4 ms·

I think you may have an overly rosy view of the US system. Search former rep Justin Amash's tweets for keywords like "house", "speaker", and "deliberation": h

I think you may have an overly rosy view of the US system. Search former rep Justin Amash's tweets for keywords like "house", "speaker", and "deliberation": https://xcancel.com/justinamash/status/1486169720911020036 https://xcancel.com/justinamash/status/1486169720911020036 On the other hand, I suppose we do have primaries in the US. Sounds like that's not a thing in Scandinavia. I understand a big part of the job of party leadership in the US is simply negotiating with / persuading representatives of your own party to vote for upcoming bills. So perhaps that's another sense in which party leadership is weaker in the US. The focus on local representation also creates problems though, since representatives are incentivized to deliver federal projects in the district they represent, even if that's not best for the nation as a whole. I really wish there a method for prototyping new democracy designs. I feel that this area has been very stagnant, and radical improvements could be possible.

Svip 2y ago
> On the other hand, I suppose we do have primaries in the US. Sounds like that's not a thing in Scandinavia. Whilst we do not have primary elections, you can vote for individual candidates on the ballots, moving them up on the party list. This strategy does actually work to get candidates further down on the list over other candidates that would have been selected first.
rainsford 2y ago
I'd argue that primaries are a serious bug rather than a feature of the US political system, at least in places where only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary. By requiring candidates for the general election to first pass through a gauntlet composed of the most die-hard voters from one part of the political spectrum, you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. This seems to be true even if the party in question is the minority party for a given race. Instead of picking a candidate with crossover appeal from voters in the majority, they end up with some raging partisan who can't possibly win, making it effectively a one horse race. Another major failure mode is that even in pretty evenly split areas it encourages pandering to the extreme fringe of the party and winning by a narrow margin rather than winning with a broad coalition because broad coalitions with crossover appeal don't help you get out of the primary. This has been weaponized in recent years, with moderates being threatened with primary challenges if they don't follow the party line, even though this misrepresents the politics of their actual voter base.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  I'd like to try a system where everybody had to use the same process to get on the ballot and then parties could endorse one of them (and probably have that indicated on the ballot).
- trollbridge 2y ago
  A couple states (notably California) simply have a primary election to determine who the 2 candidates will be in the general election. They're often both from the same party in "one party" districts where people overwhelmingly prefer one of the parties. California's voting districts are gerrymandered along party lines, so the districts are about 75% safe seats for one party, and 25% safe seats for another party, despite the last Presidential election only being 58% for the one party and 42% for the other. Despite this, California has some of the most egregious pandering to extremes within the parties (due to the safe seats) and has a reputation for having "extreme" candidates.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  > you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. I agree (as a non-American), I think the US primaries system is weird, but how does this not apply to other systems where it’s just a small handful of political insiders that select who runs? Is it the case that this middle ground is the worst of all worlds?
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    If you mean Presidential primaries, they're a mix of both popular selection and insider selection. Parties always have a favored inside candidate, but they have to actually convince folks of the candidate. This happens a lot in American politics, especially at the local elections where we elect positions that are non-political. The governor appoints a Sheriff or Coroner, but they have to face an election in a few weeks.
- bobmcnamara 2y ago
  > By requiring candidates for the general election to first pass through a gauntlet composed of the most die-hard voters from one part of the political spectrum, you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. It's not always that they're more extreme, it's largely the people who have the extra time to go to additional elections or caucusing. Ex: retirees. And this is affected each party differently.

Svip 2y ago

> On the other hand, I suppose we do have primaries in the US. Sounds like that's not a thing in Scandinavia. Whilst we do not have primary elections, you can vote for individual candidates on the ballots, moving them up on the party list. This strategy does actually work to get candidates further down on the list over other candidates that would have been selected first.

rainsford 2y ago

I'd argue that primaries are a serious bug rather than a feature of the US political system, at least in places where only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary. By requiring candidates for the general election to first pass through a gauntlet composed of the most die-hard voters from one part of the political spectrum, you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. This seems to be true even if the party in question is the minority party for a given race. Instead of picking a candidate with crossover appeal from voters in the majority, they end up with some raging partisan who can't possibly win, making it effectively a one horse race. Another major failure mode is that even in pretty evenly split areas it encourages pandering to the extreme fringe of the party and winning by a narrow margin rather than winning with a broad coalition because broad coalitions with crossover appeal don't help you get out of the primary. This has been weaponized in recent years, with moderates being threatened with primary challenges if they don't follow the party line, even though this misrepresents the politics of their actual voter base.

maxerickson 2y ago
I'd like to try a system where everybody had to use the same process to get on the ballot and then parties could endorse one of them (and probably have that indicated on the ballot).
trollbridge 2y ago
A couple states (notably California) simply have a primary election to determine who the 2 candidates will be in the general election. They're often both from the same party in "one party" districts where people overwhelmingly prefer one of the parties. California's voting districts are gerrymandered along party lines, so the districts are about 75% safe seats for one party, and 25% safe seats for another party, despite the last Presidential election only being 58% for the one party and 42% for the other. Despite this, California has some of the most egregious pandering to extremes within the parties (due to the safe seats) and has a reputation for having "extreme" candidates.
madeofpalk 2y ago
> you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. I agree (as a non-American), I think the US primaries system is weird, but how does this not apply to other systems where it’s just a small handful of political insiders that select who runs? Is it the case that this middle ground is the worst of all worlds?
- pyuser583 2y ago
  If you mean Presidential primaries, they're a mix of both popular selection and insider selection. Parties always have a favored inside candidate, but they have to actually convince folks of the candidate. This happens a lot in American politics, especially at the local elections where we elect positions that are non-political. The governor appoints a Sheriff or Coroner, but they have to face an election in a few weeks.
bobmcnamara 2y ago
> By requiring candidates for the general election to first pass through a gauntlet composed of the most die-hard voters from one part of the political spectrum, you frequently end up with candidates who are way more extreme than the electorate in general. It's not always that they're more extreme, it's largely the people who have the extra time to go to additional elections or caucusing. Ex: retirees. And this is affected each party differently.