Political Polarisation or Political Convergence?

In most liberal democracies, there are a multitude of parties that compete to form a government. Some parties form a coalition to form a government (e.g. Germany). Other parties are usually the sole party of government (historically Britain, but also the US).

This concerns the political ideology of such parties. Is it better for politics that political parties (especially in two- or three-party states) are polarised (e.g. the US), or is it better that the parties effectively fight for the centre ground, but simply differ on a few key areas (e.g. Britain)?

Polarisation creates the effect where sucessive governments undo the work of the government before them.

However, convergence creates the issue that each party is simply the same.

Which is better?

It's less about convergence of the parties, and more about convergence of the electorate. The electorate knows, by an overwhelming majority what they want, and they'll vote in the politicians who can provide that the best.

In most democracies, they're looking for good jobs, good health care, decent tax rates, whatever. The main difference between the US and other democracies is that these questions haven't been decided as of yet. Mainly that, for a variety of reasons, there's a much larger and more aggressive portion of the voting base that is more concerned with comparative gain, that is, getting ahead of other people, than absolute gain.

That they'd rather eat partridge under an overpass, as long as the guy next to them doesn't have a partridge.

Some people think that there are racial overtones to all this. I think there might have been at one point, but for the most part the racial overtones have been replaced by religious overtomes.

Convergence is better. It means that you are aiming to achieve a common goal or two, but you do have important differences.

Polarisation means that you're treating fellow citizens as borderline enemies, and that's not a good attitude.

edited 29th Mar '12 1:33:09 PM by abstractematics

Too much of either is a bad thing. Too much convergence and all parties just end up being the same, meaning the people won't even get a real choice at the elections.

Convergence doesn't have to be too much. It should just be enough to ensure that you're avoiding a total dichotomy where one side is right on everything, and the other side is thus wrong. Because, if that happens, then it's quite a dire situation where one side is fundamentally wrong about everything.

But if the parties converge, then you could get the anomaly where the parties simply are the centre, leaving moderate-lefts, and moderate-rights without a political voice, and the far-left and far-right without any representation either.

Whether that's good for politics is a different issue...

Of course, this problem is compounded in two- or three-party states (e.g. Canada, Britain, US) where there's usually a Government and an Opposition party.

And of course, if the parties polarise, then you get the point where the parties simply won't support each other on principle, and treat the other side(s) as enemies.

How could this be averted? I believe that introducing some form of Proportional Representation (either using flat-out PR or a hybrid simple-plurality/PR system) could mean that coalitions are more likely - and more opinions are more likely to be taken into account when legislating.

The more parties and political choice, the better, which is why proportional representation is the best way to elect governments as far as I'm concerned. Coalition government is ideal in my opinion because no one party gets to pursue its own agenda at the expense of everyone else. In Britain, whilst the Tories being in power is far from an ideal situation, the presence of the Liberal Democrats is undoubtedly serving as damage limitation in some form. I would say that, as in so many things, the German model is an ideal one to emulate - although no doubt Octo will shoot me down over that

edited 29th Mar '12 2:33:44 PM by pagad

You know, it's possible to go even further than the German model. The Germans have proportional representation, but they have a five-percent "threshold", below which you get no seats at all. Hence, they have only five parties in the Bundestag: Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, (neo-)Liberals, Greens, and radical Socialists. Here in the Netherlands, we have full proportional representation - and our Tweede Kamer has 10 parties, including a "Party for the Animals". Like you, I'm jealous of the Germans, but for exactly the opposite reason.

First, there is no left-right in an ideal setting. There are many variations you can get, depending on the issues. "Far-__" seems to suggest that it's a more extreme political position that gets used to oversimplify the various issues. I would say that this, again, creates a dichotomy, and can alienate others. That's what it gets for being extreme.

If a far-leaning side does present a strong and viable argument, then this would raise support for that general direction instead of just that group (provided that the political system encourages convergence rather than polarization). That's beneficial for that side and for any other groups that lean towards that side.

One commonly accepted tenet is that the benefit of the nation and its interwoven society should be considered. Even if your position is correct, refusing to cooperate with everybody else is a pyrrhic victory. That's why I favor a good level of convergence.

edited 29th Mar '12 3:38:40 PM by abstractematics

I'd rather have a legitimate effing choice, myself. Even polarization in a two-party system often turns out to be so much posturing. So: polarization, but with approval voting or proportional representation or summat, to keep all parties concerned on their toes.

Case in point, most of the invasive "security" things over the last several years have been overwhelmingly bipartisan, and none of the current candidates are likely to stand against them.

Well, if the Republicans take control, the Democrats will fight them. Especially because they'll probably get harsher, especially under Santorum or Gingrich.

edited 29th Mar '12 5:07:24 PM by Ultrayellow

Seriously, most of these things have had a vanishingly small handful of congressmen that actually opposed them. It's not just Dem Republicans here.

edited 29th Mar '12 5:10:15 PM by Pykrete

That just implies that a necessary objection (which clearly should be addressed, judging by the public reaction) isn't well-represented.

Polarization implies that the opposing sides have essentially broken ties with each other.

Wait, what do you mean by 'no left-right'? Are you saying that there shouldn't be blocs of people who more or less agree with each other on a wide range of issues?

At the very least, not on a single dimension.

Seriously, it's mental how issues as diverse as abortion and guns and ecology and marriage and drugs and finance have to come as part of one of two package deals.

Well, if everyone just picked and chose their positions from issue to issue, that would defeat the purpose of political parties, and of representative democracy as a whole. You'd have to go back to direct democracy, which isn't practical in nations with millions of inhabitants.

Plus, people don't pick and choose their positions from issue to issue. Political Ideologies exist for a reason. Most people who bother with politics at all have a more or less coherent set of values and ideals, from which they get their positions on a lot of issues. Thus people with the same values and ideals will agree with each other not just on Issue X, but also on Issue Y and probably on Issue Z, as well.

In other words, these "package deals" didn't come to exist because some mysterious power told people that 'if you're in favour of X, you have to be in favour of Y, too!' These correlations arise from the way humans think.

More than two would still be nice, though. For instance, what of the people who think that marijuana and tobacco should be legal?

those would fall under libertarians.who dont have enough political clout and or believers to beat the democrats or republicans in an election,

Libertarians only don't have clout because of the major parties. Libertarianism as an idea is different from the current status of the group proposing it.

There should definitely be at least two dimensions, instead of left-right, for any sensible political discussion.

But that's not my only point. Even if political ideologies exist in tangible groups, they need to know how to work with each other. It's about their attitudes towards one another. Do they treat their fellow citizens with care and charity, even if some of them are naive or misguided? Or do you look at them with scorn? A bad case of polarization with mudslinging has overly negative attitude towards the opposition.

Ideologies can provide a rule of thumb for coalitions, but they can be fluid. There's more to it than group loyalty.

edited 29th Mar '12 10:07:40 PM by abstractematics

Well, that's just a proportional representation vs. plurality voting question.