3 ms·

It really feels like the author is hampered by the preconceived notion that there are two "camps" in politics. Sure, it may work out that way in US elections du

by crote 3y ago

It really feels like the author is hampered by the preconceived notion that there are two "camps" in politics. Sure, it may work out that way in US elections due to a fundamentally broken democratic system, but is it that much of a stretch to believe that people can have different opinions on various topics? In a winner-takes-all system, people don't vote for the person they like most. They vote against the person who's a threat to their way of living, and begrudgingly accept that this means voting for someone they actually quite dislike - but don't actively hate. Without such a laser focus on "two camps" politics, the author might've been able to realize that it's actually a multi-axis political spectrum. A good start might be "authoritarian vs libertarian" and "capitalism vs collectivism".

beej71 3y ago
> people don't vote for the person they like most. They vote against the person who's a threat to their way of living I don't quite follow this. It seems kind of like subtracting a number versus adding a negative number. Isn't a threat to my way of life simply a negative like?
- crote 3y ago
  In a well-functioning democracy you'd vote on someone who you'd agree with on something like 9/10 issues. However, not everyone agrees with you, so they might end up having to create a coalition with someone you agree with on 6/10 issues. In the end you end up with 7.5/10 issues going your way. Not ideal, but not too bad either. In a first-past-the-post system, voting on the 9/10 politician is a complete waste as everyone knows they'll never get a majority. Plenty of people like the 0/10 guy, and the 3/10 guy is quite popular too. So better vote for the 3/10 guy: sure, you don't want him, but having him in office is still better than the 0/10 one winning!
  - beej71 3y ago
    Ah, in the case you might be splitting the vote, I see.
- taylodl 3y ago
  What you're looking for is Duverger's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

by crote 3y ago

beej71 3y ago

> people don't vote for the person they like most. They vote against the person who's a threat to their way of living I don't quite follow this. It seems kind of like subtracting a number versus adding a negative number. Isn't a threat to my way of life simply a negative like?

crote 3y ago
In a well-functioning democracy you'd vote on someone who you'd agree with on something like 9/10 issues. However, not everyone agrees with you, so they might end up having to create a coalition with someone you agree with on 6/10 issues. In the end you end up with 7.5/10 issues going your way. Not ideal, but not too bad either. In a first-past-the-post system, voting on the 9/10 politician is a complete waste as everyone knows they'll never get a majority. Plenty of people like the 0/10 guy, and the 3/10 guy is quite popular too. So better vote for the 3/10 guy: sure, you don't want him, but having him in office is still better than the 0/10 one winning!
- beej71 3y ago
  Ah, in the case you might be splitting the vote, I see.
taylodl 3y ago
What you're looking for is Duverger's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law