Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> My other objection is that Boaty McBoatface, somehow represents the will of the people. No it doesn't. It represent the will of people who bothered to vote on an issue most people likely don't give a dam about. If a choice was demanded of the whole population then Boaty McBoatface would never have won.

The point is that if it does represent the will of the people and the people in power don't like it, the will of the people will still lose out.

The two party system in the US is a problem, but it turns out it's natural consequence of Democracy. There's no law against other parties, it just turns out that with direct voting in a large country, over enough time, we arrive here with two parties.

If you look at the Democratic party, in 1968 an unfavored candidate was nominated based on votes, and so the DNC decided to institute the concept of super-delegates from thereon out. They did this because letting normal democracy run its course didn't work because the people elected someone the party elites didn't think was the best. The super delegates composed of party loyalists and high ranking party members that could ignore DNC votes. This essentially gave the party more control over who would win and removed voting power from normal people.

In the current election, Donald Trump is doing the same thing to upset the Republican party leadership. The Republicans haven't implemented anything as undemocratic as super-delegates yet, but if Trump wins they might be encouraged to (since it's the type of Democracy-giving-poor-results scenario people in power try to avoid).

> but it turns out it's natural consequence of Democracy. There's no law against other parties

It's a natural consequence of the specifics of how the US does elections. The US isn't the only country with democracy and plenty of others have more than 2 significant parties.

See reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11547983

Most countries where there are more than two parties are smaller. Just like in the US at lower level elections independents and other party members might win.

For that matter, most countries are smaller than the US, both in size and population. There are only two countries with a larger population. China has one ruling political party, and India has had prime ministers from many different parties.

For a full accounting, look back to the rise of the two party system during the Jacksonian era, or the current system of Democrats and Republicans (replacing the Whig party) started in the 1850s.

An explanation based on population size would have to be able to explain why it is that the current two party system in the US started when it was a much smaller country.

The US population in 1860 was 31,443,321. There are now 42 countries with a population larger than that.

I am always mystified by how a country with such diverse geography and socioeconomics can be represented by just two parties.

The parties are more varied by state than you'd expect - for example, the GOP in New York State tends to be pro-transit, while the DNC in Wisconsin still loves to build huge highways through minority neighborhoods.

It is represented poorly. But it's not clear that combating parliamentary factions would do better.

It's mystifying how such a diverse and populous country can be represented well at all. And the evidence is stacking up to show that it can't, in USA, Russia, China, and India.

It has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with an electoral system without proportionality.

> There's no law against other parties, it just turns out that with direct voting in a large country, over enough time, we arrive here with two parties.

Wrong.

It turns out that with First-Past-The-Post, we arrive with two parties.

In many other countries, over centuries, even more parties develop, and fail again.

At best a handful of parties, and it only works in small elections. You get to bigger and bigger elections the system always reduces the choice, which means that the bigger the system is, the less effective democracy becomes.

Of course democracy was never meant to be the most efficient or effective system of government. It's simply the most compromising one.

Tell that to india, which has 6 National parties[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_I...

Brazil has 25 national parties in parliament. Though nowadays their system might not sound like something to emulate :|

You say "at best a handful" like there isn't a meaningful difference between "2" and "3 or 4". The US is deeply unusual in their persistent two party system. Germany probably has nearly as many voters (given higher registration and turnout rates) as the US, and certainly doesn't operate as a two party system

Reply on news.ycombinator.com