5 ms·

The US was stable for the entire 20th century with FPTP. If it's so bad, why was the US stable for so long with literally the exact same system we have now? Can

The US was stable for the entire 20th century with FPTP. If it's so bad, why was the US stable for so long with literally the exact same system we have now? Canada's used FPTP for its entire democratic existence, it's one of the most stable democracies on Earth. Britain not only uses FPTP, but uses the most extreme version possible in the Westminster system where the losing party has far fewer rights than they would in the US. Again- another perfectly stable 1st world democracy. Meanwhile, lots of far more consensus-oriented political systems have utterly collapsed. Weimar Germany used PR- so did Argentina when Peron took over. Rwanda was using PR leading up to its famous genocide in the 90s! The number of parliamentary countries using PR that have collapsed probably exceeds the total number of FPTP countries globally. Voting or electoral systems just don't matter that much- culture does. If you're a basically stable society, you can use any voting method and be fine- if Japan or the Scandinavian nations adopted FPTP tomorrow, nothing fundamental would change. If you're unstable, you'll be unstable no matter what type of voting system you use. Governments are not computers where a different operating system leads to different results, I'm sorry

krapp 5y ago
You spent two paragraphs arguing that FPTP voting systems are responsible for the stability of the US, Canada and Britain, ("If [FPTP is] so bad, why was the US stable for so long with literally the exact same system we have now?") whereas countries that use consensus-oriented systems tend to collapse into autocracies ("The number of parliamentary countries using PR that have collapsed probably exceeds the total number of FPTP countries globally.") ... and then your final paragraph argues "Voting or electoral systems just don't matter that much- culture does. If you're a basically stable society, you can use any voting method and be fine." So which is it? Is FPTP the lynchpin of stable democracies, or otherwise irrelevant? Are you making an explicit statement about politics or an implicit statement about culture, here?
- hash872 5y ago
  >You spent two paragraphs arguing that FPTP voting systems are responsible for the stability of the US, Canada and Britain I did not say that, I'm sorry that you got that impression. I am saying that political systems overall are simply much less important than many people, including anti-FPTP campaigners, believe. These examples were simply meant to illustrate the non-correlation between government structure & stability- I could just as easily point to how stable most European PR countries are, or how unstable FPTP users like Jamaica, Pakistan and Yemen can be. It's my belief that the US, Canada and Britain would be equally stable under PR. I am very much making an implicit statement about culture. Fun fact, with a little more research I learned that both South Korea & Taiwan use FPTP for at least some parliamentary offices. Again, if the voting system makes such a huge difference....
Taikonerd 5y ago
Lee Drutman talks a lot about this in his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop." [0] Short version: there used to be much less "party discipline" in US politics. There were lots of sub-factions within the two big parties that would vote differently, depending on the issue. So, it was common for bills to pass with (say) 50% of Democrats voting for them, and 60% of Republicans. In the 90's (according to Drutman), the parties started being much more "coherent" -- like, all Democrats would favor a bill, and all Republicans would oppose it. This makes it much harder to pass legislation. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multiparty-ebook/dp/B081JYFG79/ https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multipar...
- hash872 5y ago
  I read it, I thought it was pretty handwavey. Anyways, doesn't explain how Canada, Britain, South Korea & Taiwan all manage FPTP successfully as stable democracies
  - godelski 5y ago
    > doesn't explain how Canada, Britain, South Korea & Taiwan all manage FPTP successfully as stable democracies There's a lot of other factors in there besides the method of voting. People often compare the US to other countries over voting but ignore that the systems are substantially different. For example, the UK parliament (and many parliaments) has proportional representation. This is something we don't see in the US congress. And it is important to distinguish that presidential elections are vastly different than congressional/parliamentary elections. Then again, maybe this is part of the problem, that US is hyper focused on the presidential elections but nowhere near similarly engaged in the congressional ones.
    - hash872 5y ago
      The UK does not have proportional representation, that's not correct. FPTP & PR are opposites- you have to choose one system or the other. I agree that presidential systems are probably suboptimal, but it is worth noting that South Korea has a president in addition to FPTP, single rep districts, etc. Again my point- if you're a stable culture, you can make any system work!

krapp 5y ago

You spent two paragraphs arguing that FPTP voting systems are responsible for the stability of the US, Canada and Britain, ("If [FPTP is] so bad, why was the US stable for so long with literally the exact same system we have now?") whereas countries that use consensus-oriented systems tend to collapse into autocracies ("The number of parliamentary countries using PR that have collapsed probably exceeds the total number of FPTP countries globally.") ... and then your final paragraph argues "Voting or electoral systems just don't matter that much- culture does. If you're a basically stable society, you can use any voting method and be fine." So which is it? Is FPTP the lynchpin of stable democracies, or otherwise irrelevant? Are you making an explicit statement about politics or an implicit statement about culture, here?

hash872 5y ago
>You spent two paragraphs arguing that FPTP voting systems are responsible for the stability of the US, Canada and Britain I did not say that, I'm sorry that you got that impression. I am saying that political systems overall are simply much less important than many people, including anti-FPTP campaigners, believe. These examples were simply meant to illustrate the non-correlation between government structure & stability- I could just as easily point to how stable most European PR countries are, or how unstable FPTP users like Jamaica, Pakistan and Yemen can be. It's my belief that the US, Canada and Britain would be equally stable under PR. I am very much making an implicit statement about culture. Fun fact, with a little more research I learned that both South Korea & Taiwan use FPTP for at least some parliamentary offices. Again, if the voting system makes such a huge difference....

Taikonerd 5y ago

Lee Drutman talks a lot about this in his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop." [0] Short version: there used to be much less "party discipline" in US politics. There were lots of sub-factions within the two big parties that would vote differently, depending on the issue. So, it was common for bills to pass with (say) 50% of Democrats voting for them, and 60% of Republicans. In the 90's (according to Drutman), the parties started being much more "coherent" -- like, all Democrats would favor a bill, and all Republicans would oppose it. This makes it much harder to pass legislation. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multiparty-ebook/dp/B081JYFG79/ https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multipar...

hash872 5y ago
I read it, I thought it was pretty handwavey. Anyways, doesn't explain how Canada, Britain, South Korea & Taiwan all manage FPTP successfully as stable democracies
- godelski 5y ago
  > doesn't explain how Canada, Britain, South Korea & Taiwan all manage FPTP successfully as stable democracies There's a lot of other factors in there besides the method of voting. People often compare the US to other countries over voting but ignore that the systems are substantially different. For example, the UK parliament (and many parliaments) has proportional representation. This is something we don't see in the US congress. And it is important to distinguish that presidential elections are vastly different than congressional/parliamentary elections. Then again, maybe this is part of the problem, that US is hyper focused on the presidential elections but nowhere near similarly engaged in the congressional ones.
  - hash872 5y ago
    The UK does not have proportional representation, that's not correct. FPTP & PR are opposites- you have to choose one system or the other. I agree that presidential systems are probably suboptimal, but it is worth noting that South Korea has a president in addition to FPTP, single rep districts, etc. Again my point- if you're a stable culture, you can make any system work!