!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
That's it.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Let everyone have their own content.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
A two-party system is not necessarily worse than a multy-party system. They both have their flaws. Just as one example, party programs in multi-party systems such as in Germany are not worth the paper they are written on, because after the election the parties will go into negotiations and come up with an entirely different program. With two parties, at least you know what you vote for.
This is a great lecture on the topic with much more depth to it:
Its formally considered a flawed democracy. I do the same thing with my kids. If i want them to clean their room i'll just ask them "do you want to clean your room, or you want to do the dishes and take out the trash?" and they'll always go for cleaning their room because it feels like they are getting something out of the deal, it's less "nasty" and they have a sense of choice but realistically i win in both scenarios.
It's only so to those whom have been conditioned to believe so
A top-two runoff system is considered democracy. A system where the two parties are just the same thing, like in North Korea, is not.
Americans consider their two parties as very flexible about what they stand for. If there is a big enough group not represent by the incumbent, the other parties' primary will be biased towards this group.
What we saw this time around, though, was two incumbents running against each other with no room for the non-represented group to be reflected. Thus, to that group at least, it felt like there was no difference (at least in the represtation).
Those that believed that there was no difference are now finding out how much of a difference it was - and they are now yearning for another vote to fix things.
That's not what democracy is.
Democracy is simply a system of government where leaders are voted on instead of inheriting their title or gaining it through physical force and coercion.
The original form of democracy had slavery, and excluded women and non-land owners, the word simply distinguishes which mechanism brings someone to power, it doesn't inherently imply fairness or free choice.
I would say that's a good definition
that's why in many european states we've evolved to variants of multi party, transferable votes systems
it still has inherent flaws and it still seems to have 2 sides (one side kinda sorta has to be the majority "in power", and the others in opposition) but it feels and maybe is more representative of the vote we cast
Short answer is capitalist propaganda. The illusion of freedom is important to maintain control and curb resistance.
Edit: my mom was a school teacher and she taught me a trick for manipulating children that is similar. Instead of telling a kid to do something like" little mark do your homework." You give them two choices both of which will satisfy your agency. Like "little mark would you like to do your math homework first or your English?" Which is super equivalent to would you like a democrat or a Republican? Also the only way one of those candidates can get to be one of the last binary choices is completely dependent on financial backing which almost always comes from the capitalist class.
The United States is a one party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them
Not quite verbatim, but that's a quote from Julius Nyerere. Just for attribution's sake if anyone is interested.
There is nothing limiting it to two parties. honestly its first past the post that is more of an issue.
We somehow have more than 2 parties in Canada even with FPTP. And yeah, it sucks. The left's vote, in particular, gets carved up into tiny pieces and the conservatives take advantage of that all the time. We desperately need voting reform and it occasionally gets dangled in front of us, only to be shot down. Kind of like high speed rail, which is being dangled again of late.
If you watch the video you'll see that there's an ongoing process that gradually eliminates parties until there's only two remaining. Canada has been progressing along this path. There's only one national conservative party of any note now, and on the left only the Liberals have any chance at forming a government. The NDP can only act as a spoiler for the left. Give it some time and the NDP will wither away, leaving only the Liberals and Conservatives.
I consider Trudeau's betrayal of his electoral reform promise to be one of the worst political stabs in the back that has happened to the Canadian electorate in recent history.
And yet, in the upcoming election I'm going to vote Liberal. Hell, I'm probably going to do volunteer work for their campaign. Because in my particular riding the projections are currently a tossup between Liberal and Conservative, with the NDP having only a 1% chance of winning and no other party having any meaningful chance of winning. So in my riding Liberal and Conservative are the only choices that matter. The two party system has already arrived in the spot where I live.
I hate this. But I recognize the reality of the system I live in. This is basic game theory, voting third party would only harm my own interests.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If this wisdom was truly internalised by most people, there would be global revolution.
The purpose of a system is what it does
There's a lot of stupid shit in philosophy, but this is one of the dumber beliefs.
Do you notice how what you just said is not a conversation starter or even a joke? What's your goal here, just to talk shit? What's your ideal outcome for leaving this remark, exactly? Do you even have one.
Calling out dangerously foolish rhetoric is a civic duty.
Calling out disinformation takes effort. If I'm wrong and you give a shit, talk to me. I'm a regular person who is generally pleasant, maybe you can be too.
Well, this is a bit of a tangent, but the effectiveness of calling out disinformation actually correlates inversely with effort imo. It's the typical sealion asymmetrical warfare thing. It's a lot easier to say a lie than it is to disprove one. Mocking and insulting a disinfo statement is far more effective. Parity of effort.
In terms of "the purpose of a system is what it does", I'm not quite sure how to start. Believing such a statement requires a level of disassociation with reality that makes intelligible discussion difficult. You're flatly disallowing the entire possibility of someone setting up a system with a purpose, and the system failing to achieve that purpose.
