4 ms·

I'm not American and have an extremely naive question: why not make more parties?

by recuter 4y ago

satya71 4y ago
There are lots of parties. But first past the post system ensures they don’t get anywhere.
- recuter 4y ago
  Yeah. https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/democracy-wire/first-past-the-post-voting-our-elections-explained/ https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/democracy-wire/first-pa... There_I_fixed_it.jpeg I do get why the incumbent parties wouldn't want to change the system but surely if day dreaming about saving America this would be an area of focus.
psychlops 4y ago
The two parties in control collaborate and place rules in place to marginalize and exclude any competition.
dghlsakjg 4y ago
There are tons of parties in the US. However, because of the winner take all system, small parties can never gain power. You will almost always end up with two parties in a plurality vote since that is the only way to reliably win. In other words the party with the broadest appeal will always win. If two right wing candidates both receive 30% of the vote, and the single left wing candidate receives 40% of the vote then the left wins power. So in the next cycle, you have an obvious choice: split the right wing vote and lose, or coalesce into a single party and get 60% of the vote. Look up Maurice Duverger. He did a lot of theoretical work on this.
- recuter 4y ago
  If I think abortion is fine but spiraling deficits are not am I left wing or right wing? I suggest an alternative stratagem: partner up with a righty/lefty on orthogonal issues, split both votes, and then collaborate honorably once one of you is in power. As if you are in cahoots but openly. Like a coalition of some sort.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    It was a simplified example to explain the game theory behind it. Abortion/deficits is a result of that. You find (or create) wedge issues that act as an issue that voters won’t budge on, thereby deciding their vote. If 50% or more of the population feels strongly enough about a given issue that they will always vote based on it then you position yourself as the party that supports that issue and you have a guaranteed win. I don’t like the system, just explaining that those are the incentives that the rules create.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Oh this one is easy. You know which US party is on the side of "abortion is fine." As to "spiraling deficits", take a look at the US deficit per year[0]. Where the Bush Administration caused the massive doozy of the 2008 recession where deficits spiked. And then the Obama Administration, upon inheriting that mess, reduced the deficit every single year until 2016. Then, the deficit increased every year under the Trump administration. You would be Democratic party "left wing" by both accounts. [0]https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      To add to your point, the U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997, then when Bill Clinton was president in 1998, the government finally recorded a surplus. There were also budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget. Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and the US went back to having a budget deficit in 2002. https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/ https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-ch...
      - jfengel 4y ago
        That's a bit of a coincidence. Bill Clinton presided over the original dotcom boom, which produced a ton of federal tax revenue without any actual work on the government's part. Bush Jr's deficits are due in large part to an economic crash that actually begun under Clinton, as the dotcom boom failed. Which doesn't really undercut the point: Republicans aren't actually very good at deficit reduction. Deficit reduction requires either increased revenue or decreased spending. They never substantially decrease spending (they always focus on a few small programs they're ideologically opposed to) and prominently run to decrease revenue. Their supposition that lower taxes will somehow increase revenue has never once worked in practice and was always ridiculous in theory. Democrats don't generally cut the deficit either, except for Bill Clinton's fortunate streak. But at least they don't pretend otherwise, and they don't present it as a tradeoff of "Sure, we're barbaric on human rights issues, but at least we'll lower your taxes while magically decreasing the deficit."
midoridensha 4y ago
They do exist, but Duverger's Law ensures that it is mathematically impossible to have a stable system with more than 2 parties.
- defrost 4y ago
  It's a poor law that doesn't have exceptions; in this case the exceptions are many other countries in the G20 .. eg: Australia, three major parties, numerous minor parties and at any time in the past several decades there has been sitting houses with members from more than two parties. I guess that puts a ding in "mathematically impossible" (given the stability of the Australian political system for 100+ years).

I'm not American and have an extremely naive question: why not make more parties?

satya71 4y ago

There are lots of parties. But first past the post system ensures they don’t get anywhere.

recuter 4y ago
Yeah. https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/democracy-wire/first-past-the-post-voting-our-elections-explained/ https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/democracy-wire/first-pa... There_I_fixed_it.jpeg I do get why the incumbent parties wouldn't want to change the system but surely if day dreaming about saving America this would be an area of focus.

psychlops 4y ago

The two parties in control collaborate and place rules in place to marginalize and exclude any competition.

dghlsakjg 4y ago

There are tons of parties in the US. However, because of the winner take all system, small parties can never gain power. You will almost always end up with two parties in a plurality vote since that is the only way to reliably win. In other words the party with the broadest appeal will always win. If two right wing candidates both receive 30% of the vote, and the single left wing candidate receives 40% of the vote then the left wins power. So in the next cycle, you have an obvious choice: split the right wing vote and lose, or coalesce into a single party and get 60% of the vote. Look up Maurice Duverger. He did a lot of theoretical work on this.

recuter 4y ago
If I think abortion is fine but spiraling deficits are not am I left wing or right wing? I suggest an alternative stratagem: partner up with a righty/lefty on orthogonal issues, split both votes, and then collaborate honorably once one of you is in power. As if you are in cahoots but openly. Like a coalition of some sort.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  It was a simplified example to explain the game theory behind it. Abortion/deficits is a result of that. You find (or create) wedge issues that act as an issue that voters won’t budge on, thereby deciding their vote. If 50% or more of the population feels strongly enough about a given issue that they will always vote based on it then you position yourself as the party that supports that issue and you have a guaranteed win. I don’t like the system, just explaining that those are the incentives that the rules create.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Oh this one is easy. You know which US party is on the side of "abortion is fine." As to "spiraling deficits", take a look at the US deficit per year[0]. Where the Bush Administration caused the massive doozy of the 2008 recession where deficits spiked. And then the Obama Administration, upon inheriting that mess, reduced the deficit every single year until 2016. Then, the deficit increased every year under the Trump administration. You would be Democratic party "left wing" by both accounts. [0]https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    To add to your point, the U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997, then when Bill Clinton was president in 1998, the government finally recorded a surplus. There were also budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget. Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and the US went back to having a budget deficit in 2002. https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/ https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-ch...
    - jfengel 4y ago
      That's a bit of a coincidence. Bill Clinton presided over the original dotcom boom, which produced a ton of federal tax revenue without any actual work on the government's part. Bush Jr's deficits are due in large part to an economic crash that actually begun under Clinton, as the dotcom boom failed. Which doesn't really undercut the point: Republicans aren't actually very good at deficit reduction. Deficit reduction requires either increased revenue or decreased spending. They never substantially decrease spending (they always focus on a few small programs they're ideologically opposed to) and prominently run to decrease revenue. Their supposition that lower taxes will somehow increase revenue has never once worked in practice and was always ridiculous in theory. Democrats don't generally cut the deficit either, except for Bill Clinton's fortunate streak. But at least they don't pretend otherwise, and they don't present it as a tradeoff of "Sure, we're barbaric on human rights issues, but at least we'll lower your taxes while magically decreasing the deficit."

midoridensha 4y ago

They do exist, but Duverger's Law ensures that it is mathematically impossible to have a stable system with more than 2 parties.

defrost 4y ago
It's a poor law that doesn't have exceptions; in this case the exceptions are many other countries in the G20 .. eg: Australia, three major parties, numerous minor parties and at any time in the past several decades there has been sitting houses with members from more than two parties. I guess that puts a ding in "mathematically impossible" (given the stability of the Australian political system for 100+ years).