3 ms·

> lately I’ve actually been considering the opposite: that the two-party system is the only thing truly holding the country together as a union. The two party s

by js8 6y ago

> lately I’ve actually been considering the opposite: that the two-party system is the only thing truly holding the country together as a union. The two party system has two consequences: one, making the federal government more amenable to bottom-up change; and two, by making fringe movements morph themselves to fit into the federal structure, rather than simply exit and secede. I don't understand what evidence has led you to these conclusions.

keiferski 6y ago
Can you clarify what you don’t understand? It seems clear to me that both Trump and Sanders (outsiders / fringe movements) have had an immense impact on their respective parties, far more than they would have with a separate political party. To use another example: the two party system ensures that everyone is in the same room and has to use one of two microphones to speak. Since there are limitations, everyone has to compromise: the establishment and the newcomers. A multiparty system lets everyone have a microphone (which drowns out all the voices) or lets you simply go to a different room. Both don’t require much compromise and I don’t see either as effective for maintaining the union.
- js8 6y ago
  I am big Sanders fan, but I don't see his impact being very strong on the democratic party. But regardless, even if he had an impact, this doesn't tell you anything about your assertion. I suspect Sanders would have higher impact in a multi-party system, because apparently there is a group of maybe 30% of Americans who would be his fans and could vote for a progressive party under his leadership. What I would really like to see is a comparison of the political systems, across different countries perhaps. To take an issue and compare how it was pushed through the different systems. I can't help it but today, EU seems more progressive (in the sense of trying to make life of citizens better) than the U.S. (and UK).
  - keiferski 6y ago
    > maybe 30% of Americans who would be his fans and could vote for a progressive party under his leadership. That’s where I disagree. I don’t think the percentage is anywhere near that high. Instead, I’d say that by latching onto the Democratic Party apparatus, his ideas have become far more popular and relevant in the party (and subsequently the country) than if he was running the Green/Libertarian party equivalent.
    - js8 6y ago
      Again, based on what evidence? If you ask about specific Sanders' policies, routinely more than half of Americans agree with them (like universal healthcare, green new deal, economic support in dealing with COVID,...). So I think this new platform could have large support - except people are worried that nobody would vote for it. (But the problems with American voting system go far beyond that - voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegates, bribery of the supreme court; the whole system can only be considered democratic under a very antiquated definition.) In the 2nd sentence, you're assuming exactly the conditions of the two party system. In Europe, new parties (like Greens or Pirates) were successfully able to bring new issues to the traditional political divide.

by js8 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

Can you clarify what you don’t understand? It seems clear to me that both Trump and Sanders (outsiders / fringe movements) have had an immense impact on their respective parties, far more than they would have with a separate political party. To use another example: the two party system ensures that everyone is in the same room and has to use one of two microphones to speak. Since there are limitations, everyone has to compromise: the establishment and the newcomers. A multiparty system lets everyone have a microphone (which drowns out all the voices) or lets you simply go to a different room. Both don’t require much compromise and I don’t see either as effective for maintaining the union.

js8 6y ago
I am big Sanders fan, but I don't see his impact being very strong on the democratic party. But regardless, even if he had an impact, this doesn't tell you anything about your assertion. I suspect Sanders would have higher impact in a multi-party system, because apparently there is a group of maybe 30% of Americans who would be his fans and could vote for a progressive party under his leadership. What I would really like to see is a comparison of the political systems, across different countries perhaps. To take an issue and compare how it was pushed through the different systems. I can't help it but today, EU seems more progressive (in the sense of trying to make life of citizens better) than the U.S. (and UK).
- keiferski 6y ago
  > maybe 30% of Americans who would be his fans and could vote for a progressive party under his leadership. That’s where I disagree. I don’t think the percentage is anywhere near that high. Instead, I’d say that by latching onto the Democratic Party apparatus, his ideas have become far more popular and relevant in the party (and subsequently the country) than if he was running the Green/Libertarian party equivalent.
  - js8 6y ago
    Again, based on what evidence? If you ask about specific Sanders' policies, routinely more than half of Americans agree with them (like universal healthcare, green new deal, economic support in dealing with COVID,...). So I think this new platform could have large support - except people are worried that nobody would vote for it. (But the problems with American voting system go far beyond that - voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegates, bribery of the supreme court; the whole system can only be considered democratic under a very antiquated definition.) In the 2nd sentence, you're assuming exactly the conditions of the two party system. In Europe, new parties (like Greens or Pirates) were successfully able to bring new issues to the traditional political divide.