3 ms·

What's wrong with just red team or blue team? As long as they're both competing for your vote and not colluding, it sounds like a pretty good way of establishin

What's wrong with just red team or blue team? As long as they're both competing for your vote and not colluding, it sounds like a pretty good way of establishing what popular opinion is. They're not static. When public opinion changes, they have to adapt to maintain their competitiveness. Even people who unthinkingly vote for the same party no matter what are just cancelled out by their counterparts and are effectively abstaining. That's helpful because they didn't vote intelligently anyway.

foolinaround 5y ago
> and not colluding Are we sure? they are both funded by the same corporate lobbyists...
slindz 5y ago
From where I'm standing, it sure looks like buying off both sides is a pretty easy/predictable way to protect the status quo.
guerrilla 5y ago
What's wrong with it is that I can't vote for anyone that I share some views that are important to me with, unlike in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, etc. I'm forced into choosing between two parties which both propose many of the same things that I oppose. Whether they are colluding or not, they're identical on many policies that many people oppose and there is no alternative. On your second point, you assume there are an equal number of tribalists without any data on that. It's beside the point anyway.
klyrs 5y ago
> What's wrong with just red team or blue team? Because people care about different things and don't always align neatly with party policies. Suppose I care deeply about both gun rights and abortion rights. Who do I vote for? Pluralistic systems with proportional representation are better at reflecting the values of the electorate. > As long as they're both competing for your vote and not colluding... Now say I want to tax the rich. That's got strong bipartisan opposition. Who do I vote for?
xboxnolifes 5y ago
"What's wrong with only having the choice between a hamburger and a cheeseburger if both aren't actively poisoning you." The obvious answer is, what if I want neither?
specialist 5y ago
Rather than rehash all the obvious fairness and consent of the governed talking points, which you are certainly already aware of, I'll speak to election integrity. FPTP form of elections are both brittle and very high stakes. Begetting our insane polarization. Switching from FPTP to approval voting would greatly improve the robustness. Switching to proportional representation would greatly reduce the stakes.
acituan 5y ago
Try expressing yourself with answering n questions with a single yes/no answer that has to apply to all at once. You can't even order a family pizza that way; no matter how you align yes/no boundaries there is huge compression loss, and a massive dependence on whoever picks the questions and the boundaries.

foolinaround 5y ago

> and not colluding Are we sure? they are both funded by the same corporate lobbyists...

slindz 5y ago

From where I'm standing, it sure looks like buying off both sides is a pretty easy/predictable way to protect the status quo.

guerrilla 5y ago

What's wrong with it is that I can't vote for anyone that I share some views that are important to me with, unlike in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, etc. I'm forced into choosing between two parties which both propose many of the same things that I oppose. Whether they are colluding or not, they're identical on many policies that many people oppose and there is no alternative. On your second point, you assume there are an equal number of tribalists without any data on that. It's beside the point anyway.

klyrs 5y ago

> What's wrong with just red team or blue team? Because people care about different things and don't always align neatly with party policies. Suppose I care deeply about both gun rights and abortion rights. Who do I vote for? Pluralistic systems with proportional representation are better at reflecting the values of the electorate. > As long as they're both competing for your vote and not colluding... Now say I want to tax the rich. That's got strong bipartisan opposition. Who do I vote for?

xboxnolifes 5y ago

"What's wrong with only having the choice between a hamburger and a cheeseburger if both aren't actively poisoning you." The obvious answer is, what if I want neither?

specialist 5y ago

Rather than rehash all the obvious fairness and consent of the governed talking points, which you are certainly already aware of, I'll speak to election integrity. FPTP form of elections are both brittle and very high stakes. Begetting our insane polarization. Switching from FPTP to approval voting would greatly improve the robustness. Switching to proportional representation would greatly reduce the stakes.

acituan 5y ago

Try expressing yourself with answering n questions with a single yes/no answer that has to apply to all at once. You can't even order a family pizza that way; no matter how you align yes/no boundaries there is huge compression loss, and a massive dependence on whoever picks the questions and the boundaries.