General US Politics

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Clear World said:

Are you just ignoring the fact that both Lord Raven and I are like providing reasons why 'outside voices' from those two parties don't gain momentum? So much of the american voting system (primaries, electoral college, FPTP, gerrymandering) is set up to curb stomp outsiders.

And, what exactly do you mean 'lack of any voice outside' of those two parties. What what they have to do for you to consider it 'having a voice'? Because it sounds like you don't actually pay much attention and is just spewing feel-good phrases for yourself that isn't actually possible without major structure changes.

What? No, I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm agreeing. The entire system is atrocious and needs reform. By voices outside the major parties I meant a parliamentary system. That was my point. But neither the democrats nor the republicans are ever going to actually try to change things since its the system keeping both of them in power. At best you might see the electoral college eliminated as the Democrats have lost two elections in this century as a result of it and its wildly unpopular, but it'll probably take the republicans getting the majority and losing the presidency before any headway is made there.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Jotari

[Excellen Browning]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

pretty much all democracies devolve into two major parties

This is deeply ignorant of how most parliamentary democracies outside of the english speaking world function.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

This is deeply ignorant of how most parliamentary democracies outside of the english speaking world function.

Enlighten me (sincere request).

[Excellen Browning]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_country

My post was harsher than it should have been, and the statement made more strongly than it should have. But I'm on some level of familiarity with Dutch/Belgian/German/French politics and I know that most European countries aren't two or single party states.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Excellen Browning

[ping]

Speaking for Germany, our parliament went from three parties (conservatives, liberals (in a European sense), social democrats) between the 60s and 80s to four (adding the Green party in 1983), to five (adding the Socialists, successor of the SED in the GDR) in 1990, to six right now (adding the totally-not-fascists in 2017).

Notably, both the conservatives and the social democrats, the two domineering parties, lost a lot of weight in the past decade or two. For the longest time, the question of who would be chancellor would boil down to "who can persuate the liberals to form a coalition?", although there has been a "big coalition" between 1966 and 1969, with a rather silly majority in parliament.

The next coalition without the liberals was formed in 1998 (social democrats + green party), followed by another big coalition in 2005 - due to neither SD+Green nor conservative+liberals having a majority, thanks to the socialists being relatively strong that election. Plus, the liberals were pretty decisively in the conservative's corner, same with the greens and the social democrats, so a triple coalition was more or less out of the question.

2009 went back to conservatives+liberals, but then the liberals were voted out of parliament for the first time in 2013 (so we're back to 4 parties), which lead to the third big coalition, because the socialists still remain pariah.

Then, 2017 the liberals came back to parliament and the totally-not-fascists were voted in for the first time as well. Since nobody wanted to continue the big coalition (both members lost a lot of votes compared to 2013) and both socialists and totally-not-fascists were pretty much out of question, it looked like a Social Democrats + Green + Liberals coaltion would emerge. However, the liberals pulled out of negotiations, which forced social democrats and conservatives to continue the big coalition for another four years.

The 2021 election was very interesting - with Merkel not candidating again, the conservatives did not find a strong candidate at all, plus a lot of bellyaching about how to position themselves to Merkel's relatively moderate policies, leading to their worst result since 1949. During the electoral campaign, it actually looked like a green chancellor (Annalena Baerbock, who ended up as foreign minister) would be in the cards, but she lost a lot of standing during the campaigns, benefitting the social democrats. This time, the liberals did agree to join a red-green-yellow coalition, so now Olaf Scholz is leading the government.

I've ignored the entire time that the conservatives are technically two parties in one parliamentary faction - the Christian Social Union in Bavaria and the Christian Democratic Union everywhere else, including the occasional "WE'LL DO OUR OWN THING!!!" screeching coming out of Munich whenever the Bavarians feel that they aren't sufficiently overrepresented. So technically, parliament went from four parties to seven. Anway, point stands, Germany has not been trending towards a two-party system at all. Quite the opposite, really.

Edited August 13, 2022 by ping

[Jotari]

23 minutes ago, ping said:

Speaking for Germany, our parliament went from three parties (conservatives, liberals (in a European sense), social democrats) between the 60s and 80s to four (adding the Green party in 1983), to five (adding the Socialists, successor of the SED in the GDR) in 1990, to six right now (adding the totally-not-fascists in 2017).

Notably, both the conservatives and the social democrats, the two domineering parties, lost a lot of weight in the past decade or two. For the longest time, the question of who would be chancellor would boil down to "who can persuate the liberals to form a coalition?", although there has been a "big coalition" between 1966 and 1969, with a rather silly majority in parliament.

