4 ms·

Less gets done means the country gets worse and people get more radicalized trying to improve things. The polarization in the US is likely a direct result of th

Less gets done means the country gets worse and people get more radicalized trying to improve things. The polarization in the US is likely a direct result of the massive deadlock. Your strategy is one guaranteed to ruin your country.

jshevek 7y ago
>Less gets done means the country gets worse and people get more radicalized trying to improve things. This opinion requires a great deal of justification.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Isn't that exactly what we're seeing now? The government has basically been in gridlock since 2010, and voters have increasingly rewarded extreme policians who seek to shift the overton window over compromise politicians who work across party lines to find a middle ground. The book American Carnage is a fantastic deep dive on this (and extremely fair and even-handed, despite the bombastic title).
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >Isn't that exactly what we're seeing now? If "that" is the cause-effect relationship claimed above, no we are not "seeing" this right now. There is a huge difference between events and the narratives, accurate or otherwise, which some people use to explain those events. The system under consideration is insanely complex, with an immense list of causal factors at play. To me, in my opinion, it's obvious that the causal relationship described above is at best a tiny contributor that is, itself, dependent on other factors also being present. At worst, it's completely wrong and a distraction from understanding the real causes.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      This opinion requires a great deal of justification.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Can you be more specific, please? Not all of my comment was mere opinion.
bilbo0s 7y ago
There are democratic nations with many more parties than we have, and the quality of governance in many of these nations has proven to be as serviceable as the quality of governance in the US. (Some might even argue that many of these nations have displayed superior governance to the US despite the power being split up among so many parties that they need coalitions to accomplish the little they can get done.) I've never really found myself persuaded by the skepticism against split governments. Now there may be a point of diminishing returns. As in 5 parties are as good as 10, are as good as 15. But that's an academic question, and we're not even at 5 parties yet. On the other end, maybe 500 parties is self defeating, as you say. But we're nowhere near that either.
- atq2119 7y ago
  It could be argued that governance is better in other countries at least in part because there are more parties. After all, it enables alternative voices to be represented better, and it reduces the power of centralised party structures. On the other hand, too many parties becomes unwieldy, and I'd argue that 10 is already going to be too many in practice. Historical experience in the early 20th century led many countries to develop minimum bars, e.g. parties with fewer than 5% of the vote not getting any seats in parliament.
- afterburner 6y ago
  And most of those countries have proportional representation. Good luck changing that in the US.
dantheman 7y ago
The government has continued to spend more and more and continue fighting wars around the world; so despite their disagreements in public -- they seem to agree a whole lot.

jshevek 7y ago

>Less gets done means the country gets worse and people get more radicalized trying to improve things. This opinion requires a great deal of justification.

mikepurvis 7y ago
Isn't that exactly what we're seeing now? The government has basically been in gridlock since 2010, and voters have increasingly rewarded extreme policians who seek to shift the overton window over compromise politicians who work across party lines to find a middle ground. The book American Carnage is a fantastic deep dive on this (and extremely fair and even-handed, despite the bombastic title).
- jshevek 7y ago
  >Isn't that exactly what we're seeing now? If "that" is the cause-effect relationship claimed above, no we are not "seeing" this right now. There is a huge difference between events and the narratives, accurate or otherwise, which some people use to explain those events. The system under consideration is insanely complex, with an immense list of causal factors at play. To me, in my opinion, it's obvious that the causal relationship described above is at best a tiny contributor that is, itself, dependent on other factors also being present. At worst, it's completely wrong and a distraction from understanding the real causes.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    This opinion requires a great deal of justification.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      Can you be more specific, please? Not all of my comment was mere opinion.

bilbo0s 7y ago

There are democratic nations with many more parties than we have, and the quality of governance in many of these nations has proven to be as serviceable as the quality of governance in the US. (Some might even argue that many of these nations have displayed superior governance to the US despite the power being split up among so many parties that they need coalitions to accomplish the little they can get done.) I've never really found myself persuaded by the skepticism against split governments. Now there may be a point of diminishing returns. As in 5 parties are as good as 10, are as good as 15. But that's an academic question, and we're not even at 5 parties yet. On the other end, maybe 500 parties is self defeating, as you say. But we're nowhere near that either.

atq2119 7y ago
It could be argued that governance is better in other countries at least in part because there are more parties. After all, it enables alternative voices to be represented better, and it reduces the power of centralised party structures. On the other hand, too many parties becomes unwieldy, and I'd argue that 10 is already going to be too many in practice. Historical experience in the early 20th century led many countries to develop minimum bars, e.g. parties with fewer than 5% of the vote not getting any seats in parliament.
afterburner 6y ago
And most of those countries have proportional representation. Good luck changing that in the US.

dantheman 7y ago

The government has continued to spend more and more and continue fighting wars around the world; so despite their disagreements in public -- they seem to agree a whole lot.