3 ms·

This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I personally find it an un

This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I personally find it an undemocratic, archaic and meritless system.

giov4 2mo ago
electoral district system? this seems to be very specific and a subset of the topic/problem
- hn_submit 2mo ago
  It relates to the two-party system, not whether the U.S. is an oligarchy. The article implies that the U.S. is not a democracy, but oligarchy and democracy aren't mutually exclusive. I'd say the U.S. (and most Western countries) is both and always has been. Voters certainly have influence in the U.S. but it's limited, just like everywhere else.
RobotToaster 2mo ago
It was revolutionary and progressive, in the 13th century... Now, not so much.
lapcat 2mo ago
> This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I'm not sure this is true. When the highest vote-getter wins, despite the lack of an absolute majority, that gives a better chance to third-party candidates in a multi-candidate election. The reason third parties fare so poorly in the US is that the two major parties have a duopoly on campaign fundraising and free news coverage, which is a vicious circle. The media covers only candidates who are "electable", and they judge who's electable based on their ability to raise money, but you can't raise any money if nobody knows about you, and nobody will know about you if you don't get media coverage or don't have the money to spread your message. This is why self-funded billionaire Ross Perot was the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times.
- cybert 2mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law It absolutely is true.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    > In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power every election cycle. Citizens do not vote for small parties because they fear splitting votes away from the major party and allowing their opponents to win an election. There are two parts here. Nobody disputes the first, empirical part, the dominance of the existing duopoly. The second part, however, is a questionable causal claim. It's astonishing to me that this entire article can fail to mention even once campaign fundraising or news media coverage. Voter awareness of third parties and third party candidates is minimal, because nearly all of the paid political advertising and free news media coverage is about the duopolist parties. This fundamental plight, not the voting system, consigns third parties to the "spoiler" role. A third party candidate is not a spoiler if they have a legitimate chance to win, which in a first-past-the-post system doesn't even require 50% of the vote. They're only a spoiler if they have no legitimate chance to win. In a 3 candidate race, 34% wins over 33% and 33%. The more the vote is split between multiple candidates, the less it takes to win. The article mentions Ross Perot, which supports my point. To me, the most interesting question is not the % of the popular vote or electoral college he received. Rather, the question is how did Perot break through and become the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times? And the answer is his money, which he used to finance TV informercials and get his message out to the public. As a reward for spending money, Perot was invited to the news media debates along with the duopoly candidates. Sadly, Perot kind of self-destructed, wilted under the scrutiny. At one point in 1992, Perot was actually leading the polls over both Bush and Clinton! That's not a spoiler. But Perot dropped out of the race and only later returned, which dampened enthusiasm for him. The spoiler effect presumes that third party candidates can't win. I think it's crucial to ask why they can't win, how is the system prevents them from having a reasonable chance at winning. > (i) small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention. This is why they're doomed to smallness and obscurity.

giov4 2mo ago

electoral district system? this seems to be very specific and a subset of the topic/problem

hn_submit 2mo ago
It relates to the two-party system, not whether the U.S. is an oligarchy. The article implies that the U.S. is not a democracy, but oligarchy and democracy aren't mutually exclusive. I'd say the U.S. (and most Western countries) is both and always has been. Voters certainly have influence in the U.S. but it's limited, just like everywhere else.

RobotToaster 2mo ago

It was revolutionary and progressive, in the 13th century... Now, not so much.

lapcat 2mo ago

> This is a direct outcrop of the winner-takes-all electoral district system which forces parties to merge to have a chance at winning. I'm not sure this is true. When the highest vote-getter wins, despite the lack of an absolute majority, that gives a better chance to third-party candidates in a multi-candidate election. The reason third parties fare so poorly in the US is that the two major parties have a duopoly on campaign fundraising and free news coverage, which is a vicious circle. The media covers only candidates who are "electable", and they judge who's electable based on their ability to raise money, but you can't raise any money if nobody knows about you, and nobody will know about you if you don't get media coverage or don't have the money to spread your message. This is why self-funded billionaire Ross Perot was the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times.

cybert 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law It absolutely is true.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  > In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power every election cycle. Citizens do not vote for small parties because they fear splitting votes away from the major party and allowing their opponents to win an election. There are two parts here. Nobody disputes the first, empirical part, the dominance of the existing duopoly. The second part, however, is a questionable causal claim. It's astonishing to me that this entire article can fail to mention even once campaign fundraising or news media coverage. Voter awareness of third parties and third party candidates is minimal, because nearly all of the paid political advertising and free news media coverage is about the duopolist parties. This fundamental plight, not the voting system, consigns third parties to the "spoiler" role. A third party candidate is not a spoiler if they have a legitimate chance to win, which in a first-past-the-post system doesn't even require 50% of the vote. They're only a spoiler if they have no legitimate chance to win. In a 3 candidate race, 34% wins over 33% and 33%. The more the vote is split between multiple candidates, the less it takes to win. The article mentions Ross Perot, which supports my point. To me, the most interesting question is not the % of the popular vote or electoral college he received. Rather, the question is how did Perot break through and become the most successful third-party Presidential candidate in recent times? And the answer is his money, which he used to finance TV informercials and get his message out to the public. As a reward for spending money, Perot was invited to the news media debates along with the duopoly candidates. Sadly, Perot kind of self-destructed, wilted under the scrutiny. At one point in 1992, Perot was actually leading the polls over both Bush and Clinton! That's not a spoiler. But Perot dropped out of the race and only later returned, which dampened enthusiasm for him. The spoiler effect presumes that third party candidates can't win. I think it's crucial to ask why they can't win, how is the system prevents them from having a reasonable chance at winning. > (i) small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation I would say that parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty raising money and getting attention. This is why they're doomed to smallness and obscurity.