Hacker News Reader

Comment by hammock | Hacker News Reader

Agreed that’s interesting. Really makes you think about all these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc

View on HN

Because in reality the two party system is not accurate. It’s rich versus poor, those with power versus those without. Nobility versus peasants. That’s just how it works.

That's how it works in the USA, not necessarily how it works. Other forms of governing exists.

A big step forward for the USA would be a vast reduction of federal power over the states.

The US federal government is already pretty weak compared to other countries. The federal government looks pretty bad at the moment, but I’m not sure further weakening it will help the country.

The US federal government is very strong compared to many countries, just limited in where that power can be applied... in theory. In practice, the insanity that is a precedent-based judicial system over time means that it's all just a disorganized mess where on one hand the Feds can straight up prevent you from boarding a plane, ever, without any semblance of due process (this is not normally a power you'll find in other countries), and yet can't regulate many mundane things like firearms.

However, there is a very solid case for a weak federal government, and it is simply that US is a country that's way too big for any coherent national policy on most matters that we've currently pushed there. It's such a vicious fight because it's half the country trying to bludgeon the other half into submission, motivated by the knowledge that, if you yield, the other guy will pick up this huge club and do the same to you. This will continue until the country breaks down unless we dial it down to state level and accept the fact that other states may have laws and lifestyle that is despicable or horrifying to us in some ways. Either that, or we might as well just break the whole thing apart now and not wait for it to happen in a more violent manner.

Compared to wich countries,

The US is a massive country, with the populace far removed from the decision making. I believe this is the core problem.

How would that help? Political parties operate in states. States are banning books and outlawing abortions too.

States are not printing billions of dollars and shipping it overseas or wholesale spying on their populace for the purpose of political manipulation.

Other countries don't institutionalize the two-party system by law. Because it would be insane and antidemocratic to create a complicated network of laws that would have to be eliminated state by state in order to ordain that an entire country must be ruled by two intimately-linked private clubs in turn.

The two-party system isn't so heavily institutionalized "by law". The law generally gives advantages to parties that pull in more than x% of the vote, and it so happens that the first-past-the-post system of electing representatives makes it very difficult for a third party to take root.

Except our law is nothing like that. You can have a party take 45% of each district across the whole country and end up with zero seats in the House (because the other party took 55% of each).

The first past the post system is encoding a two party system into law. If it makes to hard enough for a third party to take hold, there might as well not be one.

Not everything is spelled in ink.

That's not "encoded into the law". The outcomes of the law are not the same as the law itself.

Practically speaking, they are.

The effect of a law is at least as important as the literal words on the page.

Yep, that’s how it has worked throughout all of human history.

I do not find it surprising that groups of people with many overlapping viewpoints do not have overlapping viewpoints 100% of the time. If anything, I find it surprising that they overlap so frequently.

Furthermore, I think the frequency of that overlap is a major problem for our political system, because it makes compromise impossible.

Really makes you think about whether there are some things that can still transcend partisan showmanship, like national security.

I still am a believer in digital freedom, I'm old enough to have seen the changes in the Internet, and it is a much more malevolent and fucked up force than it was even 15 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, the government needs the power to spy on international targets with oversight.

with oversight

The constitution's term for this is "warrant".

When didn't they ever claim that sky will fall if they don't have all the surveillance they already do, and then some for good measure?

> crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc

It’s not controversial to suggest that the interests of the political class, the special interests that fund their campaigns, and Washington bureaucrats differ from the interests of the public at large. You don’t need to evoke deep state conspiracies to explain nefarious coordination because when career and monetary incentives align then bills like this one get passed.

Yep, this trend of dismissing undemocratic power structures as conspiracy theories is deeply troubling. Important issues such as surveillance, censorship, and the military-industrial complex have a long history and are extensively documented. Yet it's hard to bring these issues up today without being labeled a far right conspiracist.

It wasn't always like this. Many have agreed these were legitimate issues during the Iraq war. Where have all those people gone today?

> Yet it's hard to bring these issues up today without being labeled a far right conspiracist.

This really isn't all that true in my experience. And, I mean, look at the discussion here... Maybe consider the people you hang around with?

It's definitely who you hang around with, but I think how the conversation is approached also dictates outcome. Talk about a political ruling class with most people, and they'll look at you as though you grew a third eyeball. Talk about the Dems and Repubs being out of touch with the average person due to the insulative effect of DC, and they'll usually agree.

You can generally convey the same idea gently as long as you hedge your phrasing somewhat. Making it sound like a wacky accusation comes off sounding, well, wacky.

You nailed it. This discussion would never have happened on HN if I hadn’t worded my original comment the way I did. It’s not how I wanted to word it ;)

You can talk about a uniparty all you want as long as the people you’re talking to are still sure you vote the “correct” way.

How that is broached depends on whom you are talking with.

Yup, I have that happen a lot. So, I can definitely empathize.

We're in this really weird place where some of us on different parts of the political spectrum who may not have previously agreed are now in general agreement one way or the other, just because politics itself has become so insane.

I mean, I'm a little crazy, I won't deny that. But it's kind of bugging me that phrasing matters far more than the idea. Most reasonable people would agree that the system is fundamentally broken. We might not agree on a solution, but at least we can look at it and say "yeah, this isn't sustainable." Unfortunately, if you use the wrong word around the wrong group of people, you get branded a little bonkers. :)

Maybe they're on to something and we're the crackpots?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com