The General Political Thread

[Toffee]

A united Europe is a great idea when you first hear it. But then you look at how we bicker amongst ourselves constantly and then I want to die

[Cazasar]

https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-martin-schulz-wants-united-states-of-europe-by-2025

Whoa! Who could have seen this coming?

Let that moronic alcoholic ramble in peace.

[StevenChilton]

Not to mention that governments coming to power in a FPTP system almost never actually gain the actual majority of votes. The Conservatives in 2015 got only 36.6%. Almost 2 of every 3 British voters who actually cast their vote (Because 1 in 3 of voters actually didn't even bother going to the polls) voted something else then Conservatives, yet the government consisted solely of Conservatives and persued only Conservative policies. With PR systems, the coalition government is the combined position of parties that actually represent a majority of the citizens.

UK politics is broken as it's multi-party within what's supposed to be a two-party system. We don't have primary elections as a corrective so factions of the Tories split off and formed UKIP etc. However it should be noted that in 2015 the main right-wing parties (Tories+UKIP+DUP) collectively got over 50% of the vote. Also having big-tent parties under a FPTP system gives voters more choice since you don't have major party machines shutting down the little guys but instead giving them a platform. Once Bernie Sanders worked out (better late than never lol) he was better off working within the Democratic Party than against it he almost made it to the White House, and his faction could quite conceivably win in 2020.

At least you're honest that PR just means backroom deal making after every election with one or two minor parties almost always being in government as they're needed to make up the numbers.

[Duuring]

Also having big-tent parties under a FPTP system gives voters more choice since you don't have major party machines shutting down the little guys but instead giving them a platform. Once Bernie Sanders worked out (better late than never lol) he was better off working within the Democratic Party than against it he almost made it to the White House, and his faction could quite conceivably win in 2020.

Party establishments always crack down on new movements, internal or external, because it threatens the division of power. Reforming a party is harder then starting a new one, which is why splits are common in politics. You know Bernie Sanders had to work within the Democratic party? Because FPTP kills off third parties. You literally praise FPTP for supposidly giving voters more choice by giving an example how it forced a third party movement to merge with an establishment party - and thus lessening the choices. Even if Bernie Sanders had won, the amount of choices wouldn't have expanded; It would have been a choice between Berniecrats and Republicans.

You seriously think there are no backroom deals in FPTP? Have you paid attention to British or American politics in the last 100 years? It's precisely the lack of alternatives that enables internal factions to squabble, fight and work behind closed doors without any real influence by voters. There is a pedophile running for the US Senate and he's probably going to win because people do not want to vote for the only alternative option.

Primaries really do not solve that, as their influence is marginal at best. For one, it doesn't actually create alternative options on election day. If you challenge a seated politician and win, well, yay for your faction and booh for the supporters of the just unseated politician. They now have to vote for the party they dislike, or the candidate they dislike. And let's not forget that primary challenges are more exception and rule, and succesful ones are even more rare.

[StevenChilton]

It didn't lessen the choices as there were primary elections. Had Sanders run as a third party/independent he'd have been crushed. Having big-tent parties with primary elections means the infrastructure is already there for an outsider to come in and win, as happened with Trump/Obama/Bill Clinton etc. It's much more difficult to build up a new party from scratch.

Obviously I'm talking about backroom deals involving government formation and under FPTP it's rare. Literally at the end of every election under PR it's personality politics and backroom negotiations that shape what the government will look like. And the alleged paedophile did win a primary election in order to be chosen as the candidate.

I don't know how you can say primaries have marginal influence-really? If the US didn't have primary elections Clinton would have stitched up the nomination in 2008, and Jeb would have done so in 2016. Primary elections are constantly being won by candidates who are hated by their party establishments.

[Duuring]

You focus too much on the presidential elections, an office the UK doesn't have. When you look at the congressional level, primary challenges are not really that common, let alone succesful ones. They're only really interesting once the incumbent doesn't run anymore and the seat is 'open'. Yeah, of course, once in a while a challenger wins and that's always a big deal exactly because it's so uncommon. And because primaries are pretty meaningless, people don't care about them: Turn-out in the USA 2014 (mid-terms are great because it actually shows interest in congressional elections and not just the presidential hype) was 18.7% of all registered voters. And because most people believe their vote is meaningless anyway, turn-out during the actual elections is also insanely low: around 35%. People stop voting if their vote is meaningless, and that's a direct consequence of having FPTP.

Literally at the end of every election under PR it's personality politics and backroom negotiations that shape what the government will look like.

And the UK and the USA are anything different? Who decided Johnson would become Foreign Secretary? Surely no backroom deals were involved there, were there?

Having big-tent parties with primary elections means the infrastructure is already there for an outsider to come in and win,

But you're really kidding yourself when you think big-tent parties actually represent all the people they gain votes from.

