411
‘No Republican party’ in US today, says anti-Trump conservative judge
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
411 points (96.8% liked)
politics
18080 readers
2658 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think the real reason is that the people in power keep touting this idea of only two distinct parties. Having only two parties means you have only two directions to go. Which is destined for extremism.
The FPTP voting system reinforces that. Any third party is just going to be a spoiler for one of the majors without voting system reform.
This is the correct answer. Third parties are rarely viable in first-past-the-post systems. More info on Duverger's Law here.
If we had more viable parties it would be much harder to do regulatory capture and corrupt every party, and even if that happened new viable ones could spring up at any time. We might actually get candidates that represent diverse political opinions. With more parties one party would be unlikely to have a majority or supermajority, and our representatives would have to work together and form coalitions to get anything done. Politics wouldn't be a team sport about defeating the other side, it would be about shared goals and constructive legislation. Candidates would want to appeal to voters who they might be the second or third choice for, meaning scapegoating, vilifying and othering segments of society would be a losing strategy. Ranked choice voting has few downsides for anyone but those who want a corrupt system they can capture and a society they can divide.
doesn't "duverger's law" only exist in the US? I think there's credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the "two party effect" in the US.
No, Duverger’s law refers to the tendency of places that use first-past-the-post voting to result in a 2-party system. This is not unique to the US. More info is in the above link, it's worth your time.
My understanding is that the electoral college distorts the voting power of individuals by giving empty states more voting power than they should have (electors are based on number of house and senate members), and also because those state elections are usually first-past the post winner-take-all, 51% wins all the electors, (except for Nebraska and Maine, which have multiple districts with multiple electors that can be split, but are still first-past-the-post.)
If you mean that replacing first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections with a different voting system that can yield proportional representation will lead to more viable candidates/parties, then that's exactly the same thing Duverger's law is saying. You can't have proportional representation with first-past-the-post elections.
The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it's only used for presidential elections. If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress - especially the House - given the relatively small constituency of each representative and the large number of representatives.
Said parties literally choose the electors in the electoral college.
If a third party becomes viable and starts winning elections what typically happens is it will replace one of the other 2 parties, like when Whigs were replaced by Republicans.
I should have been more clear - I meant that since the electoral college is only used for presidential elections, its existence does not (meaningfully) affect the viability of a third party since the vast majority of elections are not decided by it. 100% agree with what you're saying.
Thanks for elaborating. I agree, for a third party to successfully emerge in the US under our current system it would probably have the best odds if they started with local government.
In theory and over-simplified this would be true, in practice I think the way the electoral college has failed when 4+ candidates get into a tight election has lead to a lot of safeguards being created: The US political parties as institutions became more hostile to third parties and both the states and feds adopted laws more favorable to a two party system.
Canada, & UK for instance don't quite adhere to duverger's law as strongly and in fact most non-US countries that still have fptp elections seem to have more diverse party systems.
Lots of things reinforce it, the parties having a stranglehold on primaries and the media buyouts are also a major factor.
Except the two party system pits two opposing sides against each other, inevitably leading to them pointing fingers at each other to rile their base and get votes. The extremism comes from frustration, yes, but it is stoked by the "us vs them" mentality that politicians abuse to trick their constituents into voting for them instead of "the other guy".
Right wing extremism is a global problem and is manifesting even in parliamentary multi-party systems, though. All they need is a scapegoat to rally around and they're good to go. Look at anti-immigrant movements in Europe as an example.
Fighting about things is going to happen in any political system.
Just because something exists doesn't mean it exists in the same way. Yes, there is finger pointing and extremism, but not in the same way as the US. And in many situations they've devolved into two parties bickering, while any other parties are just coalition bait. The UK is a prime example of that.
That reads a little funny, doesn't it...
I hope not. FDR did a lot of great things, but he was also a racist who didn't give the same benefits to non-white people as white people and, of course, was responsible for the shameful Japanese-American concentration camps.
If that's the greatest president, we have never had any hope.
Objectively, almost every president is a piece of shit and you need to judge them by the merits of their time. Almost every white dude alive in America was a racist shit bag by today's standards. FDR accomplished a ton, and it was all for the common man. Please, tell me who you think was a better president?
I don't know, any number of the ones who didn't commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of... *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn't commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn't start and couldn't stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn't as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
Oh beg pardon. "Ethnic cleansing."
Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.
Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for... Well, anyone. We haven't really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Remove the Japanese from society.
When they say "with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous" they do that by actually removing the people from the region instead of forcing them into camps in the region and then letting them out again.
That and, you know, mass murder.
Ah right, they totally planned to let them out again. They never bothered to tell them that, but...
Dude, the US was grown out of the blood of the people who were already living in whatever place they wanted to be at the time. Every president has done something horrible to people who were just trying to live their lives. Kennedy did an exceptional amount for the average worker despite that and if other presidents had followed in his footsteps, we would probably have a more egalitarian society today. Being a hard edged absolutist and unable to see in shades of gray and take into account the prejudices and circumstamces of the time period does not make you correct. Especially as all of your posts (apart from quickly googling a definition) have been very low effort and provided no candidate for who you would say is better, even though the other poster asked you for one several posts ago. Try being constructive instead of destructive, if you even know how.
They did, actually.
But so did the Nazis.
The Japanese internments were interesting, in a historical perspective, in that the idea to imprison Japanese Americans was broadly popular but the genocidal aspects normally associated with the similar practices were never discussed, at least at a policy level.
There were no disposal or relocation plans drawn up (that I'm aware of anyways, feel free to source otherwise), FDR's administration literally just said "throw all the Japs in prison until we've won, it'll be good for the polls!"
Which is honestly pretty weird, because they called them "relocation camps" at the time but seemed to mean it as "we're relocating you to this camp."
They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn't even pick one?
I didn't really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I'll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don't want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
Doubling down I see. It's an opinion and while I may not agree with whoever you think is the best president you can't really be wrong.
I'm just annoyed at people who rant about other peoples opinions but refuse to offer their own when asked. You aren't arguing in good faith here.
For the record I don't think FDR was the best president but I also disagree with some of your characterizations.
Fine. Jimmy Carter. But I'm not interested in discussing why with you, especially considering your attitude.
See, that wasn't so hard and I actually agree with you too. Now why couldn't you have given the other user the curtesy of answering their question and having a discussion in good faith instead of ranting about their opinion without addressing anything they said?
Because it wasn't relevant to the discussion. It was an attempt to sidetrack into talking about someone else. Why is that not clear to you?
Already answered. It's clear you were arguing in bad faith and refusing to give others the same curtesy you were provided.
https://lemmy.world/comment/2307147
I answered the question. What the hell else do you want from me? Are you just here to berate me until I stop talking to you? Because I can just block you right now and be done with it.
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn't sound like long enough people weren't that bad? That's a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There's plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
I'm saying maybe we shouldn't judge ethnic cleansing by the "merits of the time."
That. And when he caught fascists scheming in the Republican party. Instead of investigating and rooting them out. He merely threatened to do it if they blocked his legislation. So in the short term he got his legislation through. And in the long term got it gutted and neutered, saddling us with a now fully fascist Republican party. Thanks FDR.
He did some short sighted good. But that posturing and playing fast and loose screwed us all over.
Go back a few years. Circa 1960, the two parties had both Liberal and Conservative wings. There was no shame in a pol voting with the other party.
You need a multi party system like a lot of countries round the world. No clear winner = who can quickly form the larges coalition. It usually boils down to two main parties with a lot of also-ran's.
Over here we even have The Monster Raving Loony pary!