4 ms·

> From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equ

> From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights. Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice. Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory. Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties. [EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping. Same with gun control laws. And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities. And the Affordable Care Act. And abortion. And so on. ]

woofie11 6y ago
They flopped like this on surveillance about two decades ago. Democrats were pro-surveillance, and Republicans were pro-privacy. Now, it's the other way around. I could list of a dozen examples when one party flips, the other flops. And it's exactly what game theory predicts. To go with even your first example, Nixon created the EPA. Flops happen when both parties go too far left or too far right. At that point, it makes sense for the "crowded" party to leapfrog and grab the coveted center.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Sure, of course there are examples of parties flopping. I'm saying that it's not a constant rule. Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in environmental regulation when Nixon created the EPA. Or with healthcare. Or abortion. You can't just point to a flop and use it to say "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I don't think I ever said "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything." I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center). If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success. Both parties fundamentally want to win first. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      I agree that politicians and political parties want to win. And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties. The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say. But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
      - woofie11 6y ago
        Theory seems to predict practice well, in this case. Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat. You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end. But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity. Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.

woofie11 6y ago

They flopped like this on surveillance about two decades ago. Democrats were pro-surveillance, and Republicans were pro-privacy. Now, it's the other way around. I could list of a dozen examples when one party flips, the other flops. And it's exactly what game theory predicts. To go with even your first example, Nixon created the EPA. Flops happen when both parties go too far left or too far right. At that point, it makes sense for the "crowded" party to leapfrog and grab the coveted center.

adamsea 6y ago
Sure, of course there are examples of parties flopping. I'm saying that it's not a constant rule. Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in environmental regulation when Nixon created the EPA. Or with healthcare. Or abortion. You can't just point to a flop and use it to say "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."
- woofie11 6y ago
  I don't think I ever said "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything." I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center). If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success. Both parties fundamentally want to win first. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    I agree that politicians and political parties want to win. And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties. The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say. But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      Theory seems to predict practice well, in this case. Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat. You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end. But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity. Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.