4 ms·

I don't think he was blaming it on the two-party system. He was just explaining how the two-party system is one of those obviously broken mechanisms that effect

I don't think he was blaming it on the two-party system. He was just explaining how the two-party system is one of those obviously broken mechanisms that effectively blocks against replacing it with one of the better alternatives. The general category of issues he highlights, should be well known to people who have lived in and observed our real world and society for a while. It is possible to produce USB-C cables that are robust and last - I know as I own some. But I also own and buy some that LOOK 'robust' but are fragile and stop working within a few months. The vendors make most money by optimizing for LOOKING robust (which is what I am 'demanding'), but in reality making a fragile product, so I anyway have to buy more. For medicine, he is also obviously right - tons of resources are poured into developing 'money-making' medicines for 'money-making' diseases, by commercial companies. And comparatively little money is expended solving diseases which are harmful but not candidates for making money. As an example, investors prefer chronic diseases where you need periodic medicine, and aren't attracted to 'single-use cure' medicines. He is really just pointing to, that a lot of the worlds problems aren't needing an inventor to solve them technically, they are needing politicians and a political movement to drive the will to solve and change them. I recommend reading Machievelli's 'The Prince', for people who suffer from naivety.

nvm0n2 3y ago
The US two party system isn't that obviously broken. Americans like to say it's broken, but they often aren't that familiar with the alternatives. You could have FPTP but with more than two parties, like the UK does. The downside of this is that the reason there are more than two major parties in the UK is that the parties are much more closed off to outside influence, and due to the presence of a major independence movement (something banned by the Constitution). In the USA it's considered entirely normal and possible for complete outsiders to run in party primaries, take over that party and then become President. This cannot happen in the UK because none of the parties have open primaries. Small movements towards more internal party democracy by Labour have been rolled back in recent years, because they allowed in non-centrist types like Corbyn who were popular with the base but not with the electorate. Still, it could be implemented in the USA. "All" you need to do is end the system of party primaries and voting for President, to allow party insiders to select their own leadership. And if you want a big independence party then change the Constitution to allow cessation. You could have PR, like most of Europe does. Then you'd have lots of parties. The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing, with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods, knowing that there's no point in having specific ideas as they'll all be mashed up in coalition negotiations anyway. Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses, and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum, and all the left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything. Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily, and it means Americans are able to go in an "fix" the parties if they drift too far from what is actually wanted. A big part of the meltdown over Trump is that the party insiders were reminded of this against their will. A big part of the meltdown over Sanders vs Clinton was that Americans actually like this aspect of the system and the left felt it was being denied to them.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing That's a bold and total wrong claim. > with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom. > Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things. > Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years. > and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Ill taking anyway, thanks very much. > Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum Again, that's just false. The represented views are way broader then what you get in other systems. Sure you don't have anarchist parties and Nazis but that's because those are minority views. > left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything. That's a very, very broad generalization. And even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong. If 25% are far right wing and 75% are strongly against that far right wing, then that should be reflected in the government. > Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily Having 2 parties is the outcome of an election process that is fundamentally broken and sometimes its a legally enforced duopoly. To claim that isn't fundamentally broken in terms of translating broad popular views into government is simply wrong. The European system are also broken in various ways but they are far better.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom. The USA is both richer and more democratic than Europe. You will need to accept this fact before mocking the Americans. Europe is a place where most countries are partly run by Brussels, which is a totalitarian system. Consider the energy that Americans put into their Presidential elections vs the entirely secret and inexplicable process that led to von der Leyen being able to legislatively control Europe. People may not like Biden or Trump but they can at least explain the process through which they became President, and it is at least theoretically democratic. Nobody outside of Germany even knew who vDL was before she suddenly turned up as the most powerful woman in Europe. > That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things. Which nobody takes seriously because the best that can be hoped for is for the party to enter coalition, at which point everything is up for negotiation and they are guaranteed to have to discard many of their commitments. >> Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses > That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years. Merkel is an excellent example of the problem: after a deadlocked PR election she presided over an entirely mandateless caretaker government that lasted half a year, because German politicians couldn't form a workable coalition. In theory she was meant to do nothing during this time and simply preserve the status quo, but that is impossible to constitutionally enforce and in fact she continued to rule exactly as before, including signing Germany up for new foreign policy commitments. The USA simply never has the problem of the previous president continuing to rule after losing support in an election. It is a problem largely unique to PR (the UK went through a coalition setup in 2010 but it only lasted 5 days). > even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong. The primary point of PR is to try and ensure the views of minorities are represented. If you disagree with that goal, you may as well just support the much simpler and more stable FPTP system.
me_me_me 3y ago
> He was just explaining how the two-party system is one of those obviously broken mechanisms that effectively blocks against replacing it with one of the better alternatives I think this is self evident. How the hell US is heading to next Biden vs Trump. Again? How can anyone claim its that those are the best possible choices - or good choices? Trump is a fraud clearly claiming he is one and biden is barely capable to string two sentences together.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > biden is barely capable to string two sentences together. A speech impediment is not necessarily an impediment to governance ability. Please, criticise him for the things he's actually done wrong (being a politician, I'm sure those are many), not for a life-long disability.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    Speach impediment? He is old. He keeps forgetting things around him, looses his thought mid sentence. Was caught with cue card written for a 'child'[0], his 'handler' on many occasions whisk him away when he starts rambling [1]. I don't know how people are unable to acknowledge basic fact you can see for yourself. Would you like to be in a car driven by Biden? Or a company run by trump? > Please, criticise him for the things he's actually done wrong Thats the thing. I don't believe biden is making any decisions, the show is run by whatever people around him (i presume leadership of dem party). It is the similar story with trump. Plenty of evidence, testimonies and leaks from his office. Him complaining that the reports are too long and should include his name in it and point how given matter relates to him. He was also caught multiple times when his aderol was running off. Difference is to manipulate trump you had to flatter him and appeal to his vanity or outright make him money (corruption). I am not left or right. I am just stating what everyone is able to observe. The system is not run by people you pick. The choice is between two puppets and whoever can control them (some more some less directly). The idea of big government used to be that presidents and parties are not able to enact changes as quickly due to bureaucracy and resistance of governmental agencies and institutions. But now the presidents are not even interested (trump) or capable of that (biden). Its suppose to be democracy not a cardboard cutout with democracy painted on it. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-flashes-extremely-simple-cue-card-instructions-at-meeting-2022-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-flashes-extremely-simp... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg25440ledA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg25440ledA

