4 ms·

Maybe that's the problem. The two parties are at best reactive. If we'd have a third or fourth party, we'd get parties actually pushing for something and raisin

Maybe that's the problem. The two parties are at best reactive. If we'd have a third or fourth party, we'd get parties actually pushing for something and raising awareness about a problem. Most people can't be bothered with this because "it doesn't happen to them".

gizmo686 12y ago
Is there a reason it needs to be the parties that push for change. If the parties are reactive to popular opinion, then we can influence policy through some non-party organization, such as the ACLU.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
More parties wouldn't fix anything. Under the US voting system they end up eating each other anyway, because whichever two parties are most alike do better to not run viable candidates against each other since that gives the election to the least similar party. I'm almost tempted to think that all the gerrymandering they've been doing could be a good thing because it takes the parties out of it. If your district is 80% one party then the primary is the election. Then you can vote for a primary candidate from that party who wants to fix the things you want fixed over the ones who don't. The problem is then they go to Washington and end up in a Congress which is approximately half of each party and everyone has a safe seat but there are no moderates, so instead of compromising somewhere in the middle you get winner take all and screw the other guys. But when you need House, Senate and President to pass a bill, that means unless one party controls all three nothing gets passed and if one party does then we get some kind of unaccountable shit tornado that one way or another kills thousands of Americans and adds five trillion dollars to the debt. So I'm going to have to say the gerrymandering is net negative (and half of the problem). The other half is that the federal government is doing things that it shouldn't. Even if you think recreational drugs should be illegal, how is that a federal issue whatsoever? There are still dry counties in this country and there is nothing wrong with that, because that's what the people of those counties want. And judging by recent referendums, federal drug policy is not uniformly what the people want.
- sdenton4 12y ago
  You're right that the voting system implies a two-party system; it's a strong reason to consider changing the voting system to something like ranked ballot.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Aren't voting systems, all the way up to the electors in presidential elections, under control of the states, except for where they might impinge on voting rights?
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Yes. This is actually a good thing about the electoral college - it decouples the states and tells us what to do when we've got a pile of plurality votes from Wisconsin, instant run off votes from Florida, and range votes from Rhode Island. Imagine trying to pick a winner from those otherwise! You're still faced with finding a majority of electors, which repeats some of the same issues, but as I understand it could involve conversation - which enables deliberate avoidance of some failure modes.
- javert 12y ago
  > There are still dry counties in this country and there is nothing wrong with that Yes there is: it is not in anyone's rational self-interest to bar others from consuming alcohol. The voters who ultimately determine these policies are simply acting irrationally.
  - lukifer 12y ago
    It's worth looking at first-generation prohibition through the proper historical lens: it was a womens' issue, largely a proxy for addressing domestic violence and unemployment as a result of untreated alcoholism in men (this was before AA). Prohibition may be immoral and/or counter-productive, but to those who have experienced the worst elements of alcoholism (personally or societally), the drive to outlaw it is at least understandable, whether or not it is irrational. I strongly recommend Ken Burns' documentary series on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition
smsm42 12y ago
Parties don't do that. And they shouldn't. Parties are just tools to convert the individual preferences into policy. There's nobody to do it but the people. The US constitution starts with the words "we, the people". That's who is ultimately responsible. Blaming some external entities may allow people to shift responsibility - it's not me that voted for a congressman who supports war on drugs and never even bothered to send him a letter to say I oppose it, it's "the system", it's "the parties", it's anybody else but me. But in a society like the US, with functioning democratic system and obvious examples of change happening, it's not possibly to honestly blame "those guys". The responsibility is shared by everybody.

gizmo686 12y ago

Is there a reason it needs to be the parties that push for change. If the parties are reactive to popular opinion, then we can influence policy through some non-party organization, such as the ACLU.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

More parties wouldn't fix anything. Under the US voting system they end up eating each other anyway, because whichever two parties are most alike do better to not run viable candidates against each other since that gives the election to the least similar party. I'm almost tempted to think that all the gerrymandering they've been doing could be a good thing because it takes the parties out of it. If your district is 80% one party then the primary is the election. Then you can vote for a primary candidate from that party who wants to fix the things you want fixed over the ones who don't. The problem is then they go to Washington and end up in a Congress which is approximately half of each party and everyone has a safe seat but there are no moderates, so instead of compromising somewhere in the middle you get winner take all and screw the other guys. But when you need House, Senate and President to pass a bill, that means unless one party controls all three nothing gets passed and if one party does then we get some kind of unaccountable shit tornado that one way or another kills thousands of Americans and adds five trillion dollars to the debt. So I'm going to have to say the gerrymandering is net negative (and half of the problem). The other half is that the federal government is doing things that it shouldn't. Even if you think recreational drugs should be illegal, how is that a federal issue whatsoever? There are still dry counties in this country and there is nothing wrong with that, because that's what the people of those counties want. And judging by recent referendums, federal drug policy is not uniformly what the people want.

sdenton4 12y ago
You're right that the voting system implies a two-party system; it's a strong reason to consider changing the voting system to something like ranked ballot.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Aren't voting systems, all the way up to the electors in presidential elections, under control of the states, except for where they might impinge on voting rights?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Yes. This is actually a good thing about the electoral college - it decouples the states and tells us what to do when we've got a pile of plurality votes from Wisconsin, instant run off votes from Florida, and range votes from Rhode Island. Imagine trying to pick a winner from those otherwise! You're still faced with finding a majority of electors, which repeats some of the same issues, but as I understand it could involve conversation - which enables deliberate avoidance of some failure modes.
javert 12y ago
> There are still dry counties in this country and there is nothing wrong with that Yes there is: it is not in anyone's rational self-interest to bar others from consuming alcohol. The voters who ultimately determine these policies are simply acting irrationally.
- lukifer 12y ago
  It's worth looking at first-generation prohibition through the proper historical lens: it was a womens' issue, largely a proxy for addressing domestic violence and unemployment as a result of untreated alcoholism in men (this was before AA). Prohibition may be immoral and/or counter-productive, but to those who have experienced the worst elements of alcoholism (personally or societally), the drive to outlaw it is at least understandable, whether or not it is irrational. I strongly recommend Ken Burns' documentary series on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition

smsm42 12y ago

Parties don't do that. And they shouldn't. Parties are just tools to convert the individual preferences into policy. There's nobody to do it but the people. The US constitution starts with the words "we, the people". That's who is ultimately responsible. Blaming some external entities may allow people to shift responsibility - it's not me that voted for a congressman who supports war on drugs and never even bothered to send him a letter to say I oppose it, it's "the system", it's "the parties", it's anybody else but me. But in a society like the US, with functioning democratic system and obvious examples of change happening, it's not possibly to honestly blame "those guys". The responsibility is shared by everybody.