4 ms·

This is a natural outcome having 2 political parties (and FPTP elections) combined with voters that refuse to compromise on key issues. E.g. 1 in 4 US voters w

This is a natural outcome having 2 political parties (and FPTP elections) combined with voters that refuse to compromise on key issues. E.g. 1 in 4 US voters will only vote for pro-life candidates. It's about the same on gun control (combined for and against). Those people basically only have 1 person they'd think of voting for. Change would be more likely if these people had more options, so they could express the importance of their issue alongside their other views, but they can't. Being pro-gun ropes them into voting for anti-abortion candidates. Being pro-immigration ropes them into being pro-single-payer healthcare. There's no room to say "I'm pro-gun and pro-immigration"; FPTP ensures that trying to vote along those ideas goes nowhere. Politicians don't fear for their jobs because they know that as bad as they are, people aren't going to vote against their cemented principles just to express discontent.

twblalock 4y ago
I don’t buy that. Other countries with FPTP elections do better.
- coderaptor 4y ago
  Would you give a couple examples?
jfengel 4y ago
It's not entirely accurate to describe US elections as FPTP, because we hold elections in two stages. Primary elections are often multi-candidate, and it's exactly when they get the opportunity to say things like "I'm pro-gun and pro-immigration and anti-abortion". In the end, there is only one winner of the general election, and if anti-abortion is the most important thing to them, they'll have to compromise with other people who agree on that. During the primary they have the opportunity to make the strongest case they can for their other agenda items, but once they and their fellow party members have picked a candidate for the general, their choice is clear to them. So it's not true that they have no options. They have options, during the part of the process that gets less attention. They may be constrained after that, but any election by any rules has the fundamental constraint that there is exactly one winner.

twblalock 4y ago

I don’t buy that. Other countries with FPTP elections do better.

coderaptor 4y ago
Would you give a couple examples?

jfengel 4y ago

It's not entirely accurate to describe US elections as FPTP, because we hold elections in two stages. Primary elections are often multi-candidate, and it's exactly when they get the opportunity to say things like "I'm pro-gun and pro-immigration and anti-abortion". In the end, there is only one winner of the general election, and if anti-abortion is the most important thing to them, they'll have to compromise with other people who agree on that. During the primary they have the opportunity to make the strongest case they can for their other agenda items, but once they and their fellow party members have picked a candidate for the general, their choice is clear to them. So it's not true that they have no options. They have options, during the part of the process that gets less attention. They may be constrained after that, but any election by any rules has the fundamental constraint that there is exactly one winner.