nvm0n2 3y ago

The US two party system isn't that obviously broken. Americans like to say it's broken, but they often aren't that familiar with the alternatives. You could have FPTP but with more than two parties, like the UK does. The downside of this is that the reason there are more than two major parties in the UK is that the parties are much more closed off to outside influence, and due to the presence of a major independence movement (something banned by the Constitution). In the USA it's considered entirely normal and possible for complete outsiders to run in party primaries, take over that party and then become President. This cannot happen in the UK because none of the parties have open primaries. Small movements towards more internal party democracy by Labour have been rolled back in recent years, because they allowed in non-centrist types like Corbyn who were popular with the base but not with the electorate. Still, it could be implemented in the USA. "All" you need to do is end the system of party primaries and voting for President, to allow party insiders to select their own leadership. And if you want a big independence party then change the Constitution to allow cessation. You could have PR, like most of Europe does. Then you'd have lots of parties. The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing, with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods, knowing that there's no point in having specific ideas as they'll all be mashed up in coalition negotiations anyway. Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses, and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum, and all the left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything. Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily, and it means Americans are able to go in an "fix" the parties if they drift too far from what is actually wanted. A big part of the meltdown over Trump is that the party insiders were reminded of this against their will. A big part of the meltdown over Sanders vs Clinton was that Americans actually like this aspect of the system and the left felt it was being denied to them.

