3 ms·

Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those part

Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties), there is still a polarity of, say, liberal and conservative. At least in the original meanings of the terms, which has to do with whether you go toward new things or prefer traditions. But under FPTP, right vs left encompasses a lot more than that. And more importantly, FPTP doesn't allow for middle ground. If you are in the middle, you can't get elected, because neither party would nominate you. If we had a electoral system that tended to elect the first choice of the median voter, things would be dramatically different. Yes there would be people on the extremes, but most people -- those elected, as well as regular citizens -- would tend be "accidental moderates."

cs02rm0 7y ago
And more importantly, FPTP doesn't allow for middle ground. If you are in the middle, you can't get elected, because neither party would nominate you. I'm not sure that's true, at least in the UK, when one of the established two parties moves to the centre ground they tend to win. Moving away from the centre ground is how they lose.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  The typical pattern is starting at the edge during the primary then shifting to the center during the general. Making it back to the center is indeed a good path toward success, but makes commitments during the primary much less credible and give the impression that the candidate is just saying what will get them elected. Overall this is terrible for voter trust in elected officials.
erichocean 7y ago
> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting necessarily results in two equally balanced parties? I'm not seeing it.
- klipt 7y ago
  > Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works in Canada because Canada doesn't let sick Americans immigrate. But as a US state, California has no power to keep out sick red staters.
  - erichocean 7y ago
    > California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"
    - klipt 7y ago
      How do you think Massachusetts healthcare laws differ from California? They both have Obamacare which most people would say is not the same as universal healthcare.
      - erichocean 7y ago
        Massachusetts has the lowest rates of uninsured residents in the United States at 2.8% [0] California is 2.6x higher at 7.8% [1], is not improving, and is a much bigger state numerically, so we're talking about ~3 million uninsured people. Prior to Obamacare, California was at a dismal 16%. And note: CA had Dem supermajority rule for years prior to Obamacare's implementation, and can easily pass the healthcare legislation it's constituents want and deserve. They, unlike Massachusetts, have chosen not to. Massachusetts has less uninsured because they go beyond the bare minimum provided by Obamacare. California Democrats can, and should, do more. [0] https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates-by-town-blue-cross-massachusetts https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates... [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article234997637.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> And more importantly, FPTP doesn't allow for middle ground. If you are in the middle, you can't get elected, because neither party would nominate you. Median voter theorem claims a mathematical proof of the opposite, that FPTP has both camps having a dominant strategy of appeal to the median voter. Both your assertion and median voter theorem fail in practice; the latter because it ignores issues of salience, distribution of views (unimodal vs. multimodal), turnout and mobilization effects, etc., and yours because, well, it ignores much of the same things, but assumes different generalities about them consistently hold. > If we had a electoral system that tended to elect the first choice of the median voter, things would be dramatically different. Actually, the vast majority of US voters, even those that self-identity as independents, are highly partisan — the median voter is probably a reasonably strong partisan of whatever party has the current turnout advantage, which is essentially what FPTP elects.

cs02rm0 7y ago

And more importantly, FPTP doesn't allow for middle ground. If you are in the middle, you can't get elected, because neither party would nominate you. I'm not sure that's true, at least in the UK, when one of the established two parties moves to the centre ground they tend to win. Moving away from the centre ground is how they lose.

CameronNemo 7y ago
The typical pattern is starting at the edge during the primary then shifting to the center during the general. Making it back to the center is indeed a good path toward success, but makes commitments during the primary much less credible and give the impression that the candidate is just saying what will get them elected. Overall this is terrible for voter trust in elected officials.

erichocean 7y ago

> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting necessarily results in two equally balanced parties? I'm not seeing it.

klipt 7y ago
> Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works in Canada because Canada doesn't let sick Americans immigrate. But as a US state, California has no power to keep out sick red staters.
- erichocean 7y ago
  > California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"
  - klipt 7y ago
    How do you think Massachusetts healthcare laws differ from California? They both have Obamacare which most people would say is not the same as universal healthcare.
    - erichocean 7y ago
      Massachusetts has the lowest rates of uninsured residents in the United States at 2.8% [0] California is 2.6x higher at 7.8% [1], is not improving, and is a much bigger state numerically, so we're talking about ~3 million uninsured people. Prior to Obamacare, California was at a dismal 16%. And note: CA had Dem supermajority rule for years prior to Obamacare's implementation, and can easily pass the healthcare legislation it's constituents want and deserve. They, unlike Massachusetts, have chosen not to. Massachusetts has less uninsured because they go beyond the bare minimum provided by Obamacare. California Democrats can, and should, do more. [0] https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates-by-town-blue-cross-massachusetts https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/08/20/uninsured-rates... [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article234997637.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> And more importantly, FPTP doesn't allow for middle ground. If you are in the middle, you can't get elected, because neither party would nominate you. Median voter theorem claims a mathematical proof of the opposite, that FPTP has both camps having a dominant strategy of appeal to the median voter. Both your assertion and median voter theorem fail in practice; the latter because it ignores issues of salience, distribution of views (unimodal vs. multimodal), turnout and mobilization effects, etc., and yours because, well, it ignores much of the same things, but assumes different generalities about them consistently hold. > If we had a electoral system that tended to elect the first choice of the median voter, things would be dramatically different. Actually, the vast majority of US voters, even those that self-identity as independents, are highly partisan — the median voter is probably a reasonably strong partisan of whatever party has the current turnout advantage, which is essentially what FPTP elects.