8 ms·

I always hate the framing as “polarized”. There’s tons of things Democrats and Republicans agree on. Military spending goes up every year. Save for Dodd-Frank,

I always hate the framing as “polarized”. There’s tons of things Democrats and Republicans agree on. Military spending goes up every year. Save for Dodd-Frank, deregulation has been common across presidencies for 30 years along with corporate tax cuts... The establishment gets things done, they really do, it’s just not things that help everyday people. I’m not sure how this would help that.

Jolter 7y ago
Almost all voting systems in use today will allow a plurality of political actors, and hence most democracies have more than two parties represented in parliament. That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. It inevitably and systemically always devolves into a de facto two-party system. I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? Granted, quadratic voting specifically was probably not designed with parliamentary elections in mind. There are other systems in use that are designed to be fair and result in decent representation of voters.
- bsdetector 7y ago
  > That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. ... I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem. The arguments against winner-take-all are mathematically maximizing a collective total happiness score for single elections. But governments are run by people, not math, and I've yet to see anything addressing the psychology of election systems and especially not over time. If instead election systems are scored on how well they do after 250 years or how few world wars they start then winner take all is the only winner.
  - jhasse 7y ago
    Remove "world" from "world wars" and it looks totally different.
  - Jolter 7y ago
    "The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem." They both have problems with large minorities of voters not being represented in their respective parliaments.
    - bsdetector 7y ago
      If the problems you have with UK and USA government are you don't like that people yell at each other and the representatives don't look the way you feel they should look, then you're right and they should change to a more 'civilized', proportional government. It's hard to argue against someone's feelings. But if you want to talk about good governance over time, does the country endure and does it make good decisions that ultimately benefit the country, that would be a more productive discussion. You have an uphill battle, with history not being kind to proportional democracies, but there's plenty of room for opinions and reasonable disagreement. It's possible that constantly pitting constituents against each other is actually a vital component of democracy.
      - Faark 7y ago
        Yes, the advantage of a two party system is power frequently switching between parties. Its a feedback loop that seems to keep both parties balanced and other systems should look to find ways to achieve similar effects. And certainly doesn't imply the current US system is the best possible for running a government for its people.
kristianc 7y ago
The problem is that while 'everyday people' no doubt have ideas which would improve everyone's lives, there is also very large to majority support for capital punishment and complete shutdown of immigration.
kro92kfmrzz 7y ago
Basically they disagree on how to treat their fellow citizens. Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. But both have largely been ok with everyone being exploited by feudal trade economics, bombing other nations to satisfy global political norms, and swindling developing nations out of their resources, while emotionally coddling elites. It means something to not be outright hostile to the truly marginalized, but the Dems have not exactly been labors friend. And most people are laborers. They’ve failed the majority plenty.
- collegecamp293 7y ago
  "Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes." There are tons of YouTube videos on college campuses that prove otherwise.
  - awinder 7y ago
    Reminder: having shitty ideas is not a protected class, and “free speech” does not mean you get to say whatever batshit crazy thing comes to mind without other people expressing themselves
    - jayess 7y ago
      You just made parent's point perfectly. A total lack of self awareness.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      There seems to be an implication that the outcry is only ever against "shitty ideas". I think there are plenty of cases that prove this untrue.
    - cwperkins 7y ago
      Listen to yourself man. By closing the door to debate you open up the floor to hostility. Some conservatives have demented ideas, but that doesn’t mean ALL do. If we are going to heal our divisions it’s going to take more than each side calling the other ‘Snowflake’
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
I find this kind of thinking dangerous, because it falls into the "they're just 2 sides of the same coin" mindset. Not to mention, it is also false. The DoD budget for 2019 is below the budget for 2008, and much lower as a percentage of total expenditures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... Yes, there are things the parties agree on, but that minimizes the huge, material differences between their platforms, e.g.: - appropriate levels of taxation, and especially types of taxation (e.g. capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc.) - mix of spending on social programs - the huge gap on social issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. "They're just the same, they don't care about the little guy, etc." are tactics the Russian trolls used to convince people not to vote.
- Benjammer 7y ago
  Also, those can both be problems at the same time. Both parties cater to corporations heavily, but also they are very different on many policy issues and shouldn't be treated as equivalent in those areas.
- marricks 7y ago
  Not saying they are the same, just that when centrists come together they get a lot of bad things done. Also not surprised spending is down after the US left Iraq, would be surprised if it wasn’t overall up though. My point is, fighting “zealotry” is just a nice way of saying let’s make it easier for corporate centrism.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    There were substantial decreases in 2012 and 2013; I think the military budget has increased in every other recent year (though maybe sometimes by less than inflation?). 2019 is indeed down on 2008. (But not 2007, or any earlier year: there were big increases in 2006, 2007, 2008.)
  - fiestaman 7y ago
    https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/BG-defense-spending-FY-2016-chart-2_HIGHRES.jpg https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/BG-defense-sp...
billfruit 7y ago
And many things which does not get done, no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, like reform of the Prison System.
- Jolter 7y ago
  The U.S. constitution and system of government were designed to make it difficult to effect change. IMO, the founding fathers overshot the mark by a bit.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> deregulation has been common across presidencies for 30 years I think by any objective measure the US has seen an explosive growth in regulation the last 30 years. I really wish I had an objective measure around to demonstrate this with...

