Our divided nation

[takoma]

I was the OP, although I had forgotten to sign in again after a restart.

What I am really wondering is not why we act the way we do, since factionalism seems to be totally human, from primitive tribes to modern sports. But I think our political system is driving it to really destructive ends, and I wonder if there are some feasible changes that might improve the situation.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:I was the OP, although I had forgotten to sign in again after a restart.

What I am really wondering is not why we act the way we do, since factionalism seems to be totally human, from primitive tribes to modern sports. But I think our political system is driving it to really destructive ends, and I wonder if there are some feasible changes that might improve the situation.

Always blame race. You must be an ostrich head in the sand. Look at our rising unemployment 8 long speeches on what he planned to do while he vacations in MV, and his wife travels the world. But it's always easy to blame the mythical race factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:I was the OP, although I had forgotten to sign in again after a restart.

What I am really wondering is not why we act the way we do, since factionalism seems to be totally human, from primitive tribes to modern sports. But I think our political system is driving it to really destructive ends, and I wonder if there are some feasible changes that might improve the situation.

Always blame race. You must be an ostrich head in the sand. Look at our rising unemployment 8 long speeches on what he planned to do while he vacations in MV, and his wife travels the world. But it's always easy to blame the mythical race factor.

This doesn't make any sense, either in the context of the PP's quote, or by itself.

I blame the decision by Tea Partiers that they don't want to negotiate - they want to take hostages. You can't have a civil discussion with them (and BTW race is a problem for them, but not in the way you're talking about).

[TheManWithAUsername]

takoma wrote:I was the OP, although I had forgotten to sign in again after a restart.

What I am really wondering is not why we act the way we do, since factionalism seems to be totally human, from primitive tribes to modern sports. But I think our political system is driving it to really destructive ends, and I wonder if there are some feasible changes that might improve the situation.

I think chalking it up to inherent factionalism belittles the real impact of differences in opinion about policy. It may be easy for some to say that competing political ideologies are like competing sports teams, or that these disputes are just symptomatic of personality disorders on BOTH sides (as a PP said here), or that comparing political ideologies is like comparing penis size (as someone I knew once said), but tell that two the unemployed parents whose benefits are about to run out and who are about to wind up homeless because of the cost of an unexpected serious illness.

I do agree with you that our current system makes things worse. I blame it primarily on money in politics, television advertising, Faux News, and poor critical thinking skills resulting from deficiencies in our education system and from our religiosity.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

takoma wrote:I was the OP, although I had forgotten to sign in again after a restart.

What I am really wondering is not why we act the way we do, since factionalism seems to be totally human, from primitive tribes to modern sports. But I think our political system is driving it to really destructive ends, and I wonder if there are some feasible changes that might improve the situation.

I think chalking it up to inherent factionalism belittles the real impact of differences in opinion about policy. It may be easy for some to say that competing political ideologies are like competing sports teams, or that these disputes are just symptomatic of personality disorders on BOTH sides (as a PP said here), or that comparing political ideologies is like comparing penis size (as someone I knew once said), but tell that two the unemployed parents whose benefits are about to run out and who are about to wind up homeless because of the cost of an unexpected serious illness.

I do agree with you that our current system makes things worse. I blame it primarily on money in politics, television advertising, Faux News, and poor critical thinking skills resulting from deficiencies in our education system and from our religiosity.

I did not mean to belittle the importance of the policy differences. I don't want to discourage spirited debate or fervent campaigning for the candidates and policies of one's choice. But the lack of respect, insults, personal attacks, and downright hatred of those we disagree with poisons the process. IMHO, of course.

For example, in the abortion debate, I am pro-choice, but I can respect those who hold the view that the fetus is already a human life and deserves protection. And I would hope those who hold that opinion would respect us in our view that every woman has the right to control her own body. Then perhaps we could have a meaningful dialog on these competing values and search for ways to protect the one we consider paramount with minimum damage to the other, rather than wasting time comparing those who hold the other view to Nazis or whatever.

In my last note I was merely saying that the tendency to fall into this kind of thing is a deep and longstanding human characteristic. Recognizing that fact may be helpful in seeking ways to tweak the process to encourage us to overcome this natural tendency.

I also recognize that I may be naive and preachy. Sorry about that.

[Anonymous]

Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

We can't do away with it, really. Our constitution pretty much makes it the only realistic outcome. If we want to change it, we need to go to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

Parliament with proportional representation, as said - seats not tied to geographic areas, and no ridiculous Senate. I'd ditch the electoral college while we're at it.

