9 ms·

why is electing in quotes?

by apahwa 5y ago

nikitaga 5y ago
Because US election system does not reflect the will of the population, or even the voting population. FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely, which is only marginally better than a single party state. So, I find it hard to blame the population for the politicians they elect in this case. US elections are a lot more constrained by the ruling class and the laws passed by said ruling class than in many European countries for example. USSR had elections too, you know. Doesn't mean there was any freedom or democracy.
- jklein11 5y ago
  Okay - I'll be the one that asks. What does FPTP stand for?
  - matthewsinclair 5y ago
    As far as I know, it’s “first past the post” [0] isn’t it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely New Zealand has used MMP for 25 years and yet it still dithers between two major parties. Minor parties do tend to have to be incorporated into coalitions with one or the other major party, which is something, however, they’re almost always the same minor parties falling along the left right divide. Electoral systems do have an effect and they are setup to make it hard to radically change the system, however, they strengthen they don’t create the two party dynamic. Two major parties aligned with common human biases always seem to spring up when people are free to choose.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Using a different system to get the same outcome doesn't disprove your parent's claim. That claim is most definitely false though; Canada uses plurality voting. (For reference, the Canadian House of Commons, according to Wikipedia's footer, divides into 158 Liberals, 119 Conservatives, 33 Québécois, 25 New Democrats, 2 Greens, and 1 Independent. The Senate divides into 41 Independents, 20 Conservatives, 12 Canadians, 12 Progressives, and 8 non-affiliated, which last category raises interesting questions about the meaning of "Independent".) It's worth noting that the American two-party system is explicitly protected by many laws that grant special privileges to "the two largest parties" or some similar category; it doesn't rely on the electoral system at all. If other parties got equal treatment before the law, you might see more of them around.
    - nikitaga 5y ago
      Canada has FPTP just like the US, the slight differences in implementation explain the slightly better outcomes, but that's about it. Don't know how that disproves anything. The last time Canada had anyone other than conservatives or liberals govern the country was more than 100 years ago. [1] What kind of opposition is warming the rest of the parliament seats doesn't matter all that much, because just like in the US, there is no culture of inter-party collaboration in Canada, because there is no need for it: minority governments are rare (thanks to FPTP). This is very much unlike countries with proportional representation, where coalition governments are the norm, because when stupid voting mechanics are not protecting the duopoly, no single party is ever good enough to capture more than half of the vote. The senate in Canada isn't even elected, senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. And it doesn't have the same prominent role as the US senate. So I've no idea what are you trying to say here. FPTP favors the two biggest parties by a huge margin. It's damn math, it's been proven decades ago. Look it up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_gener...
  - Jensson 5y ago
    But MMP means that if people are really unhappy with the current system then a new party will appear. Trump wouldn't have been a republican, instead he would have been the leader of the new right, similar to how many such parties popped up like mushrooms all over Europe. They weren't old parties that got reformed, they were new parties created as a response to people demanding such parties. You are right that such changes are rare, they certainly don't happen once every 25 years, but the fact that they can happen is really important. Otherwise you are left with situations like current USA where many wants to vote for lower taxes but don't want to support Trumps other political views, in Europe you just vote for another right wing party but what do you do in USA? Similarly you have many people who wants to vote for higher taxes and more government programs, but don't want to vote for all the identity politics. What should they vote for? Now the entire left is associated with identity politics and the entire right is associated with opposition to identity politics, making it hard to distinguish between different views and probably making the whole political conversation way more toxic than it needs to be. It has gotten to the point that people often assume you are racist if you argue for lower taxes etc.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Just my on-the-ground view as an American, I've seen both major parties in this country change radically in my lifetime to the point of being unrecognizable. In the case of the Republican party this has happened twice. The USSR had only one Party, but intra-party politics were all the more fierce as a result. I'm not saying that a full or even reasonably varied spectrum of true, non-spectacular or intelligent alternatives are being presented to the American voter. Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement. The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties.
  - nikitaga 5y ago
