12 ms·

Appreciate your point, but I don't think it's obvious that two-parties are better at creating long-term policy, just as I don't think it's obvious that a two pa

by ronaldx 13y ago

Appreciate your point, but I don't think it's obvious that two-parties are better at creating long-term policy, just as I don't think it's obvious that a two party system is better on other axes generally. For example, if neither party has a strong interest, certain government departments can act without proper accountability to the public. Clearly the US has been a successful country, but there are several problems with using the US as an ideal model: the benefits of this success are not necessarily distributed in the best way. And, with the US's huge resources, it's not obvious that the choice of political system is the biggest factor in its success.

jessedhillon 13y ago
It's not obvious to me that multi-member district schemes and coalition governments have produced anything significantly different than what we have. I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, I'm just not sure you're paying attention. Within the same party you can have representatives who are both for and against nearly every important issue! In the UK they need to form a coalition (sometimes) to run the government, but when they have that coalition, pretty much the only things which get voted on are those which are guaranteed to pass. Or if you want real crazy, go look at 2003~2007 Israel, where coalitions would need to be formed from several radically different parties. I don't see any evidence that requisite inclusion of diverse stakeholders lead to better outcomes for the public.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  > I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, Oh! I absolutely don't think that. The two parties in a two-party system (US; UK normally) are often poorly distinguished, straddling two sides of a dividing line but essentially at the same point. This is even worse for the franchise as voters don't have a real choice at all: just the illusion of one.

by ronaldx 13y ago

jessedhillon 13y ago

It's not obvious to me that multi-member district schemes and coalition governments have produced anything significantly different than what we have. I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, I'm just not sure you're paying attention. Within the same party you can have representatives who are both for and against nearly every important issue! In the UK they need to form a coalition (sometimes) to run the government, but when they have that coalition, pretty much the only things which get voted on are those which are guaranteed to pass. Or if you want real crazy, go look at 2003~2007 Israel, where coalitions would need to be formed from several radically different parties. I don't see any evidence that requisite inclusion of diverse stakeholders lead to better outcomes for the public.

ronaldx 13y ago
> I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, Oh! I absolutely don't think that. The two parties in a two-party system (US; UK normally) are often poorly distinguished, straddling two sides of a dividing line but essentially at the same point. This is even worse for the franchise as voters don't have a real choice at all: just the illusion of one.