Jolter 7y ago

Almost all voting systems in use today will allow a plurality of political actors, and hence most democracies have more than two parties represented in parliament. That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. It inevitably and systemically always devolves into a de facto two-party system. I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? Granted, quadratic voting specifically was probably not designed with parliamentary elections in mind. There are other systems in use that are designed to be fair and result in decent representation of voters.

bsdetector 7y ago
> That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. ... I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem. The arguments against winner-take-all are mathematically maximizing a collective total happiness score for single elections. But governments are run by people, not math, and I've yet to see anything addressing the psychology of election systems and especially not over time. If instead election systems are scored on how well they do after 250 years or how few world wars they start then winner take all is the only winner.
- jhasse 7y ago
  Remove "world" from "world wars" and it looks totally different.
- Jolter 7y ago
  "The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem." They both have problems with large minorities of voters not being represented in their respective parliaments.
  - bsdetector 7y ago
    If the problems you have with UK and USA government are you don't like that people yell at each other and the representatives don't look the way you feel they should look, then you're right and they should change to a more 'civilized', proportional government. It's hard to argue against someone's feelings. But if you want to talk about good governance over time, does the country endure and does it make good decisions that ultimately benefit the country, that would be a more productive discussion. You have an uphill battle, with history not being kind to proportional democracies, but there's plenty of room for opinions and reasonable disagreement. It's possible that constantly pitting constituents against each other is actually a vital component of democracy.
    - Faark 7y ago
      Yes, the advantage of a two party system is power frequently switching between parties. Its a feedback loop that seems to keep both parties balanced and other systems should look to find ways to achieve similar effects. And certainly doesn't imply the current US system is the best possible for running a government for its people.

kristianc 7y ago

The problem is that while 'everyday people' no doubt have ideas which would improve everyone's lives, there is also very large to majority support for capital punishment and complete shutdown of immigration.

kro92kfmrzz 7y ago

Basically they disagree on how to treat their fellow citizens. Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. But both have largely been ok with everyone being exploited by feudal trade economics, bombing other nations to satisfy global political norms, and swindling developing nations out of their resources, while emotionally coddling elites. It means something to not be outright hostile to the truly marginalized, but the Dems have not exactly been labors friend. And most people are laborers. They’ve failed the majority plenty.

collegecamp293 7y ago
"Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes." There are tons of YouTube videos on college campuses that prove otherwise.
- awinder 7y ago
  Reminder: having shitty ideas is not a protected class, and “free speech” does not mean you get to say whatever batshit crazy thing comes to mind without other people expressing themselves
  - jayess 7y ago
    You just made parent's point perfectly. A total lack of self awareness.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    There seems to be an implication that the outcry is only ever against "shitty ideas". I think there are plenty of cases that prove this untrue.
  - cwperkins 7y ago
    Listen to yourself man. By closing the door to debate you open up the floor to hostility. Some conservatives have demented ideas, but that doesn’t mean ALL do. If we are going to heal our divisions it’s going to take more than each side calling the other ‘Snowflake’

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

I find this kind of thinking dangerous, because it falls into the "they're just 2 sides of the same coin" mindset. Not to mention, it is also false. The DoD budget for 2019 is below the budget for 2008, and much lower as a percentage of total expenditures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... Yes, there are things the parties agree on, but that minimizes the huge, material differences between their platforms, e.g.: - appropriate levels of taxation, and especially types of taxation (e.g. capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc.) - mix of spending on social programs - the huge gap on social issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. "They're just the same, they don't care about the little guy, etc." are tactics the Russian trolls used to convince people not to vote.

Benjammer 7y ago
Also, those can both be problems at the same time. Both parties cater to corporations heavily, but also they are very different on many policy issues and shouldn't be treated as equivalent in those areas.
marricks 7y ago
Not saying they are the same, just that when centrists come together they get a lot of bad things done. Also not surprised spending is down after the US left Iraq, would be surprised if it wasn’t overall up though. My point is, fighting “zealotry” is just a nice way of saying let’s make it easier for corporate centrism.
- gjm11 7y ago
  There were substantial decreases in 2012 and 2013; I think the military budget has increased in every other recent year (though maybe sometimes by less than inflation?). 2019 is indeed down on 2008. (But not 2007, or any earlier year: there were big increases in 2006, 2007, 2008.)
- fiestaman 7y ago
  https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/BG-defense-spending-FY-2016-chart-2_HIGHRES.jpg https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/BG-defense-sp...

billfruit 7y ago

And many things which does not get done, no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, like reform of the Prison System.

Jolter 7y ago
The U.S. constitution and system of government were designed to make it difficult to effect change. IMO, the founding fathers overshot the mark by a bit.

BurningFrog 7y ago

> deregulation has been common across presidencies for 30 years I think by any objective measure the US has seen an explosive growth in regulation the last 30 years. I really wish I had an objective measure around to demonstrate this with...