5 ms·

> People are increasingly identifying as “independent” because the two parties don’t have enough nuance. Seems incoherent. The purpose of parties is to put som

> People are increasingly identifying as “independent” because the two parties don’t have enough nuance. Seems incoherent. The purpose of parties is to put someone in power. Arguing about positions or policies or whatever else some 101 class tells you about makes no sense. The thing that really exists is an elective office which confers power on the holder. Aggregations of different people over different time with unformed beliefs are meaningless. Confusing, "i hate repubs and dems" with "i hate the 2 party system" is a mistake.

jszymborski 3y ago
I think many people hold the opinion that Republicans and Democrats behave in a way they disapprove of _because_ of the two party system.
JohnFen 3y ago
> The purpose of parties is to put someone in power. But in a 2 party system, the odds are very good that neither of the parties adequately represents you. That's the problem with it -- no nuance. As a result, every election is about choosing which candidate will do the least damage rather than which candidate will do the most good.
- nh23423fefe 3y ago
  I dont think those statements are connected at all. I dont know what adequate representation is but I'll assume something like a similarity measure over preferences. The claim of no nuance is applied to parties. But parties aren't voted for candidates are. So sure, parties aggregate the preferences of their members and the distribution of members has some variance. So parties are bad because voters are different? And the solution is, what, smaller parties with less variance? The best political party has 1 member? I can't differentiate between the utility of gaining a want or avoiding a harm, so Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. Seems like pretending "zero" has meaning. When really only differences in utility have meaning.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > But parties aren't voted for candidates are. I think that most people vote based on party affiliation rather than the candidates. At least, that's what I see. > So parties are bad because voters are different? No, parties are bad because they reduce the variety of candidates. In the US, you effectively only have a choice between two candidates for most elections. The Democrat and the Republican. If you find them both objectionable, then tough luck. This isn't by accident, this is the result of the two parties working together to shut out any other "competitors". > The best political party has 1 member? I would say so, yes, since that's the same as no parties whatsoever. But, realistically, that's not ever going to happen. > Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. The point is that it's common that you have to vote for someone you object to, because if you don't then someone you object to even more is more likely to win. It would be healthier if it were possible to have candidates that you're actively in favor of instead. But if you don't philosophically align with the Dems or Reps, that's not an option. So every election becomes a depressing expression of futility.
pixelatedindex 3y ago
> Arguing about positions or policies or whatever else some 101 class tells you about makes no sense. I’m not sure I follow. The elective office isn’t magically conferred to a person, it’s voted on. And arguing about positions and policies is exactly how we decide who is worthy of this office. > Aggregations of different people over different time with unformed beliefs are meaningless. Really though? Isn’t that how society has progressed? I want to understand this comment but all I’m hearing is “why care about policies and people in power, someone’s going to be in office and most voters are clueless anyway”. > Confusing, "i hate repubs and dems" with "i hate the 2 party system" is a mistake. Eh, depends on the era. It’s always been a 2-party system and for the present day it’s effectively R+D. Maybe there will be a resurgence of parties like the Know Nothings but for the average person today, it’s the same thing.
- nh23423fefe 3y ago
  I was responding to > every issue and potential solution is nuanced. By extension, this means that every person outside of the most extremist is nuanced as well. I think the article has it backwards. It asserts complicated people with uncorrelated beliefs (random vectors) and how impossible the task of self-categorization becomes (i'm so unique that im far from each parties centroid, which of course neglects those who are close to the centroid). This is a fake task. Candidates self-sort into parties to gain nominations by making promises to party insiders and voters choose among candidates during elections. The apparatus of party isn't relevant to the choice in the ballot box. Neither is the alignment of the candidate with the voter. You make a choice A or B. It's only the difference in A vs B not the alignment with A or with B. Alignment is correlated with the difference, sure, but its not the reason to choose A over B. That's what I meant by the aggregations comment. Parties cover/split voters and the centroid drifts over time. That drift is irrelevant to the task of candidate choice.
mcculley 3y ago
Wouldn’t any two party system converge to the same useless equilibrium?
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
If it was just about installing someone, anyone at all into power we would have maintained a monarchy. Instead, ideally, political parties and their representatives are meant to, well, represent the political views of their supporters. For instance, my beliefs are not well represented or even respected in this “two” party system, so I don’t vote. A lot of people are disillusioned with the current power struggle in the US, finding it an ever-increasing joke. Until we get politicians that actually represent and more importantly respect the people, then that won’t change. So no, saying “I hate the repubs and dems” synonymously with “I hate the ‘two’ party system” is not a mistake. Because they are synonymous.

jszymborski 3y ago

I think many people hold the opinion that Republicans and Democrats behave in a way they disapprove of _because_ of the two party system.