I hadn't occurred to me that the two-party system contributes, but of course it does. If there's a zero-sum election game, you can win by just tearing down your opponent.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

Parliament with proportional representation, as said - seats not tied to geographic areas, and no ridiculous Senate. I'd ditch the electoral college while we're at it.

I hadn't occurred to me that the two-party system contributes, but of course it does. If there's a zero-sum election game, you can win by just tearing down your opponent.

I agree with getting rid of the electoral college. However, the multiple-party systems and parliamentary systems don't work perfectly either. You only have to look as far as Italy and see that they've had 61 governments since 1945 and their multi-party system has essentially become 2 *party* system with formed party coalitions.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

We can't do away with it, really. Our constitution pretty much makes it the only realistic outcome. If we want to change it, we need to go to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

I'm curious why you think the Constitution makes it inevitable. George Washington, for example, was opposed to the idea of political parties. And at the other temporal extreme, there is now a move to use the internet to nominate a candidate outside the party process.

One thing I truly do not understand is why people think they should register in a party they perceive as sharing their political views. The major effect of registering in a party is being able to vote in its primary (except in states with open primaries), so I think it makes more sense to register in the party whose nominee you would like to affect. Given that there has not been that much difference among the mainstream types running for the Democratic nomination, I think it makes much more sense for us all to register as Republicans. That has no effect, of course, on how you vote in the main election. Widespread cross-registering could alter the party system in ways I will not try to predict.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:However, the multiple-party systems and parliamentary systems don't work perfectly either. You only have to look as far as Italy and see that they've had 61 governments since 1945 and their multi-party system has essentially become 2 *party* system with formed party coalitions.

Maybe not always, but at least sometimes, which is more than I can say for our system. People always mention Italy, but there are lots of parliaments.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, the multiple-party systems and parliamentary systems don't work perfectly either. You only have to look as far as Italy and see that they've had 61 governments since 1945 and their multi-party system has essentially become 2 *party* system with formed party coalitions.

Maybe not always, but at least sometimes, which is more than I can say for our system. People always mention Italy, but there are lots of parliaments.

Whatever problems Italy has are not, I would submit, because of the system it (supposedly) follows, but because it is Italians who are doing the following. I love Italy, but expecting it to work like any other country is futile. Viva Italia!

[Anonymous]

You won't see civil discourse when one side (republican party in general and tea party in particular) has realized it has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from ramping up the vitriol and taking hostages. T

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to do away with the current two party system and if so, what would be some alternatives?

We can't do away with it, really. Our constitution pretty much makes it the only realistic outcome. If we want to change it, we need to go to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

I'm curious why you think the Constitution makes it inevitable. George Washington, for example, was opposed to the idea of political parties. And at the other temporal extreme, there is now a move to use the internet to nominate a candidate outside the party process.

One thing I truly do not understand is why people think they should register in a party they perceive as sharing their political views. The major effect of registering in a party is being able to vote in its primary (except in states with open primaries), so I think it makes more sense to register in the party whose nominee you would like to affect. Given that there has not been that much difference among the mainstream types running for the Democratic nomination, I think it makes much more sense for us all to register as Republicans. That has no effect, of course, on how you vote in the main election. Widespread cross-registering could alter the party system in ways I will not try to predict.

They did not understand the game theoretic outcomes of a first past the post, winner takes all electoral system with no runoffs and a single national election for the chief executive office. Without going into all the details, just imagine these scenarios:

What happens if a far left candidate runs for president on another party ticket? Republican President. (Ralph Nader 2000)

What happens if the tea party formed its own actual party and ran a candidate in 2012? Democratic President. (do we need to prove this?)

What if an independent iconoclast runs somewhere in the middle? Tossup, but generally other party wins with only 40% support. (Perot gets 19%, Clinton elected with 43% of the vote)

What happens if the nation is incredibly divided, Dems split in half, Republicans split into a major party with a conservative fringe party? Republicans win (Lincoln with 39%)

The lesson is that a third party almost guarantees that it hands elections to a party with an opposing ideology. And something similar happens at the congressional level.

[Anonymous]

Well, no system of government is perfect and that is an unrealistic expectation. I'm the one who posed the question about the two party system-is the system outmoded at this time and what would be a better (not perfect) governmental model that would still preserve democracy? I don't know, that's why I'm interested in other people's opinions.