The next coalition without the liberals was formed in 1998 (social democrats + green party), followed by another big coalition in 2005 - due to neither SD+Green nor conservative+liberals having a majority, thanks to the socialists being relatively strong that election. Plus, the liberals were pretty decisively in the conservative's corner, same with the greens and the social democrats, so a triple coalition was more or less out of the question.

2009 went back to conservatives+liberals, but then the liberals were voted out of parliament for the first time in 2013 (so we're back to 4 parties), which lead to the third big coalition, because the socialists still remain pariah.

Then, 2017 the liberals came back to parliament and the totally-not-fascists were voted in for the first time as well. Since nobody wanted to continue the big coalition (both members lost a lot of votes compared to 2013) and both socialists and totally-not-fascists were pretty much out of question, it looked like a Social Democrats + Green + Liberals coaltion would emerge. However, the liberals pulled out of negotiations, which forced social democrats and conservatives to continue the big coalition for another four years.

The 2021 election was very interesting - with Merkel not candidating again, the conservatives did not find a strong candidate at all, plus a lot of bellyaching about how to position themselves to Merkel's relatively moderate policies, leading to their worst result since 1949. During the electoral campaign, it actually looked like a green chancellor (Annalena Baerbock, who ended up as foreign minister) would be in the cards, but she lost a lot of standing during the campaigns, benefitting the social democrats. This time, the liberals did agree to join a red-green-yellow coalition, so now Olaf Scholz is leading the government.

I've ignored the entire time that the conservatives are technically two parties in one parliamentary faction - the Christian Social Union in Bavaria and the Christian Democratic Union everywhere else, including the occasional "WE'LL DO OUR OWN THING!!!" screeching coming out of Munich whenever the Bavarians feel that they aren't sufficiently overrepresented. So technically, parliament went from four parties to seven. Anway, point stands, Germany has not been trending towards a two-party system at all. Quite the opposite, really.

Two domineering parties is a more precise phrasing for what I meant. Obviously most democracies are far and away from America's borderline civil war levels of politics, but even the most balanced parliamentary systems tend to end up with two major parties and a bunch of minor parties the major parties need to curry favour with to actually get into office. Sometimes the tides change and which are the leading parties (as is set to happen in Ireland in the future given the last election), but this model seems to naturally develop everywhere I look. Though I can't say I'm intimately familiar with non English democracies (though I see a reference to Belgium, considering that's a two state country I expect politics there would follow the two nationalities quite heavily) and even more so non-European-non English democracies (Malaysia is a federal democratic monarchy with a rotating smorgasbord of nine royal families, which certainly sounds complex!). 

Wasn't Merkel consistently in power for over fifteen years? I assume she did that as the head of a single party? Or was her party less powerful, but she still lead coalitions with bigger parties due to her own independent competence?

Edited August 13, 2022 by Jotari

[Lord Raven]

For the record, Maine started instituting ranked choice voting in Democratic primaries and I believe other states will be following suit. There is a lot of slow change in this country, and I'm hoping medicare jolts all these old people to go out and not vote the shittiest iteration of the republican party

[ping]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:41 AM, Jotari said:

Two domineering parties is a more precise phrasing for what I meant. Obviously most democracies are far and away from America's borderline civil war levels of politics, but even the most balanced parliamentary systems tend to end up with two major parties and a bunch of minor parties the major parties need to curry favour with to actually get into office. Sometimes the tides change and which are the leading parties (as is set to happen in Ireland in the future given the last election), but this model seems to naturally develop everywhere I look. Though I can't say I'm intimately familiar with non English democracies (though I see a reference to Belgium, considering that's a two state country I expect politics there would follow the two nationalities quite heavily) and even more so non-European-non English democracies (Malaysia is a federal democratic monarchy with a rotating smorgasbord of nine royal families, which certainly sounds complex!). 

Wasn't Merkel consistently in power for over fifteen years? I assume she did that as the head of a single party? Or was her party less powerful, but she still lead coalitions with bigger parties due to her own independent competence?

I think the trend away from the two domineering parties is pretty clear, given that the sharp uptick for "others" votes happened between 2002 and 2009. Conservatives had 40%+ results from 1953 to 1994, after which they only managed that feat in a single election. SocDems had 30%+ between 1957 and 2005, after which they had four successive elections with 20-26% results. They're still the two strongest parties, but I'll say again - before the election last year, it looked absolutely feasible for the green party to become the strongest faction in parliament, although their result ended up quite a bit lower (15% vs. the 25% for the two big 'uns).

Merkel was chancellor for 16 years / four legislative periods, swapping between a conservative/liberal coalition (when that was feasible) and conservative/SocDem (when it wasn't).

