Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing and hate the bad thing.

People are so black and white. Don't think it's a new thing, but the internet has made it very popular to be black and white in our thinking.

View on HN

> People are so black and white

The social benefits of this type of thinking are too big to ignore for many people. You get to be a part of a group. (I'm going to skip any hand-wavey allusions to evolutionary psych because they don't really add much.)

I get the appeal. I'm just not always one of them. I'm sure I'm black and white on some things, but I always joke that my teamwork/togetherness gene is busted for the most part.

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

Is it "most" or is it UKUSA?

France is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

Germany is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

> France is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

France was for a long time until recently though, the current situation is the exception.

When?

In 2012, when the top two candidates have ~50% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10%?

In 2007, when the top two candidates have ~50% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10% (note: note the same parties)?

In 2002, when the top two candidates have ~35% of the votes and the loss of the leading left wing candidate was blamed on too many different left wing parties fielding candidates and getting votes?

In 2002, when the top two candidates have ~45% of the votes & four candidates total are above 10%?

Same thing for 1995, 1988, 1981.

In the last US presidential election, the top two candidates got a combined 98.17% of votes. The next candidate got 1.18%. This is a completely different situation.

Apart from 2002 and 2017, all the elections have been the incarnation at that time of the PS vs the incarnation at that time of the UMP.

> why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater

Is that true? It's certainly not the case in Germany, where we have ~6 relevant parties at the moment. I'm pretty sure other European nations, like Italy, often form their governments from multi party coalitions as well.

In the US I'd primarily blame the way votes are counted (majority of majorities). I'd expect other parties to rise to relevance if a different voting system was used, e.g. parties getting seats in the house of representatives proportional to their votes, instead of composing it from the winners of the individual districts (or a hybrid, like in Germany).

The two party system is usually a side effect of first past the post voting systems. Since elections only allow voters to choose one candidate, a third party candidate end up splitting the vote and taking votes away from the candidate who is closest to their political stance.

People see that and decide the rational choice is to vote for the candidate that they hate the least with the highest chance of driving, and third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties. (CPG Grey did a great video on this https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo)

Check out Ireland for how to set up a voting system that doesn't converge to two parties

> third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties.

I would suggest that this probably isn't the case. Since there is no requirement for a majority vote share in first past the post, the same results can be achieved by splitting parties. The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

> I would suggest that this probably isn't the case.

It is; both the theoretical and empirical support for this being the effect of FPTP is overwhelming.

> They can be acheived by splitting other parties, but while Party A can choose to form a superparty eith Party B, it can’t choose to durably split Party C instead. Parties in FPTP will, to the extent that they can get away with it, funnel support to minor party candidates that will split the vote of their major opponent, but that’s a short-term tactical rather than long-term strategic maneuver.

> The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

It’s really not, though India is complicated by being a federal system (which means a bunch of different electoral area with different and interacting party systems) and being in the middle of a long realignment from, at the national level, a dominant-party system under Congress (and looks a lot like at least temporarily to a dominant party system under BJP, again at the national level.)

Most political systems tend to converge into a two-party system.

I think the internet has made people more vocal but access to opposing and nuanced viewpoints has made a lot of people grey. I know that's the case for me, not sure if it encapsulates the majority.

Do you have a source for that? Coming from a country where there are 16 different parties in parliament (the Netherlands), neighboured by two countries which each have at least five parties in parliament (Belgium and Germany), I find that statement difficult to believe.

To be fair the Netherlands is a unique republic dating back so far that even Louis XIV complained that any opinion held is represented in The Hague.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/439669?seq=1

I think that's the whole point of democracy though. That our chosen representatives actually represent us. Rather than their corporate donors.

Do you have a source for that? Most of Western Europe has more than two parties in parliament, thus I find that hard to believe.

Yes this is more a "British Empire" thing. See Australia, Canada, India etc. They copied the English political system.

Yeah new Zealand dropped first past the post in the 70s and has a decidedly better political climate for it

Rank choice voting would definitely change that

Widely used voting systems converge on two parties. The worst offender is the first-past-the-post system. Instant-run-off voting is better, but still converges on two parties.

Wish I had a good citation for you, but I do have an try-it-yourself guide on voting systems to link to: https://ncase.me/ballot/

India has FPTP as well, where the tendency has usually been in the opposite direction - splitting parties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com