5 ms·

This is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have t

This is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have their back 50 percent of the time over rich people (their employers) who have their back 0 percent of the time. No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction. Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.

intended 2y ago
Bipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work. It’s this loss that plagues Congress. Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government. Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems. The Dems must always be wrong. Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team. Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party. So how is bipartisanship the problem?
- crawfordcomeaux 2y ago
  [flagged]
- hammock 2y ago
  Why so two-party system?
  - drivers99 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      I don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"! The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results. Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise. * Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed * Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience * Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate * Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents * Conceptually easier to understand than other systems * Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)
      - sph 2y ago
        The big issue, fatal even, is that the parties that can enact this change, those currently in power, are those that stand to lose the most from it. So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
- dgb23 2y ago
  Looking at this mess from far away in Switzerland. I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale. I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.
throwway120385 2y ago
I want bipartisanship. Consensus and a willingness to concede are the only way to govern fairly. Anything else is just naked fiat, which is another word for authoritarianism.

intended 2y ago

Bipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work. It’s this loss that plagues Congress. Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government. Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems. The Dems must always be wrong. Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team. Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party. So how is bipartisanship the problem?

crawfordcomeaux 2y ago
[flagged]
hammock 2y ago
Why so two-party system?
- drivers99 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    I don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"! The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results. Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise. * Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed * Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience * Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate * Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents * Conceptually easier to understand than other systems * Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)
    - sph 2y ago
      The big issue, fatal even, is that the parties that can enact this change, those currently in power, are those that stand to lose the most from it. So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
dgb23 2y ago
Looking at this mess from far away in Switzerland. I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale. I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.

throwway120385 2y ago

I want bipartisanship. Consensus and a willingness to concede are the only way to govern fairly. Anything else is just naked fiat, which is another word for authoritarianism.