[Toffee]

Are you telling me the UK doesn’t have a presidential election?

All this time..

I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS

[Karth]

Then what country has the 'best' working model for elections?

[Duuring]

There isn't really a universal best system. National preferences and context always have an influence. Open-list PR is good because it is hard to manipulate (which is why autocratic regimes love FPTP) and it makes it easy for people to have their actuel views become represented in parliament. You lose your 'own' representative, yes, but gain representatives that actually share your views on matters and are just as approachable. If you really want local representation (though it's far more effective to just have strong local government), multi-member STV is the best for that. Ireland uses that system and their parliament is pretty diverse.

If I could reform the US system all by myself, I'd probably experiment with open-list PR on the local and state level and AV on the national level and see how it works. I'd also expand the number of seats on the local level which in the USA are really small. Oh, and make better rules on financial donations. Electoral systems aren't everything.

[MrTiki]

Agreed. There's no reason that politics should ever be based around a system which only works with two parties. There's no room for change and you get increasingly polarised politics (see the US). It just turns into a partisan Us vs Them and the winner is whoever spends more money or nowadays whoever mines Facebook better (Brexit, the recent election and iirc the US election).

[StevenChilton]

You focus too much on the presidential elections, an office the UK doesn't have. When you look at the congressional level, primary challenges are not really that common, let alone succesful ones. They're only really interesting once the incumbent doesn't run anymore and the seat is 'open'. Yeah, of course, once in a while a challenger wins and that's always a big deal exactly because it's so uncommon. And because primaries are pretty meaningless, people don't care about them: Turn-out in the USA 2014 (mid-terms are great because it actually shows interest in congressional elections and not just the presidential hype) was 18.7% of all registered voters. And because most people believe their vote is meaningless anyway, turn-out during the actual elections is also insanely low: around 35%. People stop voting if their vote is meaningless, and that's a direct consequence of having FPTP.

Literally at the end of every election under PR it's personality politics and backroom negotiations that shape what the government will look like.

And the UK and the USA are anything different? Who decided Johnson would become Foreign Secretary? Surely no backroom deals were involved there, were there?

Having big-tent parties with primary elections means the infrastructure is already there for an outsider to come in and win,

But you're really kidding yourself when you think big-tent parties actually represent all the people they gain votes from.

American turnout has always been low, that's probably more to do with the education system and poor diet. Most primary challenges aren't successful because lawmakers know not to get on the wrong side of voters-that's a massive incentive for them to behave and it clearly works. How Johnson became Foreign Sec has nothing to do with the electoral system.

Actually big tent parties do represent the people who vote for them-there's much more diversity in the US Democrats than there is in the British Liberal Democrats. Same goes for US Republicans vs UK Tories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)

[Duuring]

American turnout has always been low, that's probably more to do with the education system and poor diet. Most primary challenges aren't successful because lawmakers know not to get on the wrong side of voters-that's a massive incentive for them to behave and it clearly works.

They aren't succesful because people don't care about them, or about their representatives in general. So it's easier to just stick with the incumbent. It doesn't help that people don't know who represents them. 2/3s of Americans can't name their representative, and almost half don't even know their party affiliation. People don't care about who represents their district, they want someone to represent their views.

Actually big tent parties do represent the people who vote for them-there's much more diversity in the US Democrats than there is in the British Liberal Democrats. Same goes for US Republicans vs UK Tories.

But that 'diversity' is almost entirely irrelevant for the voters and the power of an internal faction is never the same as that of an independent party. Yes, sometimes they are challenged in primaries and yes, sometimes that challenge is succesful. But if you want a parliament that actually properly represents the people, you cannot do this with FPTP. Adding primaries adds only the slighest of differences. Besides, research on internal elections in European context show that their effect is almost entirely non-existent because party influence remains strong and interest in internal elections remains low. Even in the Dutch Greens, who have completely democraticized the process, barely 30% of members cast a vote.

How Johnson became Foreign Sec has nothing to do with the electoral system.

You complain PR makes the creation of a government shady and full of backroom deals yet the creation of the British government has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral system. Right.

[StevenChilton]

Looks like Germany is leaving the EU lol.





Gonna have to agree to disagree on PR/FPTP. I only note that the US Congress has far more competing factional and ideological interests than most parliaments formed by PR. The Bundestag has only 6 parties represented within it (7 if you count CSU as distinct from CDU). The point about PR is the same two parties end up forming a government, so it comes down to who is going to be the junior coalition partner. It's really a choice between small parties exerting levels of influence they don't deserve (PR) or big parties doing the same thing (FPTP). US system seems to be a sensible compromise.

[Toffee]

DeutschlandAusfahrt isn’t as catchy as Brexit

[Cazasar]

DeutschlandAusfahrt isn’t as catchy as Brexit

What kind of Google Translate did you rape?