    > The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties. Most Americans don't have the option to vote for AOC or Joe Manchin (nor for their ideological equivalents). Neither for congress, nor for the President. They get shit candidates and still vote for them because the only viable alternative is an even worse candidate from a party you hate more than the other one. This is very much by design of FPTP, because it prevents third party competition from posing any threat to established parties. The two parties just pick their ideologies from a list of hot topics and never face any competition for the implementation of those ideologies. This is very much not the case in more proportional voting systems, which provide true political competition across the political spectrum, not just superficial ideological posturing that isn't subject to competition. This is all very well known both practically and academically with tons of research to back it up. Youtube and wikipedia have all the mechanics, the references, and real world data, spelled out. > Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement Sure, a political duopoly is better than a monopoly, but just like in other markets, only slightly so. Political power is a market like any other market, and needs significant competition from more than a couple actors to produce outcomes that are best for the consumers (voters). Even that AmEx case is a prime example, a direct result of shitty parties produced by this shitty election system. And that result will stay here for decades if not forever, regardless of which party is in power, because this election system is not going anywhere, and will keep producing such results.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Also, the basic structure of the Senate means that a clear majority of the country is represented by a clear minority of Senators.
  - refurb 5y ago
    That a feature, not a bug.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    That's the purpose of the Senate. The Senate is there to represent states, not people. The House is there to represent people. Both need to agree in order to get something done. This ensures that something that is passed is approved by a majority of people and a majority of states. Otherwise, without this proposition, the states might not have ratified the constitution - the states predate the nation, and the nation is a union of states. This method of government is called "Federalism".
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      You can have federalism without anti-democratic institutions like the Senate. If the Senate was abolished or starting apportioning senators by population, the US would remain federalist, because there'd still be plenty of powers devolved to the states. That's what makes it federalist.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        No, you can't. The only way you can truly prevent states from having their interests overriden by a majority of the nation is to give them a direct role in the legislative process. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's last thing we want. So when the three wolves invite the two sheep to join them in a democracy, the sheep wisely say "Not a democracy, but a federal union, with an upper house in which votes are allocated by species rather than population, then we will join your nation". Now the wolves may moan that this is anti-democratic, but they agreed to it, as that's the price paid for getting the sheep to join with the wolves. The sheep are the small states, and the wolves are the large states. So anti-democratic structures are good. But at the same time, giving the population input is also good. We want popular pressures to have a veto, but not to be able to force legislation onto states without their consent. Similarly, we want the states to have a veto but not to force their legislation onto the nation as a whole without the public's consent. This is the balance -- a mechanism to limit mob rule while also requiring mob consent. Seriously this is not some strange thing I should have to explain -- these issues were all debated during the discussions surrounding the adoption of the constitution, as you can read in the Federalist Papers. See especially no. 10. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-017... It is why we do not live in a democracy, but in a Federal Republic. The house is the hotbed of populism, that's where all the crazy stuff happens, and the senate is the moderating force that can filter it out. The house then has to moderate its positions and pass something that the states also consent to. And that's exactly how it's played out. The senate always moderates or blocks extremist measures coming out of the house. The founders were amazingly prescient. Moreover this obviously leads to better and more stable government. Control of the house flips from red to blue to red every 5-8 years. Now imagine a nation's entire base of laws constantly flipping back and forth that often. As an example, when the GOP controlled the house in 2017 they tried to pass a tax bill to completely eliminate the SALT deduction. The Senate moderated that to 10K max. Now the democrats control the house and they want to make it (effectively) unlimited again. The Senate will block that. In 2024, say when the GOP is back in control of the house, they will try to eliminate it again. The Senate will block that. The 2017 house eliminated Obama's ACA -- but the Senate blocked that. Just think of all the whipsaws in policy we would have if healthcare is massively reconfigured every 4 years. So you need to do more than just get 51% to redo healthcare in America. That's how it should be. Yes, it's anti-democratic, but thinking you can rewrite a nation's laws with 51% is foolishness. It's a recipe for secession and civil war. In other words, going from 49% to 51% doesn't mean you go from 0 to 100% power, but rather you have to settle for 48% of what you want, and then 51% of what you want. The removal of that discontinuity creates stability in government. It is intentionally, and wisely, anti-democratic, while also being intentionally, and wisely, anti-aristocratic. Both sides need to come to a compromise, and this stability is why our constitution has lasted as long as it has.
- humaniania 5y ago
  Interesting vocabulary choices.
- refurb 5y ago
  What evidence do you have that the politicians elected would be any different under a different system? I mean, San Francisco uses ranked choice and they ended up through a fluke with some District Attorney who everyone hates. You may just want to consider that although you may not like the outcome, many voters do?

why is electing in quotes?

by apahwa 5y ago

why is electing in quotes?

