9 ms·
I thought it was interesting how it explicitly doesn't boost independents. So much of the two-party system is self-reinforcing.
by jandrese 4y ago
I thought it was interesting how it explicitly doesn't boost independents. So much of the two-party system is self-reinforcing.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoOr anti-statists! Not everyone who engages with politics is a bootlicker for authoritarianism but it sure feels like there’s no space made for this perspective (obviously)
- emodendroket 4y agoThe vast majority of self-proclaimed independents vote with one party just as reliably as registered members.
- philistine 4y agoAmerican's lax attitude towards cultivating more than two parties is literally killing the republic from the inside.
- airstrike 4y agoYou'd think a country that played a central role in a global, decades-long unstable regime of bipolar power that routinely pushed mankind to the brink of nuclear oblivion would know better than to have a bipolar electoral system
- robertlagrant 4y ago> routinely pushed mankind to the brink of nuclear oblivion I'm struggling to think of a reason why this is anything but bad faith nonsense.
- weaksauce 4y agohave you never heard of the many times we almost came to setting off full scale nuclear warfare because of the bipolar power war of the ussr v usa et.al.? the only thing that saved us was cooler heads that prevailed on both sides.
- emodendroket 4y agoWhy would throwing more actors with similar capabilities into the mix make the situation any more stable though? That seems like basically the old European Balance of Power, which broke out into open conflict more frequently.
- airstrike 4y agoI take the view that the European balance of power probably broke out into open conflict often because of hidden alliances that made it hard for states to correctly gauge the costs of engaging in such conflict. In the field International Relations, there's lots of discussion around the stability (or instability) of a bipolar distribution of power. Your stance is closer to neorealists, mine is maybe closer to classical realists. Have fun reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relati... and related links But from a game theory perspective, having only two powers turns everything into a zero-sum game. I argue that leads to less cooperation and increased divisiveness. Not agreeing with Republicans means you must be a Democrat in their eyes. This "us versus them" mentality is somewhat tribal and leaves little room for nuance. If I had a magic want, the US would have a 4 party system. Like a cartesian plane with civil liberalism <-> conservatism on one axis and economic liberalism <-> conservatism on the other axis
- emodendroket 4y ago> Classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical realists argue, this is not possible. I suppose they must account for this somehow but isn't that exactly what a series of proxy wars in far-flung places between the United States and the Soviet Union were?
- hraedon 4y agoIt isn't an attitudinal problem, it is the logical outcome of our political systems. In political science it is known as Duverger's law: single ballot, winner take all systems inevitably tend toward a two party equilibrium. Changing this requires states to adopt alternative systems, which can sometimes mean amending state constitutions. It isn't easy or straightforward, and the general sense is that there are better things to spend that effort on.
- noizejoy 4y ago> single ballot, winner take all systems inevitably tend toward a two party equilibrium. I'm not convinced it's quite that simple. For example, Canada also has a first-past-the-post electoral system - yet political parties here have come and gone. And continue to do so.
- tialaramex 4y agoParties come and go, but there will be two major parties. In fact under such as system if you're in one of those two big parties and you see a third party rising you need to figure out whether it's you or the other guys getting replaced, 'cos it won't stay a three party system for long. For example in the UK, the Tories ("Conservative and Unionist Party") and Labour are currently the biggest parties, but a hundred years ago this was a novel situation, Labour were seen as a third party, while the Liberal party (which was eventually absorbed into what is today "Liberal Democrats") had seen success over decades and were often in government prior to that point.
- emodendroket 4y agoI mean we're on the sixth "party system" in the US too, if that's your standard (it's a new "party system" when there's a significant realignment of which interests find themselves in which parties, either by a reshuffle among existing parties, or by new parties rising and old ones falling). Have you heard much about the Federalists or Whigs lately?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
- emodendroket 4y agoIn some other countries the different interest groups sort themselves into two factions after being elected but I don't know that it is really that different in practice.
- TillE 4y agoIt's not different, or rather it doesn't produce meaningfully different outcomes. I'm not aware of any parliamentary system with a wonderful diversity of thought and a long record of positive accomplishments. You end up with ruling coalitions which are typically pretty awful. Ironically, America has one of the most open political systems. You register as one party or the other and vote in primaries. This has lead to a huge variety of people replacing hated mainstream politicians. That's way more than you can say for many other countries.