In any case - I don't think that the trend away from the traditional parties is a German unicorn. Heck, Macron's party was founded in 2016. The Spanish election in 2019 had one party with almost 30% and then three (including the conservatives who had had 30% of the votes in the previous election) at around 15%. I'm not going to say that it's universal either (House of Commons is still Tories, then Labour, then the rest, for example), but I do think that in an electoral system that allows smaller parties to realisticalyl participate (so, unlike the US), you will get smaller parties in the parliaments and occasionally with some power to decide who will govern (like the liberals did for decades in Germany).

 

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, ping said:

Merkel was chancellor for 16 years / four legislative periods, swapping between a conservative/liberal coalition (when that was feasible) and conservative/SocDem (when it wasn't).

So the conservatives were also in power for a straight 16 years (with coalitions). That seems strange given the sharp spike downwards for the conservatives during that time in the graph you've posted. I assume despite that downward trend during that period they were still the more powerful party in the coalition.

4 hours ago, ping said:

In any case - I don't think that the trend away from the traditional parties is a German unicorn. Heck, Macron's party was founded in 2016. The Spanish election in 2019 had one party with almost 30% and then three (including the conservatives who had had 30% of the votes in the previous election) at around 15%. I'm not going to say that it's universal either (House of Commons is still Tories, then Labour, then the rest, for example), but I do think that in an electoral system that allows smaller parties to realisticalyl participate (so, unlike the US), you will get smaller parties in the parliaments and occasionally with some power to decide who will govern (like the liberals did for decades in Germany).

 

Oh I never suggested otherwise. Coalitions are the bread and butter of the parliamentary system and smaller parties having their voices heard is absolutely what happens. But, if it's not quite as dualistic in nature as I perceived, it does seem like there are major and minor parties with a very limited number of parties that ever stand a chance of getting sole majorities. First past the post is also an element that'll probably significantly push things into a more dualistic set up (which, thankfully, a lot of Europe doesn't use).

[Shoblongoo]

An oppositional 2 party system based around the bipolar political positions of conservatives who think the biggest problem facing society is that too much is changing + Old Ways are threatened and liberals who think the biggest problem facing society is that not enough is changing + Old Ways are getting in the way is the default operational setting of a democratic state. Its just the way people orientate when tasked with electing representatives and putting public issues to a vote.  

The way you bring about big change in such a system isn't by adding more parties (which are really just further subdivisions and more factionalization.

Its by taking the political infrastructure one of the preexisting parties. Getting your people in there. And co-opting it. 

You want big progressive change in America???

You don't get there by taking Democrat vs. Republican elections and voting 3rd Party leftist candidates.

You get there by getting the next generation of leftists--i.e. the AOC and the Rashida Talib candidates--elected as Democrats. Waiting in the wings as the next-in-line to take power + set the party platform when the generation of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer finally sets off into the sunset.

...And if you don't believe it...

Observe the transformation of the Republicans from the Party of Bush Sr. and John McCain and Mitt Romney, where guys like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee were considered a bridge-too-far into the kooky stuff to be prominent voices of the party and sidelined to save-face whenever talk of issues like abortion or immigration came up.

To the party of Margorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert. 

They didn't move the dial by going: "Well the Republican Party isn't what we want it to be. We need a party that better represents us to compete with the Republicans. Lets start a Christian Nationalist Party and run Against The Republicans."

...they ran as Republicans, got elected as Republicans, and moved the Republican Party to the right to make it the party that they wanted it to be.
__

Thats the template for progressive reformers, on how to function in a 2 party system where neither party is where we want it to be. 

Control and Move the closer party. 

Don't split the left-of-center vote because the Democrats aren't leftist enough and make Republicans stronger for it.

Run as democrats. Get elected as democrats. And move the party left.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Run as democrats. Get elected as democrats. And move the party left.

Tldr elect more Democrats, then make them better

Your entire post is basically required reading

[Jotari]

16 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

An oppositional 2 party system based around the bipolar political positions of conservatives who think the biggest problem facing society is that too much is changing + Old Ways are threatened and liberals who think the biggest problem facing society is that not enough is changing + Old Ways are getting in the way is the default operational setting of a democratic state. Its just the way people orientate when tasked with electing representatives and putting public issues to a vote.  

The way you bring about big change in such a system isn't by adding more parties (which are really just further subdivisions and more factionalization.

Its by taking the political infrastructure one of the preexisting parties. Getting your people in there. And co-opting it. 

You want big progressive change in America???

You don't get there by taking Democrat vs. Republican elections and voting 3rd Party leftist candidates.