The dangerous part of the theory though, is the implied malevolent intent. It's like the evil inverse of religious "everything happens for a reason". If a scientist comes up with a new strain of drought-resistant corn, and the corn develops a previously unknown mutation and crops fail and millions starve, well clearly that evil scientist intended to kill millions of innocent people. It's absurd.
Thanks for taking the effort. I know that it's a losing battle when you're dealing with people spreading disinfo in bad faith and you're trying to counter everything. The worst part is that it makes conversations far harder to have, so I really do value that olive branch of trust.
I can't speak to what others are thinking when they talk about "the system" in this way, but I'll try to explain where I'm at. I do have to allow that it's a bad rationale to ascribe any overt intent to the incredibly vast and dynamic nature of "the system". We're talking about a single sentence that is broadly gesturing at not just centuries of continually changing case law, but also the ongoing interactions of massive regulatory, financial, and legal systems run by many thousands of people and is also constantly changing. That is too wide a swath to cut. To equivocate further in your favor, it is also wrong by what it fails to account for - failed systems.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
In the future to avoid raising anyone's hackles (at least those whose hackles don't deserve raising) I should be more specific and speak of the 1971 Powell memorandum and how we are essentially living in the aftermath of its victory. Would that be more acceptable?
I agree with the point you're making about moneyed interests influencing the system we live in. All I take issue with is the philosophical idea that every bad thing that happens was explicitly intended to happen by some evil "them".
Sometimes that's true (prison industrial complex, for example) but more often it's not. Often it's bad actors undermining a system set up to do good, or taking advantage of a system that arose organically without anyone designing it.
Basically, I think the phrase "the purpose of a system is what it does" is both objectively wrong in almost every case, and a dangerous thought-terminating philosophy. Any time I see it, I call it out. If you can be convinced that "they" are intentionally harming you through some nebulous, nefarious means...it's only a couple more steps to convince you who "they" are. Jews, immigrants, "terrorists".
That's reasonable. In trying to clarify my stance I've basically talked myself over to your way of thinking.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
Another objection to “the purpose of a system is what it does” is that it implies that systems have purposes in the first place. Many systems don’t have a purpose because they were never designed. Ecosystems are the biggest example of this.
Talking more specifically about our political and economic systems, I think the ecosystem view is helpful. Believing that an elite have conspired over centuries to create a system which entrenches their interests is dangerous, conspiratorial thinking which most importantly does not lead in any positive direction.
Violent revolutions rarely work, yet Americans have a peculiar affinity toward them, perhaps due to their history. It’s a particular sort of societal sickness which I believe leads to perfectionist, radical thinking and shuns graassroots, reform-oriented work.
The original topic of discussion (for this thread) was voting systems and two party systems. Grassroots political work can and has been proven to work at solving problems like this. There are many cases around the world where such voting systems have been changed thanks to the efforts of grassroots politics.
I disagree slightly (maybe pedantically) about our political system. That was explicitly designed by men we can name. It has since been influenced by other forces, and much of its original intent has been subverted. But it didn't spring into being all by itself.
Economics I agree. While there are and have been forces attempting to guide and influence the economy, it's always been generally out of the control of any person or group of people, short of command economies.
Both cases put the lie to the phrase, "the purpose of a system is what it does".
A few of the things were explicitly designed (such as the rules for elections, the composition of parliament) but a great deal of it evolved (English common law system, electoral districting/Gerrymandering, and many decades of legislative processes by many different people).
That last one I want to highlight because it seems like it is something explicitly designed. It is not. It’s like a soup pot many chefs walk past and add their own ingredients to. The fact that the soup is not very good can’t be blamed on one particular chef. Thus there is no real designer of our body of laws.
I also want to further point out that laws are not systems, they’re just words on paper. The system is the combined effect of all the people in society acting to produce an outcome. This outcome may be strongly informed by society’s laws (and also by social norms such as respect for the rule of law) but it’s not determined by them the way a computer’s actions are determined by its programming.
One need look no further than the Trump administration which has severely undermined the rule of law in the US. Without the rule of law the system turns into chaos. But that is also an outcome of the system itself, since social norms are the product of social forces (which are themselves highly chaotic).
Violent revolutions rarely work..
Are we ignoring nearly all of history? Take some time and see how man revolutions were possible without violence vs how many were. You have all of human history at your finger tips, for now at least.
History doesn't repeat but it certainly rhymes. If you're real and this is your true belief then you are not ready for what is coming.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
Another objection to “the purpose of a system is what it does” is that it implies that systems have purposes in the first place. Many systems don’t have a purpose because they were never designed. Ecosystems are the biggest example of this.
Talking more specifically about our political and economic systems, I think the ecosystem view is helpful. Believing that an elite have conspired over centuries to create a system which entrenches their interests is dangerous, conspiratorial thinking which most importantly does not lead in any positive direction.
It's not a conspiracy though. Political think tanks, lobbiests, SuperPACs all exist to shape politics and have more influence than any person. And they are all controlled by those with wealth. They've literally been shaping the country for themselves for decades.