panick21_ 3y ago
> The downside of this is that it guarantees that politicians can never actually do any of the things they campaigned on doing That's a bold and total wrong claim. > with the result that politicians tend not to take policy development seriously. Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom. > Parties end up standing for extremely vague positions even during election campaign periods That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things. > Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years. > and the promised benefits of representing everyone's views better doesn't happen in reality. Ill taking anyway, thanks very much. > Instead what happens is that every party just ends up being at a different point on the 1D ideological spectrum Again, that's just false. The represented views are way broader then what you get in other systems. Sure you don't have anarchist parties and Nazis but that's because those are minority views. > left and "center" parties form coalitions against the right wing party to deny them any representation at all, even if it means the government becomes deadlocked and can't do anything. That's a very, very broad generalization. And even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong. If 25% are far right wing and 75% are strongly against that far right wing, then that should be reflected in the government. > Overall the US system isn't perfect, but it's also not the great weakness Americans like to claim it is. The two parties are sufficiently loose and broad tents that they shift with the political winds easily Having 2 parties is the outcome of an election process that is fundamentally broken and sometimes its a legally enforced duopoly. To claim that isn't fundamentally broken in terms of translating broad popular views into government is simply wrong. The European system are also broken in various ways but they are far better.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > Ah that's why Europe is such a shithole and the US is an enlightened kingdom. The USA is both richer and more democratic than Europe. You will need to accept this fact before mocking the Americans. Europe is a place where most countries are partly run by Brussels, which is a totalitarian system. Consider the energy that Americans put into their Presidential elections vs the entirely secret and inexplicable process that led to von der Leyen being able to legislatively control Europe. People may not like Biden or Trump but they can at least explain the process through which they became President, and it is at least theoretically democratic. Nobody outside of Germany even knew who vDL was before she suddenly turned up as the most powerful woman in Europe. > That is just wrong. Parties often commit to specific things. Which nobody takes seriously because the best that can be hoped for is for the party to enter coalition, at which point everything is up for negotiation and they are guaranteed to have to discard many of their commitments. >> Because the system is in some sense inherently unstable you have a lot of government collapses > That's why Angela Merkel was only in her position for 2 years. Merkel is an excellent example of the problem: after a deadlocked PR election she presided over an entirely mandateless caretaker government that lasted half a year, because German politicians couldn't form a workable coalition. In theory she was meant to do nothing during this time and simply preserve the status quo, but that is impossible to constitutionally enforce and in fact she continued to rule exactly as before, including signing Germany up for new foreign policy commitments. The USA simply never has the problem of the previous president continuing to rule after losing support in an election. It is a problem largely unique to PR (the UK went through a coalition setup in 2010 but it only lasted 5 days). > even if its the case, its not necessarily wrong. The primary point of PR is to try and ensure the views of minorities are represented. If you disagree with that goal, you may as well just support the much simpler and more stable FPTP system.

me_me_me 3y ago

> He was just explaining how the two-party system is one of those obviously broken mechanisms that effectively blocks against replacing it with one of the better alternatives I think this is self evident. How the hell US is heading to next Biden vs Trump. Again? How can anyone claim its that those are the best possible choices - or good choices? Trump is a fraud clearly claiming he is one and biden is barely capable to string two sentences together.

wizzwizz4 3y ago
> biden is barely capable to string two sentences together. A speech impediment is not necessarily an impediment to governance ability. Please, criticise him for the things he's actually done wrong (being a politician, I'm sure those are many), not for a life-long disability.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  Speach impediment? He is old. He keeps forgetting things around him, looses his thought mid sentence. Was caught with cue card written for a 'child'[0], his 'handler' on many occasions whisk him away when he starts rambling [1]. I don't know how people are unable to acknowledge basic fact you can see for yourself. Would you like to be in a car driven by Biden? Or a company run by trump? > Please, criticise him for the things he's actually done wrong Thats the thing. I don't believe biden is making any decisions, the show is run by whatever people around him (i presume leadership of dem party). It is the similar story with trump. Plenty of evidence, testimonies and leaks from his office. Him complaining that the reports are too long and should include his name in it and point how given matter relates to him. He was also caught multiple times when his aderol was running off. Difference is to manipulate trump you had to flatter him and appeal to his vanity or outright make him money (corruption). I am not left or right. I am just stating what everyone is able to observe. The system is not run by people you pick. The choice is between two puppets and whoever can control them (some more some less directly). The idea of big government used to be that presidents and parties are not able to enact changes as quickly due to bureaucracy and resistance of governmental agencies and institutions. But now the presidents are not even interested (trump) or capable of that (biden). Its suppose to be democracy not a cardboard cutout with democracy painted on it. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-flashes-extremely-simple-cue-card-instructions-at-meeting-2022-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-flashes-extremely-simp... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg25440ledA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg25440ledA