5 ms·

I guess the US voters have decided that they like forced prision labor in the US.

linuxftw 6y ago
It's the only explanation for people buying diamonds and iPhones, so I'd say yes.
tcbawo 6y ago
With choices of two major political parties, US voters have do not have granularity to approve or disapprove long term/chronic/fringe issues or issues that disproportionately affect a small minority of the population.
- esarbe 6y ago
  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that there have to be two parties. And even if there was; make an amendment. It the case of the U.S., nobody is to blame but the U.S. voters.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Its a deeper structural issue that that. As you say, there's no law mandating it, but here we are.
    - esarbe 6y ago
      I'm not sure it's a deeper structural issue. The issue is actually pretty simple; first-past-the-post voting. This automatically leads to a two-party system.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        Canada has both first past the post voting and a multi party system, so no, it's a deeper structural issue than that.
        esarbe 6y ago
        Let's see. Canada currently has 338 MPs and over 80% (!) of those (278) belong to one of two majority parties. So yes, in theory Canada has a multi party system. In practice this multi party system is severely damaged by the effects of the FPTP voting system. There are mathematical reasons for FPTP to result in two party systems. [0] explains it pretty well. There don't have to be deeper underlying stuctural reasons for the dichotomy. So to combat two party systems, replacing FPTP with an alternative voting system seems a pretty reasonable step. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU
        monocasa 6y ago
        Which is also true of Australia which has had instant runoff voting for nearly a century. I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild, and see if they have FPTP (or party proportional representation, which is essentially FPTP with all the same spoiler effects), and which don't, and see if they match your expectations to any degree better than random chance. You can prove just about anything in "math" in a vacuum. The recent push for FPTP really strikes me as the kind of wonk stuff that people bend themselves around as a huge fix, when the reality is it empirically doesn't do what people thinks it should do, and comes with it's own problems. It's a lot of wasted political capital for very little if no benefit.
        esarbe 6y ago
        > Which is also true of Australia [...] No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%) > I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild That's a very good suggestion. I actually already did that and I can assure you not using FPTP results in much more and smaller parties. Examples: - Ireland (STV) - Northern Ireland Assembly (STV) - Papua New Guinea (IRV) > The recent push for FPTP Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.
- vinay427 6y ago
  This is a problem. That being said, several major states have a good amount of direct democracy, including allowing for state constitutional changes, and there are often more than two viable candidates regardless of the letter after their name. I think this is a plausible way out of the two-party two-ideology stronghold that incites further polarization. Where I vote, between these two factors I don't usually think about a party because there may be 4-6 different candidates with relatively different platforms listed under two parties, and 10-20 referenda listed under that with no party.
lmilcin 6y ago
There is difference between voters choosing forced prison labor and voters given the choice between two parties and being intentionally misled and misinformed about what the parties are actually doing.

It's the only explanation for people buying diamonds and iPhones, so I'd say yes.

With choices of two major political parties, US voters have do not have granularity to approve or disapprove long term/chronic/fringe issues or issues that disproportionately affect a small minority of the population.

esarbe 6y ago
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that there have to be two parties. And even if there was; make an amendment. It the case of the U.S., nobody is to blame but the U.S. voters.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Its a deeper structural issue that that. As you say, there's no law mandating it, but here we are.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    I'm not sure it's a deeper structural issue. The issue is actually pretty simple; first-past-the-post voting. This automatically leads to a two-party system.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Canada has both first past the post voting and a multi party system, so no, it's a deeper structural issue than that.
      - esarbe 6y ago
        Let's see. Canada currently has 338 MPs and over 80% (!) of those (278) belong to one of two majority parties. So yes, in theory Canada has a multi party system. In practice this multi party system is severely damaged by the effects of the FPTP voting system. There are mathematical reasons for FPTP to result in two party systems. [0] explains it pretty well. There don't have to be deeper underlying stuctural reasons for the dichotomy. So to combat two party systems, replacing FPTP with an alternative voting system seems a pretty reasonable step. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU
        monocasa 6y ago
        Which is also true of Australia which has had instant runoff voting for nearly a century. I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild, and see if they have FPTP (or party proportional representation, which is essentially FPTP with all the same spoiler effects), and which don't, and see if they match your expectations to any degree better than random chance. You can prove just about anything in "math" in a vacuum. The recent push for FPTP really strikes me as the kind of wonk stuff that people bend themselves around as a huge fix, when the reality is it empirically doesn't do what people thinks it should do, and comes with it's own problems. It's a lot of wasted political capital for very little if no benefit.
        esarbe 6y ago
        > Which is also true of Australia [...] No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%) > I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild That's a very good suggestion. I actually already did that and I can assure you not using FPTP results in much more and smaller parties. Examples: - Ireland (STV) - Northern Ireland Assembly (STV) - Papua New Guinea (IRV) > The recent push for FPTP Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.
vinay427 6y ago
This is a problem. That being said, several major states have a good amount of direct democracy, including allowing for state constitutional changes, and there are often more than two viable candidates regardless of the letter after their name. I think this is a plausible way out of the two-party two-ideology stronghold that incites further polarization. Where I vote, between these two factors I don't usually think about a party because there may be 4-6 different candidates with relatively different platforms listed under two parties, and 10-20 referenda listed under that with no party.

lmilcin 6y ago

There is difference between voters choosing forced prison labor and voters given the choice between two parties and being intentionally misled and misinformed about what the parties are actually doing.