Political parties

[jimbogumbo]

So writingprof just said the two parties take turns failing, which makes perfect sense to me. NBC released a poll today with the following claimed breakdown of voters (which does seem a bit(?) tidy to me):

17% Trump R's
17% Party R's
17% Biden D's
17% Sanders/Warren D's

Assuming it's true, 32% are dispersed in some other way, and likely not really represented at all.

[clean]

Maybe they are Will Rogers Democrats:

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Will Rogers

[dismalist]

I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.

The 17% returns times four suggest a uniform distribution over issues, not polarization. One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.

A uniform distribution per se doesn't invite two disparate bodies of noise, rather many.  My guess is that because the two disparate bodies live in different places, along the water or inland, where they form relatively more homogeneous groups, the noise is invited.

Two countries. Let's form a free trade area and a mutual defense pact between the two. And/or, the other lot can join Canada -- if they'll have them. :-)

[marshwiggle]

I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.

Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party!

The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.

[ciao_yall]

I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.

Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party!

The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.

Instead of the parties compromising, maybe it should be about what voters actually want?

[jimbogumbo]

The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.

[Puget]

The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.

You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.

[mythbuster]

Right now, it is very en vogue to self label as an independent. I have many friends who do this and believe themselves to be above politics as a result. But then they get mad when they can't vote in a primary. And even more mad when I point out the obvious- that the point of the primary is to assess the will of the party, not the people as a whole.

I too wish that we had more than 2 truly viable national options. But no one seems to be willing to put in the long term work it would take to get there. I can only hope that the growing realization among Dems that local elections matter more than they ever thought leads to some change in this area.

[Parasaurolophus]

Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party!

The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.

FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party. Remember, he's the man who has "no empathy" for struggling millennials and zoomers and our concerns. It remains to be seen exactly what the character of this administration will be. Some of the moves so far have been pretty good, but others haven't, and the constant talk of 'unity' sounds an awful lot like caving in to Republicans. If that's the case, then it's not surprising that his right is more pro-compromise than his left.

It's also not a surprising result because Republicans are straight out of power, and that's always been when they cry the loudest for "unity" and "compromise". It's the only way they have a shot at enacting their agenda. Notice, however, that when they have the power there's absolutely no compromise with the Democrats, let alone the left wing of the party.

[apl68]

The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.

You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.

That occurred to me as well.  It's probably less important how the system is set up than how committed everybody is to making it work.  No constitutional setup is so perfect that it can't be broken by a sufficiently dysfunctional culture.

[Puget]

FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party.

We get it, you really don't like Biden. But you are really out of touch with where the middle of each party currently is if you genuinely think this is at all true. We are not Canada my friend.

[Parasaurolophus]

FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party.

We get it, you really don't like Biden. But you are really out of touch with where the middle of each party currently is if you genuinely think this is at all true. We are not Canada my friend.

Could be. Shrug.

I guess I was thinking in terms of his role in designing the crime bill, in welfare reform, the bankruptcy bill, in cheerleading for war, in trying to cut social security and other benefit programs, in deficit hawking, in opposing M4A (in favour of tweaking the ACA and maybe adding a public option), in demonizing China, etc. It looks to me like that's a record which is closer to the moderate-leaning end of the Republican party than it is to the Warren/Sanders end of the Democratic party. And it's not like he was smack dab in the centre of the primary field, either.

That said, I'm happy to acknowledge that that was then and this is now, and so far it looks like he's allowed himself to be moved somewhere to his left. It remains to be seen how far and whether that will stick, of course, and whether it's enough to bring the left of the party onboard. My point was just that this could explain the "pro-compromise" figures marshwiggle cited without going full hog on the conclusion that "[Democrats] are barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party". A significant unwillingness to compromise with the centre doesn't seem as crazy to me, on the policy front, as it seems to seem to marshwiggle.

[marshwiggle]

The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.

A little lesson from Canada: We have 3 major federal parties, and have had a few more within the pasr couple of decades. While, in principle, multiple parties could lead to more collaboration, in practice it doesn't that much.

• In principle, you could have parties split along 2 (or more) axes, so for instance fiscal conservatives and liberals, as well as social conservatives and liberals. In practice, the two biggest groups are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, so everything gets skewed along that line.
• In principle, parties could stay in their ideological lanes. In practice, since more votes means more power, parties will become more amorphous to try and get more clout.

The result of these is that the major parties tend to align along a more-or-less continuous axis, and the party most in the centre has the advantage. (Although it's possible for parties closer on the axis to fight with each other for voters, splitting the vote from that end of the axis allowing the party at the other end to clean up.)

The only time the collaboration tends to happen is in a minority government situation, which if I recall correctly has historically happened about 1/3 of the time.

(Having said all that, the one toxic thing about the 2 party system is that everything is, by definition, an "US" and "THEM" battle between "GOOD" and "EVIL". In a system with more parties, even if some will never form the government, they may have policy ideas that are not the same as either of the major parties, so it recognizes that there are more than just 2 possibilities.)

[jimbogumbo]

The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.

You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.

I had to retype this, as power went out just as I was finishing. Aside: damn I'm COLD!

I''m never sure about much of anything. I have to think Israel of the last few years is an anomaly. I think that our primary system, coupled with us vs them has led us to a really bad place in terms of compromise. If we had 4-5 parties I think the conditions for coalition building might be better. As it is the most strident views of each party (sorry, particularly the R's) take over.

[writingprof]

One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.

They believe that voting is a nuisance, to be undertaken only when things are going seriously wrong.