4 ms·

Getting rid of primaries? That’d effectively end political parties.

InitialLastName 5y ago
Good. Breaking up the duopoly of US parties with deeply calcified sets of positions and constituents in favor of a more flexible set of platforms (that may or may not overlap with others on various concerns) could lubricate the government (especially the legislature) into operating based on policies and priorities that more accurately represent the majority view on any given topic.
jfengel 5y ago
We had political parties long before we had primaries. Presidential primaries were only introduced in the 1970s. Primaries for state office were introduced in the 1890s, died out, and were introduced again in the 1920s. But we had parties going basically back to the beginning of the country, and the current two parties crystallized during the 1850s -- long before primaries. Primaries were introduced as a way of reducing the power of party bosses over the parties.
godelski 5y ago
Funny enough, Washington wasn't a fan of parties. The argument against them is that they encourage lazy voting. Sure, there are advantages in that a party will help summarize a list of policies, but the disadvantage is tribalism. I think in modern day we don't have the same need for policy hinting (what parties give) because every major politician lists all their policies and positions on their campaign websites. 50 years ago this would be a logistical nightmare. That said, if we adopted something like score or STAR I don't think there would be any problem with parties, nor would they be destroyed. You still get the advantages of pooling resources. Have a strong preference for members of the hippo party? You can donate and campaign for them even while you hash out which candidate best represents the coalition of people at the time. Think the hippo party played dirty and kicked out your favorite candidate Salamander-Gibbon Yack but really don't like the opposing party Tree Trunks? You can still vote your favorite person and not have any determent (system is monotonic). This actually gives less power for the hippo party to determine for you which is your preferred candidate. Better yet, you get a lot of information! So even if the hippo party's leading candidate wins but you find that Salamander-Gibbon Yack was an extremely close second then the hippo party will have to update their policies (hopefully). By rating, instead of ranking, candidates you have a substantially more expressive ballot and we can data mine and learn from it through this expressiveness. We live in the age of big data and yet in politics we compress data to a point that is almost meaningless. Cardinal systems won't destroy political parties, but they prevent them from controlling and manipulating the elections.
- specialist 5y ago
  Yes, and: Parties get candidates elected. It's a form of social validation, vetting. The alternative is more money (buy votes). Everyone should run for office at least once. Folk theories don't jive with the reality. Yes, and #2: Polarization != partisanship. Factors outside of the parties begat our current polarization. Ezra Klein's Why We Are Polarized is a good primer.

Good. Breaking up the duopoly of US parties with deeply calcified sets of positions and constituents in favor of a more flexible set of platforms (that may or may not overlap with others on various concerns) could lubricate the government (especially the legislature) into operating based on policies and priorities that more accurately represent the majority view on any given topic.

jfengel 5y ago

We had political parties long before we had primaries. Presidential primaries were only introduced in the 1970s. Primaries for state office were introduced in the 1890s, died out, and were introduced again in the 1920s. But we had parties going basically back to the beginning of the country, and the current two parties crystallized during the 1850s -- long before primaries. Primaries were introduced as a way of reducing the power of party bosses over the parties.

godelski 5y ago

Funny enough, Washington wasn't a fan of parties. The argument against them is that they encourage lazy voting. Sure, there are advantages in that a party will help summarize a list of policies, but the disadvantage is tribalism. I think in modern day we don't have the same need for policy hinting (what parties give) because every major politician lists all their policies and positions on their campaign websites. 50 years ago this would be a logistical nightmare. That said, if we adopted something like score or STAR I don't think there would be any problem with parties, nor would they be destroyed. You still get the advantages of pooling resources. Have a strong preference for members of the hippo party? You can donate and campaign for them even while you hash out which candidate best represents the coalition of people at the time. Think the hippo party played dirty and kicked out your favorite candidate Salamander-Gibbon Yack but really don't like the opposing party Tree Trunks? You can still vote your favorite person and not have any determent (system is monotonic). This actually gives less power for the hippo party to determine for you which is your preferred candidate. Better yet, you get a lot of information! So even if the hippo party's leading candidate wins but you find that Salamander-Gibbon Yack was an extremely close second then the hippo party will have to update their policies (hopefully). By rating, instead of ranking, candidates you have a substantially more expressive ballot and we can data mine and learn from it through this expressiveness. We live in the age of big data and yet in politics we compress data to a point that is almost meaningless. Cardinal systems won't destroy political parties, but they prevent them from controlling and manipulating the elections.

specialist 5y ago
Yes, and: Parties get candidates elected. It's a form of social validation, vetting. The alternative is more money (buy votes). Everyone should run for office at least once. Folk theories don't jive with the reality. Yes, and #2: Polarization != partisanship. Factors outside of the parties begat our current polarization. Ezra Klein's Why We Are Polarized is a good primer.