- soderfoo 4y agoThe two parties are essentially coalitions. Anecdotally, a recurring theme in conversations I've had while living abroad is the desire to prune or consolidate some parties. While both sides in the US have big tents, they are effective in whipping votes when things need to get done. It also helps that detracting coalition partners can't torpedo their leadership. Historically, factions within a party, like Blue dog dems or Tea partiers, had to wait for an election to litigate their grievances.
- emodendroket 4y agoWell, yes, this was where I was going. The coalition is just formed before the election takes place. I live in a city with "nonpartisan" elections and I feel like it mostly just makes it difficult to understand what candidates in local elections even stand for.
- soderfoo 4y agoAgreed, when I lived in Austin the non partisan elections for city council made me feel ill informed come election day. It just fueled apathy for me: there's only so much research one can do with limited press coverage and personal time constraints. Shrug.
- djbusby 4y agoIIRC Some states you cannot vote outside your declared party (Washington)
- favorited 4y agoThat's only for primaries, which traditionally were only open to members of a party.
- variant 4y agoIt's just different order of operations on coalition building. Other systems divide into a majority and opposition at some point. In the US it just happens earlier, but there is the same diversity of opinions within those groups.
- silisili 4y agoMajority? Probably. Vast majority? No way. If that were true we'd not keep switching parties between presidents. And Florida, a mostly independent voter state, wouldn't have had DeSantis win in a landslide when he just barely tied last time around.
- emodendroket 4y agoThat's attributable to turnout. You tell me if 90% is a "vast" majority or not. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-in...
- tablespoon 4y ago> I thought it was interesting how it explicitly doesn't boost independents. So much of the two-party system is self-reinforcing. Is it boosting? Others are claiming this code is just for metrics collection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35391896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35391896. But on the topic of Democrats vs. Republican vs. independent; a big factor may be that "Democrat" and "Republican" are much more cohesive groups and therefore much easier to define. No one can honestly define "independent" except in a kind of "none of the above" sense, since they can range anywhere from extreme right, to the center, to the extreme left.
- dd36 4y agoWhy measure something if you don’t intend to change it?
- astrange 4y agoSo you can make sure not to accidentally change it.
- lapetitejort 4y agoAnd if one party trends more towards violent extremism, they get boosted the same as before?
- airstrike 4y agoAlso how about.... everyone else in the world who is not an American voter?
- threeseed 4y agoOnly anecdotally. But ever since Musk took over the amount of US political content has significantly increased in particular from the right despite me not living in the US. It's hard to tell whether previously political content was weighted less and Musk has removed those controls or whether they are now weighted higher.
- kevingadd 4y agoSome of the power users Musk reportedly had boosted are specifically right wing political posters, like catturd2. But then he's also boosted some high profile left leaning politicians, so it's not exclusive. It does mean you're more likely to see right wing American political content either way, which has to be annoying for people outside of the US. https://gizmodo.com/twitter-algorithm-aoc-ben-shapiro-catturd2-1850272655 https://gizmodo.com/twitter-algorithm-aoc-ben-shapiro-cattur...
- realjhol 4y agoWhy do you believe it would be annoying to us?
- fyloraspit 4y agoWould it not be just as annoying to see a slant the other direction, or in any extreme direction?
- IncRnd 4y agoThe parent poster doesn't realize the inherent bias in what they wrote and that you have pointed out.
- 4y ago
- robertlagrant 4y agoIsn't it intrinsically self-reinforcing, if you have a winner takes all system? It's almost always better to join an existing team than start a new one.
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoI thought it was interesting that twitter thinks the U.S is the world
- whatgoodisaroad 4y agoFor a big tech company, the regulatory regime is the world. For Twitter that's the US.
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoMost big companies I've worked at are international and are regulated in many regimes, although sure the one with the main corporate headquarters is more important.
- nelox 4y agoTwitter thinks Twitter is the world.
- lapetitejort 4y agoI'd be interested in which bin people like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Susan Collins, et. al. are placed.