8 ms·

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've ba

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politics is that it shows humans at their most irrational: from the Nobel Laureate to the rocket scientist, when you get them talking about politics it's the emotional brain first, the logical brain second. People are like this in all areas of reasoning, it's just politics is the easiest to observe. So, for instance, watching somebody bullshit themselves about politics is a pretty good quick and dirty indicator of how they're going to bullshit themselves about whether or not you need a new server rack. I don't think every issue naturally has two sides to it, but because politics is emotion-based and not reason-based, I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. It's a very interesting observation that there are not. I believe journalism is similarly skewed. So when story X comes in over the transom from NGO group advocating some cause, the reporter picks up the phone and consults with several experts. If the odds hold, everybody in that little scenario is a member of the same party, with the same prejudices towards how the story should be told. Not a good thing. I imagine -- without looking at any other comments on this thread -- that there will be a lot of "but the scientists are actually scientifically choosing to be Dems, because it's not logical to do otherwise" or perhaps blaming the Rs for being so bad that no decent scientist would support them. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (and probably a good reason for the post to be considered of dubious merit for HN) It's a shame, because the larger issue causes all sorts of other problems.

Jun8 16y ago
Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, though. The thing is: we are trying to cram all those different stances into two parties! Your vote is in essence binary valued. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  This leads to a very curious phenomenon: pick any 2 random U.S. Citizens of either party. Take them out for a beer and start talking politics. If both of them are fairly secure in their beliefs, within a very short amount of time you'll realize that they are very close on maybe 80-85% of all these issues, although they each adopt talking points from their chosen party to describe their differences! This is a natural consequence of only having two parties to choose from. Extremely fascinating stuff. I wonder how the parallels hold out in multi-party systems? EDIT: Wanted to clarify that I agree with you that folks have a huge variety of opinions on all sorts of issues. I just wanted to point out that even then, they are much less attached to the issues themselves as they are to the talking points their party has around those issues It's a strange thing.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts with the assumption that voters choose candidates based on issue matching starts with fail. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages. Because the nature of political parties that can function in any society is heavily dependent on the institutional structure of the government. Again, this is a question that actual political scientists have researched and answered.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more? (I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)
narkee 16y ago
I don't see why the premise that "There should be as many scientists roughly in each party" is pre-supposed to be true. It's not self-evident at all.
- vannevar 16y ago
  Particularly when you consider that many Republican leaders publicly advocate creationism being taught as science, or that global warming is not happening, both of which are demonstratively and objectively false beliefs. Republican rhetoric over the past 30 years has been increasingly critical of science as a process, essentially arguing for faith and debate as the preferred means of discovering the truth, rather than reason and experimentation.
seigenblues 16y ago
Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. (btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any other 1st world country) You started off almost saying something, but i'm not sure your thesis holds ('...in a two party system, any group...') Take the converse. I could also say that the group of anti-intellectuals has completely affiliated themselves with the Republican party, damaging themselves and the Republicans. Same thing, right? Anyway, you reminded me of the 'everything that happens is good for John McCain' meme, which might be worth researching. One particularly egregious example is here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ cheers, and let's try not to bullshit ourselves.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party" But I didn't. Cheers.
  - seigenblues 16y ago
    That doesn't actually change the thrust of the point at all. Go ahead and switch those two words around how you want and tell me how it substantially changes my argument. You've made educated people supporting something both bad for educated people and bad for the something. Now, you're welcome to start arguing against the educational system they're immersed in (science), and that's certainly a line you can go down, if you want. It's a bit played out and i'd be surprised to hear you rally an enthusiastic offense there, but go right ahead. Furthermore, your point about groups & party systems is still totally fatuous: you can be in A or in ~A. then, A can be in B or in ~B. You can say "all the A's are in B." or you can say "all the ~A's are in ~B". Shorter: you can't make the not-too-menacing statement "ohh, all the scientists are democrats! how terrible for the democrats and the scientists!" without making the equally trite "ohh, all the non-scientists are republicans! How terrible for the non-scientists and the republicans!"
MichaelSalib 16y ago
I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. But why? I mean, this statement seems like a religious belief. There is no obvious reason to believe it true. Many interesting properties have a significant partisan valence. For example, authoritarianism correlates strongly with political conservatives in north America [1], so why shouldn't science aptitude as well? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but there is nothing like what you describe, so your thought experiment is useless" To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) There is a lot of correlative science going on in this area, and I would be very careful not to confuse correlation with causation. I would also be careful (and I know you know this if you know anything about politics) about exactly how such studies are conducted: the questions used, the implied bias, etc. Somebody who was not careful could take reams of this "science" of correlation and string all sorts of theories about people, such as right-wingers are more happy yet stupider and more authoritarian. Or whatever. I'd be very careful walking down this road, and not simply because of the flaky nature of the science. It's beginning to look like scientists are making an effort to explain why people could be so stupid to be conservatives, and that's not a good place to go. Not because you'd piss off folks, but because there is a great danger of political science itself becoming an echo chamber. Once you box-up any opposition, you can lord over the poor unwashed masses, whether you mean to or not. And that is really bad for both the science itself and the way the science is conducted.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
bh23ha 16y ago
There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. Political parties are not static. They move and evolve and change, and grow and shrink and may become tiny and spend years in the political wilderness. When a party is reduced to a regional rump, and has several litmus test for their tiny, tiny tent. When one of the most important test is are you anti or pro science, you can't seriously expect a lot of scientist to belong to club which is fervently against anyone who dares to believe in evolution.

