lost) can right now, make this my platform and file my paperwork to run as a Republican or a Democrat. I get the immediate benefit of all the massive party machinery in the general election if I win the primary election. When I win my election, I can push my issues to my hearts content, and by working with my nominal party, I am likely to get at least some minor legislative or executive wins. The more successful I am the more I will shift the politics of the entire party, especially if my platform proves popular with voters - more politicians in my "party" will take up my cause to help their own. How do I choose which party? Well, I choose the party I think is more likely to work with me. I can, at any time, even after assuming office, switch parties and choose to caucus with someone else if I think I will be more successful that way. This happens more often thank you'd think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_... The US doesn't have a ton of parties at the federal level because the two "parties" are really already representative of two broad coalitions in practice. You only see a third party rise en-masse during times of huge, sudden political re-alignments where the old coalition falls apart and a new one has to be formed. Even during "normal" times, though, you certainly have a lot of politicking based on the "real" parties within the coalition, and groups within the Republican or Democratic parties in Congress go vote with another group that aligns more with their interests. For example, the Republican party is a mix of libertarians, neoconservatives, Chamber of Commerce Republicans, Trump Republicans, and others. The Democratic party is a mix of environmentalists, social justice advocates, Chamber of Commerce Democrats, warhawks, Blue Dogs, the CBC, pro-labor folks, neoliberals, etc. It's a very messy picture and votes don't necessarily fall along coalition lines. Often, for example, the Blue Dog Democrats vote with Republicans, and Trump Republicans and pro-labor Democrats have some commonalities where they vote together. There's no rule requiring members to vote with their party, so they do as they like. If you flout the majority of the party often enough you might lose your shot at a a sweet committee assignment, but if you don't flout your party you might very well lose your election. Generally, the party will recognize when you can't vote with them due to your constituency and be perfectly ok with it.
forapurpose 9y ago
In the U.S. the two major parties work to keep third parties off the ballot and to create rules making it difficult for them to succeed. I can't cite chapter and verse, but I've seen stories about third parties being sued over every possible ballot application technicality, being excluded from debates, etc.

humanrebar 9y ago

In the U.S., the major parties compete with each other. Over the decades, what they actually do varies a lot. As one party has success generally or on particular issues, the other party will adjust to attract voters. Positions held by (relatively) successful third parties are quickly absorbed to some degree by one major party or both. The net result is a weird mishmash of positions on either side of the aisle that no individual would actually choose. It also means disproportionate benefits for things that intensely benefit small portions of the population with mild downsides for the rest. Despite all the concern, the national legislature has been fairly evenly divided over the last 25 years or so, giving control back and forth. This is even more true of the presidency. It's exceptional that a party will hold the presidency for more than two terms of office. All that being said, I do think there could be some national consensus about things with little more explicit horse-trading. I could see a carbon tax passing, for instance, if it were attached to a bill requiring a balanced budget. But no major party could propose something like that without angering its base.

Amezarak 9y ago

It's worth keeping in mind that the party system works differently in the US than it does in most other countries. Almost anyone can up and announce they're running as a Republican or a Democrat regardless of their prior actions or current beliefs, and vote however they want with few consequences. Consider that Bernie Sanders was a member of a third party as a senator, but ran as a democrat for president without changing any of his positions. Similarly, Trump had little relation to the modern Republican party and essentially took it over anyway. When Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and John McCain are all in the same party, you're talking about a pretty big tent. In the USA, "parties" are more analogous to coalitions in parliamentary democracies. The party primaries play a tremendous and oft-overlooked role in the actual elections.

simion314 9y ago
Can you explain why do you think the following is not happening in US: A new party is created, as an example, a green party, that is all for green energy, ecology, privacy (just an example) This party could grab 10% then if the other 2 parties are balanced, they would have around 45% each, then the major parties would need support from the small party to pass some laws, for this support the green party would get back some of their ideas implemented. Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen?
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > Are there laws or money that block such thing to happen? There are no laws backing it, and in fact the Green Party and many other parties do exist in the US. Some make it to Congress. The Presidential ballot is usually filled with a variety of different parties. State legislatures and even the federal legislature often have a little more variety. The smaller parties choose to caucus with the larger ones in what Europeans would call a coalition. There are two political reasons it doesn't happen. Most people focus on the winner-take-all aspect of (some) final elections. This is a little misleading since not all elections are one round of winner-take-all in the first place), and almost all elections have at least a primary beforehand, making it minimally something at least akin to two-round voting. The other reason is there's no need to. There is extremely little intra-party policing. I (I have actually done this, though I lost) can right now, make this my platform and file my paperwork to run as a Republican or a Democrat. I get the immediate benefit of all the massive party machinery in the general election if I win the primary election. When I win my election, I can push my issues to my hearts content, and by working with my nominal party, I am likely to get at least some minor legislative or executive wins. The more successful I am the more I will shift the politics of the entire party, especially if my platform proves popular with voters - more politicians in my "party" will take up my cause to help their own. How do I choose which party? Well, I choose the party I think is more likely to work with me. I can, at any time, even after assuming office, switch parties and choose to caucus with someone else if I think I will be more successful that way. This happens more often thank you'd think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_... The US doesn't have a ton of parties at the federal level because the two "parties" are really already representative of two broad coalitions in practice. You only see a third party rise en-masse during times of huge, sudden political re-alignments where the old coalition falls apart and a new one has to be formed. Even during "normal" times, though, you certainly have a lot of politicking based on the "real" parties within the coalition, and groups within the Republican or Democratic parties in Congress go vote with another group that aligns more with their interests. For example, the Republican party is a mix of libertarians, neoconservatives, Chamber of Commerce Republicans, Trump Republicans, and others. The Democratic party is a mix of environmentalists, social justice advocates, Chamber of Commerce Democrats, warhawks, Blue Dogs, the CBC, pro-labor folks, neoliberals, etc. It's a very messy picture and votes don't necessarily fall along coalition lines. Often, for example, the Blue Dog Democrats vote with Republicans, and Trump Republicans and pro-labor Democrats have some commonalities where they vote together. There's no rule requiring members to vote with their party, so they do as they like. If you flout the majority of the party often enough you might lose your shot at a a sweet committee assignment, but if you don't flout your party you might very well lose your election. Generally, the party will recognize when you can't vote with them due to your constituency and be perfectly ok with it.

forapurpose 9y ago

In the U.S. the two major parties work to keep third parties off the ballot and to create rules making it difficult for them to succeed. I can't cite chapter and verse, but I've seen stories about third parties being sued over every possible ballot application technicality, being excluded from debates, etc.