5 ms·

I think you're both right, but if I had to pick one thing to fix it would be the first past the post. Encouraging the in-group/out-group mentality is an act of

I think you're both right, but if I had to pick one thing to fix it would be the first past the post. Encouraging the in-group/out-group mentality is an act of self-perptuation by the two dominate parties. Without a clear "enemy" the party risks fracturing and demonizing the other side, as well as being demonized by the otherside is something that both parties want because it keeps them in power.

ravi-delia 6y ago
But that's exactly the thing, no one has ever needed a party to tell them who their enemy is. With more parties, there would just be clear coalitions, one conservative and one liberal. To the extent that parties switch allegiance, it will be because different people are members, not because existing members changed their political tribe.
- filoeleven 6y ago
  > With more parties, there would just be clear coalitions, one conservative and one liberal. Multi party coalitions don’t line up this way when considering individual issues, which is the problem we’re discussing here: the paralysis of the US Congress. Imagine if the Libertarian Party, the Ds, and the Rs each held a third of Congress. On things like finance and gun laws, the Ls would vote with the Rs. But on things like abortion and drug laws, the Ls would vote with the Ds. The meaningful representation of a single third party thus already throws a wrench in the “conservative vs liberal” ideology. “Us versus them” might still exist, sure, but it shifts per issue instead of being a polarized dichotomy. It’s a step in the right direction.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    My suspicion is that such a situation wouldn't come about for two reasons: - People's desire to have a defined in and out group would prevent any party that changes coalition by issue from ever existing in the first place - Even if such a party came about, shifts in the local overton window (if that's not an oxymoron) of the Rs or the Ds would push the newly formed Ls away until they wound up effectively a part of the other. They wouldn't even give an advantage to the party they wound up with, they'd just compete for the same naturally occurring 50% of people. On the other hand, I'm in kind of a leftist bubble. I find our typical factiousness endearing most of the time, but it probably skews my view.
    - swsieber 6y ago
      I'd like to posit that if we had something other than first past the post we wouldn't have had Trump. And Trump definitely fueled the us vs them mindset.

ravi-delia 6y ago

But that's exactly the thing, no one has ever needed a party to tell them who their enemy is. With more parties, there would just be clear coalitions, one conservative and one liberal. To the extent that parties switch allegiance, it will be because different people are members, not because existing members changed their political tribe.

filoeleven 6y ago
> With more parties, there would just be clear coalitions, one conservative and one liberal. Multi party coalitions don’t line up this way when considering individual issues, which is the problem we’re discussing here: the paralysis of the US Congress. Imagine if the Libertarian Party, the Ds, and the Rs each held a third of Congress. On things like finance and gun laws, the Ls would vote with the Rs. But on things like abortion and drug laws, the Ls would vote with the Ds. The meaningful representation of a single third party thus already throws a wrench in the “conservative vs liberal” ideology. “Us versus them” might still exist, sure, but it shifts per issue instead of being a polarized dichotomy. It’s a step in the right direction.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  My suspicion is that such a situation wouldn't come about for two reasons: - People's desire to have a defined in and out group would prevent any party that changes coalition by issue from ever existing in the first place - Even if such a party came about, shifts in the local overton window (if that's not an oxymoron) of the Rs or the Ds would push the newly formed Ls away until they wound up effectively a part of the other. They wouldn't even give an advantage to the party they wound up with, they'd just compete for the same naturally occurring 50% of people. On the other hand, I'm in kind of a leftist bubble. I find our typical factiousness endearing most of the time, but it probably skews my view.
  - swsieber 6y ago
    I'd like to posit that if we had something other than first past the post we wouldn't have had Trump. And Trump definitely fueled the us vs them mindset.