4 ms·

Bipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work. It’s this loss that plagues Congress. Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that

Bipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work. It’s this loss that plagues Congress. Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government. Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems. The Dems must always be wrong. Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team. Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party. So how is bipartisanship the problem?

crawfordcomeaux 2y ago
[flagged]
hammock 2y ago
Why so two-party system?
- drivers99 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    I don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"! The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results. Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise. * Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed * Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience * Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate * Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents * Conceptually easier to understand than other systems * Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Ranked Choice (ballots) meaning Ranked Pairs (decision process), of course. Instant Runoff Voting is still thoroughly an artifact of the two party system.
    - sph 2y ago
      The big issue, fatal even, is that the parties that can enact this change, those currently in power, are those that stand to lose the most from it. So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
      - gs17 2y ago
        Yes, which reveals how serious they really are about third parties as "spoilers". An alternative voting system could eliminate that as a possibility entirely.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        The UK isn't a two party system though. It has at least 5 parties in play right now (Lab, Con, Reform, LibDem, SNP). Reform is only small but is currently polling higher than any other parties, so their number of MPs would go up a lot if an election was held today. FPTP isn't sufficient to get a two party system. The US has such a system because it combines FPTP with open primaries. In the UK the right is trying to rebuild a new party from scratch, because the Conservative party has no working mechanisms that would allow it to have its direction changed by its members. Whereas in the US open primaries give members a great deal of control, and that kills the incentive to create new parties. The current Republican administration is run by a group of former Democrats who came into the GOP from the outside - this isn't possible in the UK system.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Where has the adoption of ranked choice with single member districts resulted in a switch from a two-party system to a multiparty one? It hasn't happened anywhere in the US as far as I know, despite being adopted by various local governments. Ranked choice's major benefit is that it reduces the effect of spoilers. Third parties are the spoilers.
dgb23 2y ago
Looking at this mess from far away in Switzerland. I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale. I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.

crawfordcomeaux 2y ago

[flagged]

hammock 2y ago

Why so two-party system?

drivers99 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"! The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results. Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise. * Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed * Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience * Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate * Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents * Conceptually easier to understand than other systems * Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Ranked Choice (ballots) meaning Ranked Pairs (decision process), of course. Instant Runoff Voting is still thoroughly an artifact of the two party system.
  - sph 2y ago
    The big issue, fatal even, is that the parties that can enact this change, those currently in power, are those that stand to lose the most from it. So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
    - gs17 2y ago
      Yes, which reveals how serious they really are about third parties as "spoilers". An alternative voting system could eliminate that as a possibility entirely.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      The UK isn't a two party system though. It has at least 5 parties in play right now (Lab, Con, Reform, LibDem, SNP). Reform is only small but is currently polling higher than any other parties, so their number of MPs would go up a lot if an election was held today. FPTP isn't sufficient to get a two party system. The US has such a system because it combines FPTP with open primaries. In the UK the right is trying to rebuild a new party from scratch, because the Conservative party has no working mechanisms that would allow it to have its direction changed by its members. Whereas in the US open primaries give members a great deal of control, and that kills the incentive to create new parties. The current Republican administration is run by a group of former Democrats who came into the GOP from the outside - this isn't possible in the UK system.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Where has the adoption of ranked choice with single member districts resulted in a switch from a two-party system to a multiparty one? It hasn't happened anywhere in the US as far as I know, despite being adopted by various local governments. Ranked choice's major benefit is that it reduces the effect of spoilers. Third parties are the spoilers.

dgb23 2y ago

Looking at this mess from far away in Switzerland. I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale. I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.