You get there by getting the next generation of leftists--i.e. the AOC and the Rashida Talib candidates--elected as Democrats. Waiting in the wings as the next-in-line to take power + set the party platform when the generation of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer finally sets off into the sunset.

...And if you don't believe it...

Observe the transformation of the Republicans from the Party of Bush Sr. and John McCain and Mitt Romney, where guys like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee were considered a bridge-too-far into the kooky stuff to be prominent voices of the party and sidelined to save-face whenever talk of issues like abortion or immigration came up.

To the party of Margorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert. 

They didn't move the dial by going: "Well the Republican Party isn't what we want it to be. We need a party that better represents us to compete with the Republicans. Lets start a Christian Nationalist Party and run Against The Republicans."

...they ran as Republicans, got elected as Republicans, and moved the Republican Party to the right to make it the party that they wanted it to be.
__

Thats the template for progressive reformers, on how to function in a 2 party system where neither party is where we want it to be. 

Control and Move the closer party. 

Don't split the left-of-center vote because the Democrats aren't leftist enough and make Republicans stronger for it.

Run as democrats. Get elected as democrats. And move the party left.

That's the way to game the system to win. But it doesn't actually do much to remedy the central issue if it's the system itself that's bad. What's the end game, perpetual battle as both sides take that stance? Or a one party state run by democrats should they gain ultimate victory and Republican values fade away (which seems incredibly unlikely to happen and to a lot probably not even desirable if it did)? I think the majority of people in the US probably are moderates, but these tactics, which as you've noted have worked very well for the Republicans, just push the radical elements to the forefront.

EDIT: Before we get too deep into this topic (if the ship hasn't already sailed there), I want to just say

A)That above statement contains genuine questions.

B)My original statement about the Greens was a joke (though also my honest feelings).

C)And this is the important one, I Am Not American. I have not lived in the USA and I've barely even visited it (only New York Christmas 2009). I do not know the reality of life in America, I do not experience the reality of the polices passed in America, my cultural experience is completely different from that of America and what I am expose to is almost purely in the space of the propaganda.  (though I also reckon that's true for a lot of Americans given how big and diverse the country is with a lot of echo chambers).And while I definitely think Europeans have a right to weigh in on American politics (both because people can have an opinion on anything and because the US's politics do indirectly effect the entire world), I am somewhat irked by European youtubers who make a career out of shit talking one side or the other of American politics when they have no first hand experience with life in America. Basically what I'm trying to say is I do not put a lot of stock in the comments I make and neither should you. But I'm still going to be here, because we also can talk about democracy in general, people might find an outsiders perspective valuable, the aforementioned American politics really do impact the entire world and because US politics are, if nothing else, entertaining.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Jotari

[Armchair General]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

What's the end game, perpetual battle as both sides take that stance?

Lately, this is more or less the only way it's been panning out, since voting for anyone who isn't an democrat or an republican on national or statewide scale is essentially throwing your vote away; mostly because an lot of people will still stick with voting for the two extremes instead of an third party or an independent.

 

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

Or a one party state run by democrats should they gain ultimate victory and Republican values fade away (which seems incredibly unlikely to happen and to a lot probably not even desirable if it did)? 

I genuinely don't see this happening because conservatism in America isn't the kind of thing that'll die out within an few years. Plus, I doubt if there will ever be an push for an one-party state because it'll defeat the purpose of electing people.

[Shoblongoo]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

What's the end game, perpetual battle as both sides take that stance?

Maybe one day in the distant, distant future we enter a Star Trek like eutopia of fully automated luxury space communism--an age of perfect rationalism where humankind has evolved beyond the social ills of religious superstition, profit-motive, and inequality between the races and sexes. 

...but until that day...

Yes.

Its a perpetual grind to make as much progress as we can with each generation, and push back against the regressive forces that want to see the progress undone.

With solemn appreciation that no matter how far we come: we're always just one generation of indolence and neglect away from backsliding into the worst practices of our history. 
 

 

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

Or a one party state run by democrats should they gain ultimate victory and Republican values fade away (which seems incredibly unlikely to happen and to a lot probably not even desirable if it did)?i

...Loyalists and Patriots were the 2 party bipoles of American politics until the Loyalists became a defunct political identity no longer representative of the cleave in the electorate...

Then the Patriots split into federalists and antifederalists. 

...Federalists and antifederalists were the 2 party bipoles of American politics until the antifederalists became a defunct political identity no longer representative of the cleave in the electorate...

Then the federalists split into federalists and democratic republicans. 

