Hacker News Reader

Comment by klondike_ | Hacker News Reader

If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of an issue. Currently, moderate parties aren't able to capture enough voters to become relevant, so the two dominant parties are pushed further and further apart.

It seems that countries with more parties don't hold this sort of animosity towards each other because party issues overlap more than in the polarizing two party system.

View on HN

We don't have a two party system. We have a First Past the Post system that inevitably leads to two parties. And having two parties is not necessarily a bad thing, most governments wind up with two defacto parties, they're just called the majority and minority coalitions and happen after election, instead of prior to.

A coalition and a party are a little different, though. In particular, even if the coalition lines are clear even before the election, voters are able to allocate their vote to a specific party within the coalition and apply some guidance that way.

Yes, this makes a huge difference. When I still voted in Germany I for example would vote for the FDP. I knew they go into a coalition with the CDU, but I didn't want any of the Christian BS. In the US I wouldn't have any party to vote for if I want my vote to matter.

The voters are out of luck if they want their executive and their legislature to come from different parties.

>If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of an issue.

I'm struggling to understand why people think this is true, especially given what's going on in Europe right now where fringe elements are becoming quite mainstream across the continent. Wouldn't adding more political parties to an already fragile system cause more tribalism, not less?

Having more parties allowed you to voice your opinion by voting in a much more differentiated way. In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example. With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity.

You are right that Europe is also seeing a rise in right wing parties. However, the US is the only Western country that had actually elected one of those clowns.

AfD has 94 seats in the Bundestag. Five Star and League saw significant success in Italy. I guess I’m not sure what your point is.

Edit: https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-premier-designate-ste...

You can't do much with 94 seats in the Bundestag if nobody will work with you. It's a big signal for larger parties that shows what they might try to gain some votes though. Only in the US though is the actual government now controlled by a right wing, populist.

> In the US you have no meaningful way to choose true libertarian politics for example

Sure you do; political expression isn't limited to general election voting.

> With more than two parties it had to become more about content than affiliation and identity.

The US has many more than two parties. A stable state of two competitive parties is the effect of limited meaningful choice presented by the system used for general elections, not the source of a lack of choice.

The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this (rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture:

guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR anti-immigration

anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration

Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and vote for that party...

The platforms aren't internally inconsistent, one person could genuinely hold all the views of either with logical consistency, based on core principles[1]. You're right they are meant to pick off single issue voters.

I don't know how we'll move back to the center, but as the article mentions I fear it will just be another war.

[1] For instance I prefer smaller government in general, but strongly support single payer healthcare (a compromise of govt size against equal opportunity).

They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government that militarily intervenes across the world?

I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.

By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.

A couple of those are a bit off.

Aside from party crashing outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both parties support globalism. Both the Bushes and the Clintons are 100% globalist, along with Romney and Obama and McCain and Gore.

True religious tolerance would allow people to opt out of some things they find deeply offensive. It goes beyond just the right to wear a head covering or stop the production line for prayers. It includes the right to say "no" for pharmacists (birth control), bakers (LGBT wedding cake), gynecological residents (abortion), and business owners (insurance coverage for birth control). What we see isn't actually religious tolerance. It's more like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Right, I said it was off the cuff and rough. Point still stands, even if it's just within and order of magnitude of the actual idiotic half-assed platforms.

I think we should stop letting parties influence ballots. Maybe let them endorse a candidate, but otherwise anyone that wants to be on the ballot in a given election follows some process where the opinion of a private organization isn't a factor.

That is already the case though; anyone can get on a ballot if they follow the process (generally it requires gathering a certain number of signatures)

Right, the idea is to strip the parties of their special role.

Who are these moderate parties you’re referring to?

I don't believe the 2 party system is the problem. Looking at political polarization in a country like France and it's just as bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com