5 ms·

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

by 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").
synchronise 13y ago
Political coalitions and minor parties have been very effective in Australia with no ill effects. FPTP is also a terrible way to elect people, the US should move onto Instant Runoff Voting.

by Finster 13y ago

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").

synchronise 13y ago

Political coalitions and minor parties have been very effective in Australia with no ill effects. FPTP is also a terrible way to elect people, the US should move onto Instant Runoff Voting.