5 ms·

>If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of an issue. I'm struggling to understand why people think this is true, especially

>If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of an issue. I'm struggling to understand why people think this is true, especially given what's going on in Europe right now where fringe elements are becoming quite mainstream across the continent. Wouldn't adding more political parties to an already fragile system cause more tribalism, not less?

ajmurmann 8y ago
Having more parties allowed you to voice your opinion by voting in a much more differentiated way. In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example. With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity. You are right that Europe is also seeing a rise in right wing parties. However, the US is the only Western country that had actually elected one of those clowns.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  AfD has 94 seats in the Bundestag. Five Star and League saw significant success in Italy. I guess I’m not sure what your point is. Edit: https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-premier-designate-steps-down-after-failed-cabinet-talks/ https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-premier-designate-ste...
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    You can't do much with 94 seats in the Bundestag if nobody will work with you. It's a big signal for larger parties that shows what they might try to gain some votes though. Only in the US though is the actual government now controlled by a right wing, populist.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example Sure you do; political expression isn't limited to general election voting. > With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity. The US has many more than two parties. A stable state of two competitive parties is the effect of limited meaningful choice presented by the system used for general elections, not the source of a lack of choice.
imsofuture 8y ago
The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this (rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture: guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR anti-immigration VS anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and vote for that party...
- dahdum 8y ago
  The platforms aren't internally inconsistent, one person could genuinely hold all the views of either with logical consistency, based on core principles[1]. You're right they are meant to pick off single issue voters. I don't know how we'll move back to the center, but as the article mentions I fear it will just be another war. [1] For instance I prefer smaller government in general, but strongly support single payer healthcare (a compromise of govt size against equal opportunity).
  - imsofuture 8y ago
    They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government that militarily intervenes across the world? I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.
    - supreme_sublime 8y ago
      By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.

ajmurmann 8y ago

Having more parties allowed you to voice your opinion by voting in a much more differentiated way. In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example. With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity. You are right that Europe is also seeing a rise in right wing parties. However, the US is the only Western country that had actually elected one of those clowns.

remarkEon 8y ago
AfD has 94 seats in the Bundestag. Five Star and League saw significant success in Italy. I guess I’m not sure what your point is. Edit: https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-premier-designate-steps-down-after-failed-cabinet-talks/ https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-premier-designate-ste...
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  You can't do much with 94 seats in the Bundestag if nobody will work with you. It's a big signal for larger parties that shows what they might try to gain some votes though. Only in the US though is the actual government now controlled by a right wing, populist.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example Sure you do; political expression isn't limited to general election voting. > With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity. The US has many more than two parties. A stable state of two competitive parties is the effect of limited meaningful choice presented by the system used for general elections, not the source of a lack of choice.

imsofuture 8y ago

The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this (rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture: guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR anti-immigration VS anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and vote for that party...

dahdum 8y ago
The platforms aren't internally inconsistent, one person could genuinely hold all the views of either with logical consistency, based on core principles[1]. You're right they are meant to pick off single issue voters. I don't know how we'll move back to the center, but as the article mentions I fear it will just be another war. [1] For instance I prefer smaller government in general, but strongly support single payer healthcare (a compromise of govt size against equal opportunity).
- imsofuture 8y ago
  They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government that militarily intervenes across the world? I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.
  - supreme_sublime 8y ago
    By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.