It's not like the two party system is deliberately chosen or enshrined in law. The field naturally winnows down to two parties because that is basically guaranteed to outcompete every other possibility under a first-past-the-post voting system. You want to fix the two party system, you need to fix our voting system.
Derek from Veritasium also made a great video about the various voting systems and which one seems to be the most democratic: https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk
I hope to someday see a Rated Choice ballot.
Ranked choice is fine, but it's never going to end the two party system on its own. We can already see in some states (Alaska and Maine) and in some smaller municipalities in the US, and in countries outside the US, which have switched to RCV after having a 2-parety system that it doesn't end the 2-party system. At best, it makes campaigning a little less negative.
People tend to simplify the concept of 3rd parties when thinking about RCV. They get it in their head that everyone who dislikes the 2 major parties would all vote for the same 3rd party as a first choice under RCV. In practice, that's not how it works. Most people still vote for one of the major parties as their top choice. Among those who don't, they are extremely divided in which 3rd party they pick. People who traditionally vote Republican but don't really like them may be willing to vote Libertarian, but their never going to vote Green. Likewise, someone who doesn't really like the Democrats but typically votes for them might prefer the Green Party or DSA or something, but they're not voting Libertarian or Freedom Party.
When RCV is implemented in a 2-party system, what almost always happens is that the first choice 3rd party vote gets split among a number of different 3rd parties, giving none of them enough votes to win. When those get dropped in the first round of instant run-offs and those votes switch to the 2nd choice, one of the 2 major parties almost always wins.
If you want to get rid of the 2-party system, you need to get rid of single-member congressional districts. Switch to multi-member districts with proportional representation. Say a state gets 5 Representatives to the House. Each party (including 3rd party) puts forth up to 5 candidates all running in the same race. Everyone votes for either their preferred candidate or preferred party (you can even implement RCV here to rank candidates if you want). Then seats are allocated to each party based on which proportion of the vote they get. If the Green party gets 20% of the vote, they get 1 seat. If Republicans get 40%, they get 2 seats, etc, etc. The specific candidate(s) who wins from each party would be whoever got the most votes within that party.
This almost eliminates strategic voting. You don't have to worry that your party is small with nowhere close to a majority support because you don't need a majority to win a seat. Nearly everyone gets the representation they want.
I think rank choice will result in third party but it will take some time. Our republic system does make it slower though compared to parliamentary systems.
Because someone with a lot of money released a ton of propaganda to make people believe this was ever a democracy.
Many democracies form coalitions between smaller parties to create a majority voting block - the US just does it before the election.
That's exactly why so many countries around the world roll their eyes when America bangs on so much about democracy.
It's a marketing thing. Look around the world. Find any country with the word "Democratic" in the name, and odds are you'll find a poor excuse for a democracy.
The actual democracies in the world don't feel compelled to keep repeating the fact.
The reality is that America is only really a democracy in the loosest sense of the world. All you need to do is look at how often the wealthiest candidate wins to see that it's true. Or how often the person with the most votes loses. Or how unregulated lobbying actually is. Or the insane amount of power the President actually has. The power doesn't lie with the people - it lies with the super-rich.
Sorry if that came off as really negative! America has a lot of good stuff going for it, but its implementation of democracy is not one.
How often in US democracy does the person with the most votes lose? Even just on the national level, there are several hundreds of people elected every other year.
If you mean the Presidential election, it has only happened 5 times in 200 years.
I have a passing familiarity with the politics of a couple countries, and they all fit this pattern: their constitutions say nothing of a two-party system, they don't even say anything about parties at all. People just choose to create political parties, and then those parties coalesce into two major parties.
The reason that this happens is because people, from voters to every level of politician, look at the rules of the game and make tactical decisions; their tactical decisions cause a two-party system to emerge.
The USA is a really extreme case of this; in Europe there are more parties, and they even very occasionally come to power. Current french president Macron broke a decades-long streak of two-party governance in his country.
Further viewing material:
Minority Rule: First Past the Post Voting
The Alternative Vote Explained
My takeaway from this is that there are things that can be done to improve the voting system, as suggested in these videos; but i don't even like representative democracy at all, i think there's better solutions in direct democracy (referendums and such). Representative democracy was designed to put elites in charge, voting was initially reserved for land-owning nobility. Extending voting rights to more people doesn't change what the system is designed to do.
Referendums are called propositions in the US and are voted on at the state level. Special interests pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for deceptive TV ads for or against propositions. The messages tend to be very dumbed down because the average person is too stupid to vote for anything beyond a simple slogan.
Direct democracy leads to a lot of idiot things getting done. Representative democracy was better for a while, but you still get Nazis coming to power from time to time.
Churchill had it about right:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Honestly, democracy is incomplete without economic democracy. You could have a million political parties but it wouldn't matter because all of them would still support the supremacy of the bourgeosie. Those with actual power, the business owners who control all of our material resources, would not allow them to exist otherwise. We never had democracy but this is only just now becoming apparent to the general populace because the fascists have made themselves obvious and the liberals have only enabled them.