3 ms·

It's just possible that the system of checks and balances that was designed by a bunch of people who were pretty much new to this, and who didn't anticipate the

It's just possible that the system of checks and balances that was designed by a bunch of people who were pretty much new to this, and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system, didn't actually turn out to be in a state of perfect equilibrium that would last for centuries upon centuries. Frankly, I think we should be impressed. It's a borderline miracle that it's survived as well as it has.

ryebit 6y ago
> ... and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system ... Actually they did. The Federalist papers contained some strong warnings that we must strive to prevent factions / parties from taking over. They were painfully aware it was a potential failure mode in the system they were designing.
- willis936 6y ago
  It was honestly naive to believe that hopes and wishes would mean anything in fifty years. There are solutions that increase democratic representation. I have heard arguments against these solutions. All of the arguments have been bad.
- XorNot 6y ago
  The problem was that electoral system in the US takes no steps to mitigate the issue. Without a preferential voting system of any kind, there's no possible way to have anything other then 2 viable parties, and an attempt to create a third rewards whichever side has a more entrenched voting block. It also robs the US of a signalling mechanism: there's no way for the Republicans or Democrats to see that they didn't get primary vote share and only recovered it after specific-issue or more focused parties dropped out. The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The default supposition of the US has to be that there must be exceptional circumstances as to why any individual did not vote.
  - toomanybeersies 6y ago
    Australia has both preferential and mandatory voting, and the end result isn't much better. It's still a two-party system, but then there are also single-issue or hardline minor parties who often have the ability to hold the government hostage on their demands.
    - mackross 6y ago
      The Australian senate which use proportional representation rather than two-party preferred preferential has a more reasonable spread imho.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      I'm Australian. It's definitely not perfect, but our politics has managed to stay moderate in a way the US has not. I shudder to think what we'd look like if disenfranchising voters were a more viable strategy.
    - phs318u 6y ago
      Yes, it's a two-party system, but because voting is mandatory, it means that the overwhelming majority of people (who are largely centrist with differing flavours), electorally punish politicians that stray too far from the political centre. At the same time, the "loony fringes" have much less relative voting power compared to the overwhelming majority. Remember, in voluntary voting regimes, its the loonies that are most invested in getting out the vote, whereas a majority of reasonably centrist people are more likely to think, "Why bother? My vote won't change anything". If any Australian politician or party promotes voluntary voting BEWARE!
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The problem is not that people don't want to vote, it is that people can't vote: voter suppression (e.g. voter roll manipulation, ID requirements abused to specifically target PoC) or people working two/more jobs combined with the fact the US unlike almost all other countries do not vote on a Sunday or have it a national holiday are quite powerful. To add to that mix, mail-in voting is not accessible by default for everyone, and extreme gerrymandering (local/state elections) and the "electoral college" system (presidential elections) make it effectively moot to vote in states that are either hard blue or hard red.
runawaybottle 6y ago
I’d argue that it would be impossible for them to be ignorant of it. The constitutional convention itself had a bifurcation on the issue of slavery from the get go.
mehrdadn 6y ago
> didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398788
twic 6y ago
I'm always amazed by the sanctity Americans attach to the constitution, as if it was personally brought down from the mountain by Thomas Jefferson carved into stone tablets. As you say, the US constitution was one of the first attempts at a constitution in the modern period. The people who wrote it were not experts on writing constitutions, and could not benefit from the experience of previous constitutions. It should not be at all surprising that it isn't very good.

ryebit 6y ago

> ... and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system ... Actually they did. The Federalist papers contained some strong warnings that we must strive to prevent factions / parties from taking over. They were painfully aware it was a potential failure mode in the system they were designing.

willis936 6y ago
It was honestly naive to believe that hopes and wishes would mean anything in fifty years. There are solutions that increase democratic representation. I have heard arguments against these solutions. All of the arguments have been bad.
XorNot 6y ago
The problem was that electoral system in the US takes no steps to mitigate the issue. Without a preferential voting system of any kind, there's no possible way to have anything other then 2 viable parties, and an attempt to create a third rewards whichever side has a more entrenched voting block. It also robs the US of a signalling mechanism: there's no way for the Republicans or Democrats to see that they didn't get primary vote share and only recovered it after specific-issue or more focused parties dropped out. The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The default supposition of the US has to be that there must be exceptional circumstances as to why any individual did not vote.
- toomanybeersies 6y ago
  Australia has both preferential and mandatory voting, and the end result isn't much better. It's still a two-party system, but then there are also single-issue or hardline minor parties who often have the ability to hold the government hostage on their demands.
  - mackross 6y ago
    The Australian senate which use proportional representation rather than two-party preferred preferential has a more reasonable spread imho.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    I'm Australian. It's definitely not perfect, but our politics has managed to stay moderate in a way the US has not. I shudder to think what we'd look like if disenfranchising voters were a more viable strategy.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Yes, it's a two-party system, but because voting is mandatory, it means that the overwhelming majority of people (who are largely centrist with differing flavours), electorally punish politicians that stray too far from the political centre. At the same time, the "loony fringes" have much less relative voting power compared to the overwhelming majority. Remember, in voluntary voting regimes, its the loonies that are most invested in getting out the vote, whereas a majority of reasonably centrist people are more likely to think, "Why bother? My vote won't change anything". If any Australian politician or party promotes voluntary voting BEWARE!
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The problem is not that people don't want to vote, it is that people can't vote: voter suppression (e.g. voter roll manipulation, ID requirements abused to specifically target PoC) or people working two/more jobs combined with the fact the US unlike almost all other countries do not vote on a Sunday or have it a national holiday are quite powerful. To add to that mix, mail-in voting is not accessible by default for everyone, and extreme gerrymandering (local/state elections) and the "electoral college" system (presidential elections) make it effectively moot to vote in states that are either hard blue or hard red.

runawaybottle 6y ago

I’d argue that it would be impossible for them to be ignorant of it. The constitutional convention itself had a bifurcation on the issue of slavery from the get go.

mehrdadn 6y ago

> didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398788

twic 6y ago

I'm always amazed by the sanctity Americans attach to the constitution, as if it was personally brought down from the mountain by Thomas Jefferson carved into stone tablets. As you say, the US constitution was one of the first attempts at a constitution in the modern period. The people who wrote it were not experts on writing constitutions, and could not benefit from the experience of previous constitutions. It should not be at all surprising that it isn't very good.