Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

This is interesting mathematically... but false empirically.

The forces behind modern political polarization are extremely well-known and well-documented in political science, and they are:

1) The awareness by political parties that extreme views motivate extreme voters to vote, more than moderate views motivate moderate voters to vote, therefore parties and candidates are being pushed further away from the center than decades ago

2) Political primaries are now democratic, so less centrist candidates are being selected than from when candidates were selected by party leadership

3) The awareness by the media that politically polarized coverage is more popular than centrist/balanced coverage, thus the rise of right-wing and left-wing news

It really is that simple. Potential solutions include making voting mandatory (like Australia and many other countries) so extreme views aren't used to drive turnout, various strategies like eliminating primaries and using ranked voting for elections instead (allowing multiple candidates from all parties), and well there isn't really much we can do about the media, but if parties and candidates aren't pushing the polarization as much, the media probably won't as much either.

> using ranked voting for elections instead (allowing multiple candidates from all parties)

Some variation of ranked voting is the one thing I truly want to see in electoral laws. Still it is not the only way to easily allow for multiple candidates. Candidates could register in coalitions such that people chose either just the coalition or the coalition and a candidate and then the coalition with most votes wins and in that coalition the candidate with most votes wins.

This would potentially devolve into keeping some token candidates to capture fringe voters, but at least you would have to pretend for longer that they are indeed a serious candidate.

> Political primaries are now democratic, so less centrist candidates are being selected than from when candidates were selected by party leadership

That's not true at all. At least on the Democrat side. The party chooses the nominee, not the people.

"The DNC, led by Wasserman Schultz, Admitted In Court they Rigged Primaries Against Sanders"

>A Federal Judge dismissed the lawsuit after DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select their own candidate.

http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...

"DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely a ‘Political Promise'"

https://observer.com/2016/10/dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-...

That's quibbling over details, or the exception that proves the rule.

Candidate selection used to be a backroom affair. Now it's an open democratic process.

Party leadership obviously has their favorites, and can certainly try to push voters a certain way. But at the end of the day, people are still voting in primaries. Yes there are superdelegates too, like there's also an electoral college.

But political primaries are based on voting by the people now. They weren't before. That's the point.

> the exception that proves the rule.

Off-topic: I was presented with the argument that this sentence should be taken to mean "this is the exception that shows the rule [as in law] is needed" rather than "this is the exception that the rule [as in inference/deduction] is correct".

I have not looked into whether this interpretation is historically true, but it makes much more sense.

Isn't that a gross misstatement of the ruling? I'm not even a lawyer and it seems to be saying that when making a motion to dismiss, you assume the plaintiff's argument is true and then see if the case has merit.

So the ruling saying "even if the argument is hypothetically true, we can dismiss the case" is not the same as saying, "the argument is true".

> The party chooses the nominee, not the people.

Compared to many other countries, this is only true in a very weak sense in the US. What do I have to do to have a vote in a D or R primary? "Register as a D (or R)". That's it. Nothing more. I don't have to actually join an organization, let alone pay anything or play any role in the party other than this vote. That's fairly different from (for example) the UK, where you have to be an "actual member" of the party to help choose a nominee.

That's a great point, however, I don't think it challenges the findings, rather, your points go some way to explaining some of the drivers.

I should add the Elephant in the Room because nobody has yet - which is social media:

Twitter and Facebook are 'primary drivers' of this division, because of 1) the pervasiveness of content 2) the low quality, non-factual nature of the memes and 3) the natural polarisation of such memes.

More controversially, 'campus politicisation' is another primary factor. Students have been protesting for some time, but now the Faculty, Staff, Students, Student Unions and government grand associations act in concert to promote what they see are important issues, but which really represent a politicisation of the situation.

There are innumerable cases, but just one anecdote: The University of Ottawa recently banned the Yoga class because of concerns over 'cultural appropriation'. Never mind the fact that 'Hatha Yoga' in the North American terms was literally created by Hindu leaders as a form of their theology more amenable to Westerners in the first place. The replacement Yoga teacher was of 'Indian' origin, of course. Nobody complained, rather, someone on faculty out of either fear or oppression decided that it would be the case.

Finally, and maybe most controversially because its more subtle - is the politicisation of corporate culture and brands. It's one thing to have internal dialogue and programs, this is fine and good, but when they're hustling products based on highly visceral movements ... it's going to help stoke division.

It's not well understood by most people that products and services are sold mostly on the basis of emotional aspiration. Nike has great shoes, but that's not what drives sales. They didn't really make money until they had 'Michael Jordan' on their shoes, after which, they made bank. Starbucks sells a total commodity: coffee - what they really sell is a brand and an experience. Right down to the naming of the water 'Ethos' as in 'I'm ethical for drinking this water'.

But the recent foray of brands into taking sides on social issues, which many who are supportive of such issues might admire, should be viewed cynically: in the end, they're just trying to sell you some crap. If you 'feel strongly about this issue' - and they can map those emotions into sales by 'siding with you' - they're going to do that to make money. Again this is separate from things like material action such as ethical supply chains etc., but when Nike pays people in Vietnam 50 cents an hour who can't take a bathroom break to make 100 shoes a day, and then sells them to you for $200 'because they care about this issue' - we should be cynical. This action contributes to increasing polarisation.

In a way, some political issues are 'metastasising' into so many areas it's getting to be like the Twilight Zone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com