Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

I really don't understand how countries like the USA can be even considered a democracy, when the only choice is swinging between two parties that only really make headway on a small handful of issues. The same goes for a lot of countries with a similar system. Over time, parts of the system get locked into a certain path through manipulation and then people vote between a small subset of two issues.

It's much more like an oligarchy with a sprinkle of democracy thrown in, rather than true representative leadership.

View on HN

I wholeheartedly agree. To make matters worse, the “culture wars” have led to a situation where many voters for one party would never consider voting for members of the opposite party due to where the fall on cultural matters such as abortion, LGBT+ issues, race relations, etc. Someone’s position on abortion is far more predictive of political party than one’s positions regarding how the national debt should be dealt with. It’s easier for people to compromise on non-cultural matters.

Unfortunately, one effect of this is that people are “locked into” one party. The party then could take its voters for granted. “What are you going to do, vote Democratic/Republican?” is the attitude, which breeds apathy, which creates conditions that are ripe for bad actors to exploit.

I wish there were more choices, where conservatives have options beyond MAGA and where liberals and progressives have choices. I also wish there were a wider spectrum beyond liberal/conservative. Unfortunately the current system is such that the two main parties are entrenched, with third parties being massively disadvantaged.

I wish I had solutions. All I know is 2026 is coming fast, and we better be prepared.

The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The architects of the system were highly suspicious of Athenian democracy and the tyranny of the majority.

Third parties don't really work in this system. If a third party gains transaction on an issue, one of the two main parties will largely adopt those policies. Otherwise, the 3rd party just splits the vote and the party least like the third party wins.

Everything is always changing too. Both parties have changed quite a lot in even the last 10 years.

Even further back look at an election map of JFK and Nixon in 1960. The states have practically all flipped. California and the west coast voted all Republican. The southern states voted all Democrat.

Constitutional republic is a form of democracy. The parent post is largely unchanged if you find and replace "democracy" with "constitutional republic".

They were suspicious of the tyranny of the majority because they were rich slave owning aristocrats i.e. they were the tyrants and wanted to remain so.

> The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.

I'm not sure why this basic issue is constantly attacked with the nonsensical claim that a republic is not a democracy. There are two forms of democracy - direct (never tried in the West) and representative (aka republic). In short, for all intends and purposes, the US and all other western democracies are both democracies and republics. And that's that.

The confusion goes back all the way to Hamilton who might have been too busy effing around to understand the difference.

The system does generally push towards a duopoly. Still there's more influence of voters inside the parties at the local levels than it seems at first. Many important issues are handled at the state level. There's more variation of the parties beliefs as well at that level. A Wyoming Republican can have fairly different views and priorities from a South Carolina Republican. Side note, personally I believe that the growth of the scope of the federal government reduces representation significantly.

A big difference with China or Russia's one party systems is that the presidential candidates are chosen in primaries, which can have a large effect. Both Obama and Trump were relative outsiders who were able to win their parties primaries without being heads of their parties.

To me the USA's executive branch system allows more choice in representative leadership than parliamentary systems where the parties choose the prime minister.

There are different kinds of parliamentary systems. In some, the prime minister is a big important leader, almost like a president in a presidential system. In others, they are just another interchangeable cog in the machine.

Here in Finland, it's rare that a prime minister manages to serve the full four-year term. Usually there are enough controversies and scandals that they eventually have to resign. But the government coalition just keeps going on, implementing the same policies as before, as the leader is ultimately not that important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com