Because US election system does not reflect the will of the population, or even the voting population. FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely, which is only marginally better than a single party state. So, I find it hard to blame the population for the politicians they elect in this case. US elections are a lot more constrained by the ruling class and the laws passed by said ruling class than in many European countries for example. USSR had elections too, you know. Doesn't mean there was any freedom or democracy.

jklein11 5y ago
Okay - I'll be the one that asks. What does FPTP stand for?
- matthewsinclair 5y ago
  As far as I know, it’s “first past the post” [0] isn’t it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
nyokodo 5y ago
> FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely New Zealand has used MMP for 25 years and yet it still dithers between two major parties. Minor parties do tend to have to be incorporated into coalitions with one or the other major party, which is something, however, they’re almost always the same minor parties falling along the left right divide. Electoral systems do have an effect and they are setup to make it hard to radically change the system, however, they strengthen they don’t create the two party dynamic. Two major parties aligned with common human biases always seem to spring up when people are free to choose.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Using a different system to get the same outcome doesn't disprove your parent's claim. That claim is most definitely false though; Canada uses plurality voting. (For reference, the Canadian House of Commons, according to Wikipedia's footer, divides into 158 Liberals, 119 Conservatives, 33 Québécois, 25 New Democrats, 2 Greens, and 1 Independent. The Senate divides into 41 Independents, 20 Conservatives, 12 Canadians, 12 Progressives, and 8 non-affiliated, which last category raises interesting questions about the meaning of "Independent".) It's worth noting that the American two-party system is explicitly protected by many laws that grant special privileges to "the two largest parties" or some similar category; it doesn't rely on the electoral system at all. If other parties got equal treatment before the law, you might see more of them around.
  - nikitaga 5y ago
    Canada has FPTP just like the US, the slight differences in implementation explain the slightly better outcomes, but that's about it. Don't know how that disproves anything. The last time Canada had anyone other than conservatives or liberals govern the country was more than 100 years ago. [1] What kind of opposition is warming the rest of the parliament seats doesn't matter all that much, because just like in the US, there is no culture of inter-party collaboration in Canada, because there is no need for it: minority governments are rare (thanks to FPTP). This is very much unlike countries with proportional representation, where coalition governments are the norm, because when stupid voting mechanics are not protecting the duopoly, no single party is ever good enough to capture more than half of the vote. The senate in Canada isn't even elected, senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. And it doesn't have the same prominent role as the US senate. So I've no idea what are you trying to say here. FPTP favors the two biggest parties by a huge margin. It's damn math, it's been proven decades ago. Look it up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_gener...
- Jensson 5y ago
  But MMP means that if people are really unhappy with the current system then a new party will appear. Trump wouldn't have been a republican, instead he would have been the leader of the new right, similar to how many such parties popped up like mushrooms all over Europe. They weren't old parties that got reformed, they were new parties created as a response to people demanding such parties. You are right that such changes are rare, they certainly don't happen once every 25 years, but the fact that they can happen is really important. Otherwise you are left with situations like current USA where many wants to vote for lower taxes but don't want to support Trumps other political views, in Europe you just vote for another right wing party but what do you do in USA? Similarly you have many people who wants to vote for higher taxes and more government programs, but don't want to vote for all the identity politics. What should they vote for? Now the entire left is associated with identity politics and the entire right is associated with opposition to identity politics, making it hard to distinguish between different views and probably making the whole political conversation way more toxic than it needs to be. It has gotten to the point that people often assume you are racist if you argue for lower taxes etc.
noduerme 5y ago
Just my on-the-ground view as an American, I've seen both major parties in this country change radically in my lifetime to the point of being unrecognizable. In the case of the Republican party this has happened twice. The USSR had only one Party, but intra-party politics were all the more fierce as a result. I'm not saying that a full or even reasonably varied spectrum of true, non-spectacular or intelligent alternatives are being presented to the American voter. Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement. The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties.
- nikitaga 5y ago