Jun8 16y ago

Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, though. The thing is: we are trying to cram all those different stances into two parties! Your vote is in essence binary valued. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This leads to a very curious phenomenon: pick any 2 random U.S. Citizens of either party. Take them out for a beer and start talking politics. If both of them are fairly secure in their beliefs, within a very short amount of time you'll realize that they are very close on maybe 80-85% of all these issues, although they each adopt talking points from their chosen party to describe their differences! This is a natural consequence of only having two parties to choose from. Extremely fascinating stuff. I wonder how the parallels hold out in multi-party systems? EDIT: Wanted to clarify that I agree with you that folks have a huge variety of opinions on all sorts of issues. I just wanted to point out that even then, they are much less attached to the issues themselves as they are to the talking points their party has around those issues It's a strange thing.
MichaelSalib 16y ago
Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts with the assumption that voters choose candidates based on issue matching starts with fail. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages. Because the nature of political parties that can function in any society is heavily dependent on the institutional structure of the government. Again, this is a question that actual political scientists have researched and answered.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more? (I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)

narkee 16y ago

I don't see why the premise that "There should be as many scientists roughly in each party" is pre-supposed to be true. It's not self-evident at all.

vannevar 16y ago
Particularly when you consider that many Republican leaders publicly advocate creationism being taught as science, or that global warming is not happening, both of which are demonstratively and objectively false beliefs. Republican rhetoric over the past 30 years has been increasingly critical of science as a process, essentially arguing for faith and debate as the preferred means of discovering the truth, rather than reason and experimentation.

seigenblues 16y ago

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. (btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any other 1st world country) You started off almost saying something, but i'm not sure your thesis holds ('...in a two party system, any group...') Take the converse. I could also say that the group of anti-intellectuals has completely affiliated themselves with the Republican party, damaging themselves and the Republicans. Same thing, right? Anyway, you reminded me of the 'everything that happens is good for John McCain' meme, which might be worth researching. One particularly egregious example is here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ cheers, and let's try not to bullshit ourselves.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party" But I didn't. Cheers.
- seigenblues 16y ago
  That doesn't actually change the thrust of the point at all. Go ahead and switch those two words around how you want and tell me how it substantially changes my argument. You've made educated people supporting something both bad for educated people and bad for the something. Now, you're welcome to start arguing against the educational system they're immersed in (science), and that's certainly a line you can go down, if you want. It's a bit played out and i'd be surprised to hear you rally an enthusiastic offense there, but go right ahead. Furthermore, your point about groups & party systems is still totally fatuous: you can be in A or in ~A. then, A can be in B or in ~B. You can say "all the A's are in B." or you can say "all the ~A's are in ~B". Shorter: you can't make the not-too-menacing statement "ohh, all the scientists are democrats! how terrible for the democrats and the scientists!" without making the equally trite "ohh, all the non-scientists are republicans! How terrible for the non-scientists and the republicans!"

MichaelSalib 16y ago

I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. But why? I mean, this statement seems like a religious belief. There is no obvious reason to believe it true. Many interesting properties have a significant partisan valence. For example, authoritarianism correlates strongly with political conservatives in north America [1], so why shouldn't science aptitude as well? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but there is nothing like what you describe, so your thought experiment is useless" To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) There is a lot of correlative science going on in this area, and I would be very careful not to confuse correlation with causation. I would also be careful (and I know you know this if you know anything about politics) about exactly how such studies are conducted: the questions used, the implied bias, etc. Somebody who was not careful could take reams of this "science" of correlation and string all sorts of theories about people, such as right-wingers are more happy yet stupider and more authoritarian. Or whatever. I'd be very careful walking down this road, and not simply because of the flaky nature of the science. It's beginning to look like scientists are making an effort to explain why people could be so stupid to be conservatives, and that's not a good place to go. Not because you'd piss off folks, but because there is a great danger of political science itself becoming an echo chamber. Once you box-up any opposition, you can lord over the poor unwashed masses, whether you mean to or not. And that is really bad for both the science itself and the way the science is conducted.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago

bh23ha 16y ago

There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. Political parties are not static. They move and evolve and change, and grow and shrink and may become tiny and spend years in the political wilderness. When a party is reduced to a regional rump, and has several litmus test for their tiny, tiny tent. When one of the most important test is are you anti or pro science, you can't seriously expect a lot of scientist to belong to club which is fervently against anyone who dares to believe in evolution.