3 ms·

Of the explanations you have given here, most of them appear to be good things. Voters learning more about and becoming more aware of the actions of their repr

by ep103 6y ago

Of the explanations you have given here, most of them appear to be good things. Voters learning more about and becoming more aware of the actions of their representative parties. Except the hastert rule. The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil, and would appear to be an underlying reason for all of the other trends you've described in your post. Because it makes it impossible to govern, except in an extremely polarized manner. Leading to all of the other changes you've described.

avmich 6y ago
> The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil Why? > Because it makes it impossible to govern, There are at least two approaches to govern while maintaining the rule. First, to bring different points of view closer, which may bring minority to a majority while keeping majority on the other side. It's not easy, of course; it encourages position reformulation, determining the crucial issues etc. - a work for negotiation. Second, one of the party may get majority on the next elections because of the opposition of another party. This approach takes more time, but in general encourages more awareness of positions in the electorate. Hastert rule had reasons to appear; why it's worse than what it was before that?
notafraudster 6y ago
I deliberately avoided arguing the normative side of the question and will continue to do so, but I just wanted to reply to say that your position is not unheard of within Political Science. There are some drawbacks I didn't mention (how institutional / party polarization leads to affective / interpersonal polarization, which is probably good for in-group out-group borders and bad for not wanting to kill your neighbor) but I just wanted to say that you aren't, like, inherently or facially wrong in describing some of the things that have increased polarization actually being good from a civic engagement / representation POV. Particularly, in the mid-century period, EE Schattschneider was probably the single most famous figure in American Political Science, and he used his stature to aggressively argue for what he called "responsible two-party government" wherein each party has a very clear and distinct brand and everyone does what they can to match voters up with parties. You might look at his work and responses to it if you want to see what political scientists in 1955 were thinking about this.
afiori 6y ago
> the hastert rule. Rather I am surprised to discover that the speaker has so much power in suppressing proposed legislation. How are member of Congress called lawmakers if they are not allowed to propose laws?
- Majromax 6y ago
  They are allowed to propose laws (and amendments to bills). However, the House and Senate leadership has control over the voting schedule. There are still ways around it (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition), but they are not particularly fast and the legislative calendar is crowded. Worse yet, these measures also stick it to leadership – a plucky Representative has to not just want something, but want it badly enough to embarrass the rest of their party. That’s rare.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by ep103 6y ago

avmich 6y ago

> The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil Why? > Because it makes it impossible to govern, There are at least two approaches to govern while maintaining the rule. First, to bring different points of view closer, which may bring minority to a majority while keeping majority on the other side. It's not easy, of course; it encourages position reformulation, determining the crucial issues etc. - a work for negotiation. Second, one of the party may get majority on the next elections because of the opposition of another party. This approach takes more time, but in general encourages more awareness of positions in the electorate. Hastert rule had reasons to appear; why it's worse than what it was before that?

notafraudster 6y ago

I deliberately avoided arguing the normative side of the question and will continue to do so, but I just wanted to reply to say that your position is not unheard of within Political Science. There are some drawbacks I didn't mention (how institutional / party polarization leads to affective / interpersonal polarization, which is probably good for in-group out-group borders and bad for not wanting to kill your neighbor) but I just wanted to say that you aren't, like, inherently or facially wrong in describing some of the things that have increased polarization actually being good from a civic engagement / representation POV. Particularly, in the mid-century period, EE Schattschneider was probably the single most famous figure in American Political Science, and he used his stature to aggressively argue for what he called "responsible two-party government" wherein each party has a very clear and distinct brand and everyone does what they can to match voters up with parties. You might look at his work and responses to it if you want to see what political scientists in 1955 were thinking about this.

afiori 6y ago

> the hastert rule. Rather I am surprised to discover that the speaker has so much power in suppressing proposed legislation. How are member of Congress called lawmakers if they are not allowed to propose laws?

Majromax 6y ago
They are allowed to propose laws (and amendments to bills). However, the House and Senate leadership has control over the voting schedule. There are still ways around it (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition), but they are not particularly fast and the legislative calendar is crowded. Worse yet, these measures also stick it to leadership – a plucky Representative has to not just want something, but want it badly enough to embarrass the rest of their party. That’s rare.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]