  > The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties. Most Americans don't have the option to vote for AOC or Joe Manchin (nor for their ideological equivalents). Neither for congress, nor for the President. They get shit candidates and still vote for them because the only viable alternative is an even worse candidate from a party you hate more than the other one. This is very much by design of FPTP, because it prevents third party competition from posing any threat to established parties. The two parties just pick their ideologies from a list of hot topics and never face any competition for the implementation of those ideologies. This is very much not the case in more proportional voting systems, which provide true political competition across the political spectrum, not just superficial ideological posturing that isn't subject to competition. This is all very well known both practically and academically with tons of research to back it up. Youtube and wikipedia have all the mechanics, the references, and real world data, spelled out. > Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement Sure, a political duopoly is better than a monopoly, but just like in other markets, only slightly so. Political power is a market like any other market, and needs significant competition from more than a couple actors to produce outcomes that are best for the consumers (voters). Even that AmEx case is a prime example, a direct result of shitty parties produced by this shitty election system. And that result will stay here for decades if not forever, regardless of which party is in power, because this election system is not going anywhere, and will keep producing such results.
crooked-v 5y ago
Also, the basic structure of the Senate means that a clear majority of the country is represented by a clear minority of Senators.
- refurb 5y ago
  That a feature, not a bug.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  That's the purpose of the Senate. The Senate is there to represent states, not people. The House is there to represent people. Both need to agree in order to get something done. This ensures that something that is passed is approved by a majority of people and a majority of states. Otherwise, without this proposition, the states might not have ratified the constitution - the states predate the nation, and the nation is a union of states. This method of government is called "Federalism".
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    You can have federalism without anti-democratic institutions like the Senate. If the Senate was abolished or starting apportioning senators by population, the US would remain federalist, because there'd still be plenty of powers devolved to the states. That's what makes it federalist.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      No, you can't. The only way you can truly prevent states from having their interests overriden by a majority of the nation is to give them a direct role in the legislative process. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's last thing we want. So when the three wolves invite the two sheep to join them in a democracy, the sheep wisely say "Not a democracy, but a federal union, with an upper house in which votes are allocated by species rather than population, then we will join your nation". Now the wolves may moan that this is anti-democratic, but they agreed to it, as that's the price paid for getting the sheep to join with the wolves. The sheep are the small states, and the wolves are the large states. So anti-democratic structures are good. But at the same time, giving the population input is also good. We want popular pressures to have a veto, but not to be able to force legislation onto states without their consent. Similarly, we want the states to have a veto but not to force their legislation onto the nation as a whole without the public's consent. This is the balance -- a mechanism to limit mob rule while also requiring mob consent. Seriously this is not some strange thing I should have to explain -- these issues were all debated during the discussions surrounding the adoption of the constitution, as you can read in the Federalist Papers. See especially no. 10. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-017... It is why we do not live in a democracy, but in a Federal Republic. The house is the hotbed of populism, that's where all the crazy stuff happens, and the senate is the moderating force that can filter it out. The house then has to moderate its positions and pass something that the states also consent to. And that's exactly how it's played out. The senate always moderates or blocks extremist measures coming out of the house. The founders were amazingly prescient. Moreover this obviously leads to better and more stable government. Control of the house flips from red to blue to red every 5-8 years. Now imagine a nation's entire base of laws constantly flipping back and forth that often. As an example, when the GOP controlled the house in 2017 they tried to pass a tax bill to completely eliminate the SALT deduction. The Senate moderated that to 10K max. Now the democrats control the house and they want to make it (effectively) unlimited again. The Senate will block that. In 2024, say when the GOP is back in control of the house, they will try to eliminate it again. The Senate will block that. The 2017 house eliminated Obama's ACA -- but the Senate blocked that. Just think of all the whipsaws in policy we would have if healthcare is massively reconfigured every 4 years. So you need to do more than just get 51% to redo healthcare in America. That's how it should be. Yes, it's anti-democratic, but thinking you can rewrite a nation's laws with 51% is foolishness. It's a recipe for secession and civil war. In other words, going from 49% to 51% doesn't mean you go from 0 to 100% power, but rather you have to settle for 48% of what you want, and then 51% of what you want. The removal of that discontinuity creates stability in government. It is intentionally, and wisely, anti-democratic, while also being intentionally, and wisely, anti-aristocratic. Both sides need to come to a compromise, and this stability is why our constitution has lasted as long as it has.
humaniania 5y ago
Interesting vocabulary choices.
refurb 5y ago
What evidence do you have that the politicians elected would be any different under a different system? I mean, San Francisco uses ranked choice and they ended up through a fluke with some District Attorney who everyone hates. You may just want to consider that although you may not like the outcome, many voters do?