Hacker News Reader

Comment by FazJaxton | Hacker News Reader

You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.

View on HN

You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests.

The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive the lion share of donations for their campaigns. And there are many other guardrails in place to ensure nothing impedes the slow erosion of our infrastructure and public services under the strains of austerity in profit of the few.

All true, but at least in France those in power who commit serious corruption might go to actual jail; there's no way a US current or former president would face what Sarkozy did

Sarkozy got like 4 days in jail total, for taking money from an actual terrorist, and then helping them (among other heinous acts). And the entire media circus was behind him during this "ordeal", complaining about how unjust and unfair it was for this piece of shit to face any justice.

It's not quite as bad as in the US yet, but it's getting there. Media is consolidating in fewer and fewer hands, populists are getting bolder and more shameless, the left is demonized, etc. Same disease, same symptoms, same outcomes.

but Trump tried to overturn an election, not only got zero jail time but got re-elected and SCOTUS issued him a "do whatever you want while president" card, and so now what would have been a "huge corruption scandal" in the past is just routine

Reread the second paragraph of my previous comment. It's a process, of which the US are further along. But eventually, the entire west will go that path.

I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice.

The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time.

Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote.

Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.

> it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote

Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy.

Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.

Broadcast media is boomer stuff (disclaimer: I am technically a boomer). I expect its relevance to fade. That said, the failure to prevent media aggregation (e.g., Sinclair et al) is also a betrayal to the people.

As a boomer, I recognize the value of having constrained media choices: it was a unifying factor albeit at the price of milquetoast and "establishment" programming. Everything has a price...

The fairness doctrine should have been employed when Rush Limbaugh started his hate speech career that aimed to literally demonize half the population.

You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment.

My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in:

  * first-past-the-post voting
  * dark money (money is not speech, it is power)
  * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery)
  * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com