...Federalists and democratic republicans were the 2 party bipoles of American politics until the federalists became a defunct political identity no longer representative of the cleave in the electorate...

Then the democratic republicans split into Republicans and Democrats.
__

I would love to see a day when democrats achieve ultimate victory and republican values fade away. (which i agree is incredibly unlikely to happen any time in the near future)

...but if does...

I don't think it would be undesirable or that the result would be a One Party State.

What would happen next is that the Democratic Party would split along ideological lines to represent the new political bipoles of a post-Republican America.

And a new 2-Party system would emerge from that schism.

i.e. classic democrats on the right as the new conservative party vs. progressives and democratic socialists on the left as the new liberal party.

And that would become the new political landscape.  (a man can dream) 
 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Maybe one day in the distant, distant future we enter a Star Trek like eutopia of fully automated luxury space communism--an age of perfect rationalism where humankind has evolved beyond the social ills of religious superstition, profit-motive, and inequality between the races and sexes. 

...but until that day...

Yes.

Nah, we'll all be wiped out by global warming first.

[Acacia Sgt]

Well, it happened. Liz Cheney was primarie'd. Not that surprising, but still...

I don't think she can pull a Murkowski come November... possibly.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Acacia Sgt

[Shoblongoo]

She was a dogmatic conservative on every issue whose only transgression against the party-line was that she wouldn't treat personal loyalty to Donald Trump as a core value of being a Republican. And would call him out on lies and disinformation + hold him accountable for crimes and frauds, rather than acting like every word that came out of his mouth was pure undiluted greatness and anyone with a bad thing to say about him was part of a conspiracy to destroy America. 
__

I think it can be said without exaggeration that her ouster as a representative that no longer has a place in the GOP marks the transition of the GOP from a ideologically conservative party to an outright autocratic one. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Shoblongoo

[Zapp Branniglenn]

It's sort of like a few months ago when Madison Cawthorn exposed so called cocaine orgies among the Republican leadership. He was ousted just two months later. But unlike Cheney he was and still is hard in the Trump cult, posting cryptic stuff about Dark MAGA. The GOP demands fierce loyalty to Trump, but they'll go after you for any offense against the party's image, not just that man's.

In a similar act of protecting the party's image, a Texas school district is banning Anne Frank from libraries.

[Armchair General]

8 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

In a similar act of protecting the party's image, a Texas school district is banning Anne Frank from libraries.

Honestly, by the time your kids are reading that book; worrying about preserving their "innocence" should be the least of their problems. Besides, it's not like the world will magically fit into their values as soon as the kids graduate high school.

[Acacia Sgt]

Interestingly, the Bible is among the books they're also trying to ban.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

In a similar act of protecting the party's image, a Texas school district is banning Anne Frank from libraries.

What? Why? Aren't people over there actually super supportive of Jews now as they literally believe destroying Palestine will end the world (which is meant to be a good thing for some reason). Actually maybe it's the sex stuff. It was the diary of a teenage girl after all (or so I've heard, never have gotten around to reading it).

Edited August 18, 2022 by Jotari

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Interestingly, the Bible is among the books they're also trying to ban.

Honestly, I just assumed that the entire thing was an publicity stunt when I saw that.

 

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What? Why? Aren't people over there actually super supportive of Jews now as they literally believe destroying Palestine will end the world (which is meant to be a good thing for some reason).

It says that this was mostly over an explicit excerpt from the book rather than some insane conspiracy theory regarding Israel and Palestine. But the way that the world is turning, it's hard to say what will happen, next

Edited August 18, 2022 by Armchair General

[Excellen Browning]

The book bannings are very much not a publicity stunt, but an attempt by conservatives to impose their world view by banning access to information about things they don't agree with. And this is far from the only time it's happened, just probably the first time Anne Frank's diary was targeted.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Guys? It's just a cute joke tying in two recent news items. Don't need to tie another 2022 story about GOP book bans into geopolitics of Isreal. Guys?

21 hours ago, Jotari said:

Actually maybe it's the sex stuff. It was the diary of a teenage girl after all (or so I've heard, never have gotten around to reading it).

Huh. It's required reading in the US. That and that Wiesel book, Night. Primary source accounts tie in well to the lengthy WW2 chapters of middle school/high school history classes since English and History have complementary lesson plans. 

[ping]

Anne Frank's diaries were initially published with a lot of her written sexual thoughts omitted. Keep in mind that these are the diaries of a 13-15 year old girl, published posthumously by her father, so that's really not very surprising. In any case, if that (or specifically, Anne writing about her attraction to girls) was the reason, there's definitely editions that the puritans shouldn't take offence from.