3 ms·

Just a reminder that the world is infinitely complex and there's no "two sides". That American politics has been taken over by two political organizations is on

by Gud 3y ago

Just a reminder that the world is infinitely complex and there's no "two sides". That American politics has been taken over by two political organizations is one of the greatest scams of all time Truly I'm in awe of both the American republican party and the American democratic party.

davidrupp 3y ago
I think Duverger's Law [1] is applicable here. The dominance of two primary parties is an emergent property of the rules for how candidates in the U.S. typically win elections ("plurality wins" as opposed to "majority wins"), not an ab initio "scam". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- khazhoux 3y ago
  Indeed. And much like the TV show "Survivor", the factions continuously shift so that they remain balanced at nearly 50-50 over time. People who are in the majority but "at the bottom" jump to the other team, which re-balances the two parties. A good example is how 30 years ago the Democratic party was solidly identified as the champion of the "little guy." But since then, the working class has felt abandoned by the Democratic party and now somehow they look to the GOP and Trump for help. It would have been inconceivable in the mid-80s that a state like West Virginia would become a Republican stronghold.
- Gud 3y ago
  Yes, and who makes those rules? Neither the republicans or democrats are interested in changing it to a more democratic system.
  - lightbritefight 3y ago
    "Changing it" woukd require a constitutional amendment, which is a near impossibly in today's landscape. When the corrective mechanism is nearly impossible to invoke, it doesnt really matter who wants what.
scoofy 3y ago
In SF, we subdivide the partys in to groups (moderates and progressives), but even that is unacceptably simple. E.g. I am a moderate on housing policy (except the finite resource of public open space), I am generally progressive on transportation policy (we need to dedicate at least 25% of streets explicitly to prioritize non-automobile traffic if we have any change at growing or even fighting climate change). I am moderate on public anti-social behavior (when you don't get punished for breaking into a random person's car, you suddenly create a pipeline to organized crime, we see by bippers dumping tourists luggage a block away after taking the items they can fence). I am a progressive on criminal justice reform (I am convinced by the data that our prisons are crimongenic, however, I think the focus should be on prison reform). It's entirely plausible to have a nuanced view on all theses issues, but most people don't want to think too hard about things, and politics as team-sports is a much easier and instinctual concept when it comes to the principal-agent problem.

by Gud 3y ago

davidrupp 3y ago

I think Duverger's Law [1] is applicable here. The dominance of two primary parties is an emergent property of the rules for how candidates in the U.S. typically win elections ("plurality wins" as opposed to "majority wins"), not an ab initio "scam". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

khazhoux 3y ago
Indeed. And much like the TV show "Survivor", the factions continuously shift so that they remain balanced at nearly 50-50 over time. People who are in the majority but "at the bottom" jump to the other team, which re-balances the two parties. A good example is how 30 years ago the Democratic party was solidly identified as the champion of the "little guy." But since then, the working class has felt abandoned by the Democratic party and now somehow they look to the GOP and Trump for help. It would have been inconceivable in the mid-80s that a state like West Virginia would become a Republican stronghold.
Gud 3y ago
Yes, and who makes those rules? Neither the republicans or democrats are interested in changing it to a more democratic system.
- lightbritefight 3y ago
  "Changing it" woukd require a constitutional amendment, which is a near impossibly in today's landscape. When the corrective mechanism is nearly impossible to invoke, it doesnt really matter who wants what.

scoofy 3y ago

In SF, we subdivide the partys in to groups (moderates and progressives), but even that is unacceptably simple. E.g. I am a moderate on housing policy (except the finite resource of public open space), I am generally progressive on transportation policy (we need to dedicate at least 25% of streets explicitly to prioritize non-automobile traffic if we have any change at growing or even fighting climate change). I am moderate on public anti-social behavior (when you don't get punished for breaking into a random person's car, you suddenly create a pipeline to organized crime, we see by bippers dumping tourists luggage a block away after taking the items they can fence). I am a progressive on criminal justice reform (I am convinced by the data that our prisons are crimongenic, however, I think the focus should be on prison reform). It's entirely plausible to have a nuanced view on all theses issues, but most people don't want to think too hard about things, and politics as team-sports is a much easier and instinctual concept when it comes to the principal-agent problem.