3 ms·

Maybe but... There are lots of different voting mechanisms around the world. So e are "better" in the sense that people (including me) like them more... but...

Maybe but... There are lots of different voting mechanisms around the world. So e are "better" in the sense that people (including me) like them more... but... Games mature and you end up with some sort of antipattern party politics emerging. Eg in many multiparty systems extremist small parties can strongarm governments. Acceptability to the majority isn't a thing. Party leaders become little chiefs. Not saying it's worse. It might even be better, but it's not much better. Also, the US has relatively strong separation of powers. The house, senate and president are weak independently of eachother. Weak institutions and weak parties will probably result in complete indecisiveness. Imo, if we're suggesting progress on democracy, we need more radical steps. Eg a randomly selected representative body.

giantg2 3y ago
I generally agree. "Weak institutions and weak parties will probably result in complete indecisiveness." The other option is that they learn to work together for decent compromises. It's also possible that slow legislation is not a design flaw but rather a feature. The way it is now is mostly stalemates, virtue signaling (passing bills they know will be vetoed), and jamming laws through as fast as possible without any true debate.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Aye, the slowness and "design by committee" aspect of a large legislative body was known to the writers of the constitution. They wanted it to move slow, to ensure due consideration. That it would lead to deadlock or other problems became rapidly clear -- i.e. the Vice President of the USA shooting the head of the opposing party in a duel -- and we've seen things like the consolidation of power in the President as a response.
pjc50 3y ago
> the US has relatively strong separation of powers But each level has the same two parties competing for it! So your only outcomes are "deadlock" or "tyranny of the 51%". It's particularly silly for things like the Supreme Court where judges are given partisan life appointments.
- dalbasal 3y ago
  That's what I mean. I'll take "deadlock" or "tyranny" as exaggerations for emphasis. "Tyranny" isn't more or less likely with multi-party. In recent times, a lot of democracies have move to increasingly smaller large parties. But historically, a lot of parliaments have had parties with >51% or parliament... equivalent to having house+senate+presidency, with less opportunity for defection... and mostly under weaker supreme courts. "Deadlock" works differently in parliamentary systems but... generally tend to be more deadlocked. That's why parliamentary systems often have so many early elections. Deadlock is (assumed to be) absolute. This is way more common where small parties predominate. Im not arguing that either is better, just that patterns emerge and repeat under all the electoral systems currently used. Transferable votes, multi-stage elections, regional electorates, proportional, vote-for-party, vote-for-candidate, etc. None seem particularly "better" for producing outcomes. Party political patterns conform to whatever habitat they exist in.

giantg2 3y ago

I generally agree. "Weak institutions and weak parties will probably result in complete indecisiveness." The other option is that they learn to work together for decent compromises. It's also possible that slow legislation is not a design flaw but rather a feature. The way it is now is mostly stalemates, virtue signaling (passing bills they know will be vetoed), and jamming laws through as fast as possible without any true debate.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Aye, the slowness and "design by committee" aspect of a large legislative body was known to the writers of the constitution. They wanted it to move slow, to ensure due consideration. That it would lead to deadlock or other problems became rapidly clear -- i.e. the Vice President of the USA shooting the head of the opposing party in a duel -- and we've seen things like the consolidation of power in the President as a response.

pjc50 3y ago

> the US has relatively strong separation of powers But each level has the same two parties competing for it! So your only outcomes are "deadlock" or "tyranny of the 51%". It's particularly silly for things like the Supreme Court where judges are given partisan life appointments.

dalbasal 3y ago
That's what I mean. I'll take "deadlock" or "tyranny" as exaggerations for emphasis. "Tyranny" isn't more or less likely with multi-party. In recent times, a lot of democracies have move to increasingly smaller large parties. But historically, a lot of parliaments have had parties with >51% or parliament... equivalent to having house+senate+presidency, with less opportunity for defection... and mostly under weaker supreme courts. "Deadlock" works differently in parliamentary systems but... generally tend to be more deadlocked. That's why parliamentary systems often have so many early elections. Deadlock is (assumed to be) absolute. This is way more common where small parties predominate. Im not arguing that either is better, just that patterns emerge and repeat under all the electoral systems currently used. Transferable votes, multi-stage elections, regional electorates, proportional, vote-for-party, vote-for-candidate, etc. None seem particularly "better" for producing outcomes. Party political patterns conform to whatever habitat they exist in.