JohnFen 3y ago

> The purpose of parties is to put someone in power. But in a 2 party system, the odds are very good that neither of the parties adequately represents you. That's the problem with it -- no nuance. As a result, every election is about choosing which candidate will do the least damage rather than which candidate will do the most good.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
I dont think those statements are connected at all. I dont know what adequate representation is but I'll assume something like a similarity measure over preferences. The claim of no nuance is applied to parties. But parties aren't voted for candidates are. So sure, parties aggregate the preferences of their members and the distribution of members has some variance. So parties are bad because voters are different? And the solution is, what, smaller parties with less variance? The best political party has 1 member? I can't differentiate between the utility of gaining a want or avoiding a harm, so Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. Seems like pretending "zero" has meaning. When really only differences in utility have meaning.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > But parties aren't voted for candidates are. I think that most people vote based on party affiliation rather than the candidates. At least, that's what I see. > So parties are bad because voters are different? No, parties are bad because they reduce the variety of candidates. In the US, you effectively only have a choice between two candidates for most elections. The Democrat and the Republican. If you find them both objectionable, then tough luck. This isn't by accident, this is the result of the two parties working together to shut out any other "competitors". > The best political party has 1 member? I would say so, yes, since that's the same as no parties whatsoever. But, realistically, that's not ever going to happen. > Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. The point is that it's common that you have to vote for someone you object to, because if you don't then someone you object to even more is more likely to win. It would be healthier if it were possible to have candidates that you're actively in favor of instead. But if you don't philosophically align with the Dems or Reps, that's not an option. So every election becomes a depressing expression of futility.

pixelatedindex 3y ago

> Arguing about positions or policies or whatever else some 101 class tells you about makes no sense. I’m not sure I follow. The elective office isn’t magically conferred to a person, it’s voted on. And arguing about positions and policies is exactly how we decide who is worthy of this office. > Aggregations of different people over different time with unformed beliefs are meaningless. Really though? Isn’t that how society has progressed? I want to understand this comment but all I’m hearing is “why care about policies and people in power, someone’s going to be in office and most voters are clueless anyway”. > Confusing, "i hate repubs and dems" with "i hate the 2 party system" is a mistake. Eh, depends on the era. It’s always been a 2-party system and for the present day it’s effectively R+D. Maybe there will be a resurgence of parties like the Know Nothings but for the average person today, it’s the same thing.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
I was responding to > every issue and potential solution is nuanced. By extension, this means that every person outside of the most extremist is nuanced as well. I think the article has it backwards. It asserts complicated people with uncorrelated beliefs (random vectors) and how impossible the task of self-categorization becomes (i'm so unique that im far from each parties centroid, which of course neglects those who are close to the centroid). This is a fake task. Candidates self-sort into parties to gain nominations by making promises to party insiders and voters choose among candidates during elections. The apparatus of party isn't relevant to the choice in the ballot box. Neither is the alignment of the candidate with the voter. You make a choice A or B. It's only the difference in A vs B not the alignment with A or with B. Alignment is correlated with the difference, sure, but its not the reason to choose A over B. That's what I meant by the aggregations comment. Parties cover/split voters and the centroid drifts over time. That drift is irrelevant to the task of candidate choice.

mcculley 3y ago

Wouldn’t any two party system converge to the same useless equilibrium?

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

If it was just about installing someone, anyone at all into power we would have maintained a monarchy. Instead, ideally, political parties and their representatives are meant to, well, represent the political views of their supporters. For instance, my beliefs are not well represented or even respected in this “two” party system, so I don’t vote. A lot of people are disillusioned with the current power struggle in the US, finding it an ever-increasing joke. Until we get politicians that actually represent and more importantly respect the people, then that won’t change. So no, saying “I hate the repubs and dems” synonymously with “I hate the ‘two’ party system” is not a mistake. Because they are synonymous.