4 ms·

You're right, and I believe you pinpoint the problem with the US political system. It's pretty much impossible for anybody with out of the ordinary political vi

by noloqy 13y ago

You're right, and I believe you pinpoint the problem with the US political system. It's pretty much impossible for anybody with out of the ordinary political views to be represented at a high level in the US democracy. It will take a revolution for a bipartisan system to break.

Androsynth 13y ago
it doesnt need a revolution (that would be a very bad thing given how much power our military has). It just needs to start locally (we all understand how exponential growth works). rather than running for US president in '16, the goal should be small, eg x% of state senators from the bay area.
- polshaw 13y ago
  There is such a thing as a peaceful revolution. Although I feel such a revolution in the US is less likely than in almost everywhere else.
  - xradionut 13y ago
    Although it's apparent that the US military and police are prepped for widespread civil unrest.
Finster 13y ago
Actually, it's working as intended. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the impact of niche factions on the process. While, they didn't set out to create a 2-party system, per se, the alternative is actually much worse, because you end up in situations where a niche faction can wield disproportionately large amounts of power through the use of political coalitions and kingmaking. This still happens, sure, but it's isolated to the parties themselves, where they are incentivized to appeal to a larger base, which minimizes factional influence from the get-go.
- saraid216 13y ago
  It's worth pointing out that "working as intended" isn't necessarily "working the right/ideal way".
  - Finster 13y ago
    In this case, I completely disagree for the reasons I cited.
    - jebblue 13y ago
      Agreed. You stated them well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#United_States
    - tripzilch 13y ago
      I hear you, but I disagree that "the alternative is actually much worse". I live in NL, which has a pretty fragmented political landscape. And yes this means that we get idiots like Wilders (and similarly idiotic parties before him, though not as popular). But on the other hand, we have a Pirate Party, an Animal Party (that I'd be more supportive of if they knew to choose their battles better, IMHO), Green Party, Socialist Party, Party for the Elderly, a couple of Christian Parties (different ones, from very strict, to relatively sane but right wing mainstream, and even a leftist one), Labour Party, Liberal (right wing conservative) Party, and many more. It works, also because if a smaller party gets a seat, what that means is they can voice their standing points, but only really have a good chance of changing something if a larger party also picks it up. However, they are more likely to do that with a smaller party advocating it, because it's a clear signal of popular support for such a point, and it steers the discourse in a particular way. Another plus is that the extreme crazy (often bigoted) ones, tend to blow up on themselves, because of the evaporation effect (I forget the exact term, it means that moderate people leave, and it becomes an in-fighting echo chamber), because there's always feasible alternatives to vote for, so you don't end up with two parties that are really not representative of whoever would vote for them because it's the "lesser of two evils" (or worse, I've heard some people word it recently as "the equivalent of two evils").
YokoZar 13y ago
It's also impossible for anyone with ordinary political views to be represented, as representatives must first win highly partisan primaries. At best the system leaves us with a coin flip between a solid democrat and a solid republican.
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  Actually, I would argue that perhaps it gives us two indistinguishable candidates, whose differences are only there for show. I still have the side I favor, however.

by noloqy 13y ago

Androsynth 13y ago

it doesnt need a revolution (that would be a very bad thing given how much power our military has). It just needs to start locally (we all understand how exponential growth works). rather than running for US president in '16, the goal should be small, eg x% of state senators from the bay area.

polshaw 13y ago
There is such a thing as a peaceful revolution. Although I feel such a revolution in the US is less likely than in almost everywhere else.
- xradionut 13y ago
  Although it's apparent that the US military and police are prepped for widespread civil unrest.

Finster 13y ago

Actually, it's working as intended. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the impact of niche factions on the process. While, they didn't set out to create a 2-party system, per se, the alternative is actually much worse, because you end up in situations where a niche faction can wield disproportionately large amounts of power through the use of political coalitions and kingmaking. This still happens, sure, but it's isolated to the parties themselves, where they are incentivized to appeal to a larger base, which minimizes factional influence from the get-go.

saraid216 13y ago
It's worth pointing out that "working as intended" isn't necessarily "working the right/ideal way".
- Finster 13y ago
  In this case, I completely disagree for the reasons I cited.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    Agreed. You stated them well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#United_States
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    I hear you, but I disagree that "the alternative is actually much worse". I live in NL, which has a pretty fragmented political landscape. And yes this means that we get idiots like Wilders (and similarly idiotic parties before him, though not as popular). But on the other hand, we have a Pirate Party, an Animal Party (that I'd be more supportive of if they knew to choose their battles better, IMHO), Green Party, Socialist Party, Party for the Elderly, a couple of Christian Parties (different ones, from very strict, to relatively sane but right wing mainstream, and even a leftist one), Labour Party, Liberal (right wing conservative) Party, and many more. It works, also because if a smaller party gets a seat, what that means is they can voice their standing points, but only really have a good chance of changing something if a larger party also picks it up. However, they are more likely to do that with a smaller party advocating it, because it's a clear signal of popular support for such a point, and it steers the discourse in a particular way. Another plus is that the extreme crazy (often bigoted) ones, tend to blow up on themselves, because of the evaporation effect (I forget the exact term, it means that moderate people leave, and it becomes an in-fighting echo chamber), because there's always feasible alternatives to vote for, so you don't end up with two parties that are really not representative of whoever would vote for them because it's the "lesser of two evils" (or worse, I've heard some people word it recently as "the equivalent of two evils").

YokoZar 13y ago

It's also impossible for anyone with ordinary political views to be represented, as representatives must first win highly partisan primaries. At best the system leaves us with a coin flip between a solid democrat and a solid republican.

zeckalpha 13y ago
Actually, I would argue that perhaps it gives us two indistinguishable candidates, whose differences are only there for show. I still have the side I favor, however.