Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill the dwarf]

We've got the insane ones trying to shred any idea that is not explicitly their own, the slightly less so ones that won't outright call war, but won't even look up the word 'compromise', and then the ones who used to be called the extreme ones doing something, probably. And then all the other side using this as their main battering ram to get in office by pointing out that they aren't the ones suggesting to tear down anything that isn't giving away profits to the businessmen.

Anyone have some interesting links on this, or want to say something?

[Willfor]

It's called the Progressive Rage Thread. I would link it, but you should be able to find it yourself on this very page of topics.

[Strife26]

As we know it, and I feel fine.



Yeah, shit's a bit hectic, but they'll be some realignment coming down the track soon. Disaffected is the biggest growing political group, doncha know.

[nenjin]

Disaffected is the biggest growing political group, doncha know.

And that's always had positive outcomes historically

[Strife26]

Yes, but eventually us disaffected moderate independents will reach a critical mass, forcing one party or the other (whichever is weaker) to realign.

[mainiac]

What if one party bent over backwards to appeal to independents and nobody noticed?

[nenjin]

Yes, but eventually us disaffected moderate independents will reach a critical mass, forcing one party or the other (whichever is weaker) to realign.

I was thinking it's a prime opportunity for a demagogue to take power, when reasonable people are at their least reasonable because they're just so tired of the current system.

[RedKing]

What if one party bent over backwards to appeal to independents and nobody noticed?

It might be, but in the wrong way. If you're "bending over backwards" to appeal, then it means you probably don't have any inherent appeal based on platform/ideology. In short, trying too hard can be just as off-putting as not trying at all.

[olemars]

From the outside, I've long thought that the two US parties have become so encompassing and trying to cover so much ground that they're really just two big frat houses competing for members. Instead of bigger and bigger tents I think it would be far healthier if there was at least one split in each party.

[mainiac]

From the outside, I've long thought that the two US parties have become so encompassing and trying to cover so much ground that they're really just two big frat houses competing for members. Instead of bigger and bigger tents I think it would be far healthier if there was at least one split in each party.

First past the post voting system.

[RedKing]

Agreed. We need more, and smaller parties. Not the kind of fractal clusterfuck that is Italy or Israel, but y'know....3, 4, 5 main parties? Germany seems to have a manageable and coldly efficient number.

I think a lot of voter apathy comes from not having a party that people can strongly identify with, because both major parties are really just coalitions of voter demographics. The Rust Belt pro-union blue-collar Democrat doesn't necessarily feel a lot in common with the San Francisco gay-rights activist. Or the Southern progressive populist. Or the Pacific Northwest eco-liberal.

[nenjin]

We need a parlimentary system, but we need coalition government. Government where compromise is the basis of government, not one-sided political dominance for a party switching hands every 2 to 4 years. Either part gets away with as much as they do because they know they're the only two games in town. We need to start practicing some free market thinking to US political parties. Sadly, no other party has stepped in to fulfill the demand for something better. What we lack is choice at this point and parliamentary systems, while turbulent, offer us that choice and require the cooperation of politicians just to achieve their own basic political goals.

[mainiac]

We need a parlimentary system, but we need coalition government. Government where compromise is the basis of government

Compromise IS the basis of government in a Madisonian system which is what the US has.  Checks and balances, filibusters, all that.  It's hard for one side to get stuff done unilaterally.  The appeal of a parliamentary system is precisely the fact that it removes the need for compromise once your in power.  If you control the government then you control the government.

Personally I am all for parliamentary systems because I would rather have the side I not agree with own it's results then have constant divided government.  For instance in the UK right now, I think that the Conservatives have adopted some very counter productive policies vis-a-vis the budget.  However the Conservatives know that they will be held accountable for their policies.  As a result, they have a very strong incentive to make their agenda work as well as possible.  This is clearly good because even if one disagrees with the conservative policies, one should want those policies to be managed properly.

In the US on the other hand, the republicans won the last mid-year election.  As a result, they have the ability to force the government to adopt austerity policies and block stimulative policies.  I disagree with the republican policies.  But the republicans don't own the results of these policies.  We are stuck in permanent divided government where no one takes the blame.  This is good if you want all policies to be watered down but it's bad for effective government.

By demanding that both sides compromise, you automatically award victory to whoever is the most stubborn and unreasonable.

[Aklyon]

Well, we aren't lacking in additional parties, just lacking in media who'll actually pay attention to anyone else.

[RedKing]

I also admire the Commonwealth system of "shadow cabinets".