The problem with two parties is everything is left or right. Coalition building can be hard but the work bridges ideas/approaches which pull more people together.
Two party systems end up governing from their extreme positions while trying to pull 1% over.
> Two party systems end up governing from their extreme positions while trying to pull 1% over.
Why must it be so? If one party was non-extreme, would it not be better at pulling the 1% over? (In fact, there are a lot more than 1% who don't bother to vote because neither party speaks to them.)
It seems to me that the thing that pushes parties in the US to the extremes is the primary system.
The problem is not in getting the 1% at the end but it si the primary system.
But that is true in all two party states.
The people who take part and organise the party will not be in the centre undecideds they will be those who are off centre. To become the leader you need to get the votes from the party workers, these will tend away from the centre so you get more extreme leaders.
With the two party system the coalitions are made behind closed doors in the party.
> Why must it be so? If one party was non-extreme, would it not be better at pulling the 1% over? (In fact, there are a lot more than 1% who don't bother to vote because neither party speaks to them.)
Primary elections are the problem. The moderates who would win bigly in the real election are rapidly washed out during the primary season.
All the more reason why we shouldn't vote for parties and politicians but rather vote on specific individual decisions/topics/choices.
It's 2025, we should be able to have more granular control over the direction our governments take, and not have to rely on some nebulous "party" or politicians grouping that forces us to deal with compromises. And not only compromises, but all the deal-making and trading that the groups make with eachother.
Representative democracy is not a technical challenge, it's a human challenge. If reigned in, electing representatives to act on your behalf is a far better system because being even close to informed on the topics and nuance and long-term thinking it takes to govern is a full time job that most people simply are not equipped - in terms of time and expertise - to handle. And we don't even have guaranteed holiday time to research and vote once every year, let alone every few days as this would require.
Sucks that they keep electing lunatics. But do you really think the party who ran almost entirely on hurting others wouldn't independently vote for hurting others? Or that the 100,000,000 people who didn't vote to stop it would suddenly vote? Or that people wouldn't look toward leaders and form parties so they can quickly get a feel of the room based on like minds?
Politicians being corrupt is, at the end of the day, mostly the fault of the people. They refuse to hold them accountable. I mean, they elected a convicted felon - a convicted rapist - an impeached president - a known con man and womanizer - who works with dictators and mafias and tried to overthrow America. And they're still cheering on every insane idea.
> All the more reason why we shouldn't vote for parties and politicians but rather vote on specific individual decisions/topics/choices.
This sounds nice but if people can't even vote for favorable outcomes now, how can we expect them to make informed decisions on dozens of matters of public policy?
The solution usually proposed in systems like Liquid Democracy, is in the form of an online platform where issues to be voted on are presented alongside all the different opinions and perspectives relevant to that decision. Education needs to go hand-in-hand with empowerment.
Having all the information available is but one part of the challenge. It has never been easier to get educated on all sides of every issue we face, yet...
The problem still remains that we can't expect individuals (let alone millions of them) to be able to appropriately weigh in on things that require more than 5 minute reading on an online platform. One cannot gain an expert understanding, nor an appreciation of the nuances that come with that, in that situation.
I think this is some sort of fallacy that (us) intellectuals easily fall into. Education and understanding of a topic for the most part does not sway peoples' opinion. And democracy shouldn't be about that, because then it becomes a game of "who can convince the most people" and "who can indoctrinate the most", rather than simply being the will of the people that they naturally form as part of existing as individuals and interacting with the world around them.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that people can/should be able to make decisions about individual policy decisions - as I took your GP comment to mean - or are you saying that that's antithetical to democracy...?
Yes - I 100% think we should allow all voters to be able to vote on individual policy decisions.
But democracy shouldn't be about giving them that choice only if they are educated and informed on the topic, that is antithetical to democracy. Their choice matters whether they are informed on it or not, that's their choice - period. Of course, it would be good to give them all the info we can on the topic and we should strive to do our best to help them be informed. And if that's the case, and we agree democracy is about the will of the people, not their "expertise" and "knowledge" on a topic, then there is absolutely no reason why we should deny the possibility of more direct-democracy type decision making.
I don't think anybody was suggesting it as some kind hard requirement - that would indeed probably be dangerous. I am still confused by your comment though
> Education and understanding of a topic for the most part does not sway peoples' opinion. And democracy shouldn't be about that, because then it becomes a game of "who can convince the most people" and "who can indoctrinate the most", rather than simply being the will of the people that they naturally form as part of existing as individuals and interacting with the world around them.
It sounds like you're saying understanding of a topic should come second to how citizens "feel" about it. There's no denying that's how it is much of the time, but should it be?
People, as part of existing as part of the world, naturally form hatred or distrust of various groups of people based on their personal interactions. How is it healthier for society to act on those feelings, vs electing people and building institutions that act based on reason and good faith?
I'm not sure how to parse/take your comment. Are you saying people are too uninformed to make decisions on public policy?
Look, if that's the case, and that's how we want government to be run, then let's just come out with it. Let's not pretend that people have a choice. But until that day comes, democracy means will of the people and in this modern technological age that translates to people being enabled to choose what they want.
We've lost the "excuse" to use coordination, tallying and "time to count votes" as a means to push representative-type democracy, and the sooner we get there the better the world will be. Because right now we have this schism, and it's tearing societies apart.
You suggested we should stop voting for parties/politicians and instead vote based on individual policies. I suggest that's not a great idea, since to make informed decisions on such things requires more expert understanding than an individual has. This is not, I think, a crazy position - it is why we elect politicians at all.
Two party systems end up governing from their extreme positions while trying to pull 1% over.