Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
For god's sake, man, if the Democrats were Euro-Left, they would never have won a single election in the 20th Century!
"...including from a European Point of View?"
No. They're to the right of Europe. We know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. But if we sat out and played ball because America is more conservative than Europe, none of our actual progressive victories, even if they're smaller and comparative centrist, would not have happened. American progressives have to sell their policy initiatives to a more conservative electorate, and has a more systemically conservative government. We're not going to achieve anything if the bare minimum is to be like Europe.
edited 15th May '16 2:08:49 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."edited 15th May '16 2:07:00 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I think a three party system would be better (most likely, a conservative, progressive, and libertarian party), since in our current system there's a lot of "with us or against us" going on. I think it'd be better if it was "with us, with those guys, or with those other guys". It would allow for more compromise as parties would occasionally pull Enemy Mine against the third party.
However, I don't think it'd be sustainable, since eventually the third party might start merging with one of the other two.
Leviticus 19:34
It's not sustainable in system where voting uses a FPTP system, there's a significant body of work in political science that demonstrates there's a strong tendency for a FPTP system to converge on two viable parties.
![]()
I tend to use the developed world as a whole for my own standards of the political spectrum.
edited 15th May '16 2:09:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
First-past-the-post also forces a party to gain a larger amount of popular support before gaining seats in the legislature. Unless you want a literal neo-Nazi party possibly getting representation in Congress, it's the best option a country like America has.
"I tend to use the developed world as a whole for my own standards of the political spectrum."
I'm sorry, but this is daft. Politics aren't developed in isolation, and are highly dependent on societal context. You can't scoff at America's left because Sweden's left is more left, because these political factions developed and evolved in different countries, through the actions of different people, and have to sell their platforms to different kinds of people.
edited 15th May '16 2:13:05 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
Yes, but in the context of America's federal system, FPTP = Two party oligopoly.
Which one makes sense? I can see Christie getting it as a reward for being the first establishment Republican to back Trump, and Kasich is at least perceived as moderate, which is good.
edited 15th May '16 2:14:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
Let's say we have a leftist party, a center-leftist party, and a single right-wing party. Assuming that the electorate is spread evenly across the political spectrum, then the leftist party will get 25% of the vote, the center-left party will get 25% of the vote, and the right-wing party gets 50% of the vote. The right-wing party winds overwhelmingly despite the fact that there were just as many votes against it as there were for it.
It gets worse, though. Let's say that the electorate is actually more left than it is right. Then our leftist party gets 33% of the vote, our center-left party gets 33% of the vote, and the right-wing party gets 33% of the vote. The election is a toss-up, even though there's a definite majority of left-wing voters.
That's why FPTP voting essentially guarantees a two-party system. There are a lot of alternative systems to FPTP (my preference is for single transferable vote
, personally) that result in multi-party systems like you see in Europe — but as I said earlier, there's no political will to change voting laws, so the chances of it happening in the foreseeable future are basically nil.
edited 15th May '16 2:16:49 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.@Zephyr: Once again, I maintain that the political leanings of America are a product of its system. American democracy is by design extremely rigid, which is part of the reason we clung to slavery for decades after it had been done away with in the rest of the western world, among other social issues we've been late to the party on. That rigidity is, in my opinion, a big part of why America is quite conservative by the standards of the developed world.
edited 15th May '16 2:17:51 PM by CaptainCapsase
Oh, PLEEEEEEEASE pick Palin. If she brought down Mc Cain, think of what it would do to Trump.
Yes, the issue with American third parties is that they aim too high. The presidency is too high a goal. They need to start lower. And if you make a third-party run for the presidency, you need to win over congresscritters, something which no third party run I know has ever attempted - other than the Republican party when it originated.
Personally, I wonder if the US would work with an election system where congressional districts don't elect just one candidate but several in party list electoral systems, with each party list being assembled via a primary.
This way one would fix the "wasted voter" problem (the source of virtually all problems with FPTP) while preserving some "local issue" representation (the main advantage of FPTP) and the primary system (because in a lot of countries with party lists, their composition is decided in smoke filled rooms). The downside would be that the size of Congress would have to increase a lot.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@ Septimus:
You mean STV
?
If I understand him correctly, then Septimus is saying that every election should have a primary where members of a given party vote for their preferred candidate in a given district, and the top several choices all go on to the general election, as part of the same ticket.
Like, you hold a primary for parties A, B, and C. The top three of each primary goes on to the general. In the general, you can vote for Party A (Alice, Adam, and Alan), Party B (Bob, Bill, and Betty), or Party C (Charlie, Charlotte, and Chad).
I'm not entirely sure how that's supposed to fix the two-party system, though. If it's still FPTP voting, then you'll still inevitably end up with two major parties and the rest being spoilers for their own would-be allies.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Candidates, Jovian. Multi-member districts and party lists require more than one candidate. The scope of the primary is to sort out who a) makes it on the list at all and b) to set a "priority list" of which candidates actually get seated if one receives less seats than the number of candidates on the list.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

@ Septimus:
...including from a European Point of View?
Keep Rolling On