6 ms·

Sure, of course there are examples of parties flopping. I'm saying that it's not a constant rule. Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in env

Sure, of course there are examples of parties flopping. I'm saying that it's not a constant rule. Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in environmental regulation when Nixon created the EPA. Or with healthcare. Or abortion. You can't just point to a flop and use it to say "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."

woofie11 6y ago
I don't think I ever said "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything." I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center). If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success. Both parties fundamentally want to win first. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.
- adamsea 6y ago
  I agree that politicians and political parties want to win. And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties. The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say. But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Theory seems to predict practice well, in this case. Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat. You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end. But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity. Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.

woofie11 6y ago

I don't think I ever said "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything." I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center). If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success. Both parties fundamentally want to win first. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.

adamsea 6y ago
I agree that politicians and political parties want to win. And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties. The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say. But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Theory seems to predict practice well, in this case. Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat. You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end. But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity. Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.