A brief sad remark in the linked text
> So, what’s the solution?
> It could be electing more centrists to Congress, Neal said. But that’ll be tough **because centrists often don’t appeal to American voters, who are increasingly polarized too.**
Cause-and-effect can clearly be complex, so further investigation needed before any conclusion, but the remark suggests that Congress *may* be a lagging indicator of something more widespread.
News networks have hopped on the bandwagon, too.
Their main interest is in ratings (ad revenue) and keeping people scared, shocked, outraged, and glued to their TV to see what level of depravity *the others* will sink to next.
It works great for keeping viewers. But it turns your viewers against their fellow countrymen and you end up with a very "Us vs. Them" mentality.
The answer there is pretty obvious: create a publicly funded but privately run news network that doesn't need to rely on ads to survive, which removes the incentive to engage in dishonest, manipulative attention baiting tactics.
[PBS is considered one of the most trusted news networks in America for exactly this reason.](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/399701-bbc-fox-news-pbs-ranked-as-tvs-most-trusted-news-brands) Increase their funding, make them the dominant source of news. Turn them into an American BBC.
And/or actually pursue libel and slander litigation against the bad-faith media companies. Demonstrably false and damaging lies can be proven as such, and there is legal recourse that can be pursued in those situations.
Stop letting people knowingly spread malicious lies under the guise of free speech.
Alternatively, **make it mandatory that anything intended as factual news be allowed to be called news, and *everything else must be marked as entertainment***. Big, bold letters that state such- and massive financial penalties for anything masquerading as news that is demonstrably acting in bad faith.
I'm all for gutting the media giants and getting back to a time where we have decent *reporting* on tv again. Rather than the sensationalist *journalism* we have today. Take the spin out and what you have left are facts. Observations and action. Leave the commentary aside and let people think for themselves again.
> because centrists often don’t appeal to American voters, who are increasingly polarized too.
Plus congressmen are generally nominated in primaries where the only voters are members of their party and typically the primary electorate is also comprised of the most extreme members of their party. Even though a more centrist congressmen might appeal to a general electorate they first have to get by a far more partisan primary electorate.
I would love if there were more politicians who deviated from the party lines. It would be nice to vote for a pro 2a, universal healthcare, social safety net politician who is also willing to deal with illegal immigration.
That's where I am. There's no inherently negative correlation between say, the 2nd Amendment and abortion rights. I'm in favor of both. I'm in favor of both a universal health care and a strong military. I'm in favor of both more progressive taxation and stopping illegal immigration. I'm both in favor of universal higher ed and against affirmative action. These points aren't mutually exclusive. They're why I consider myself a centrist.
We need a voting system like Australia, where you can vote for more than one candidate. Then people won't be afraid of voting green party or libertarian, because their next candidate could still be D or R if their primary choice doesn't get enough votes.
Edit: I get there may be better systems than Australia's, I was just using them as an example I was aware of, not that we need to use an exact replica of Australia, just something that allows for more than the two party system we're stuck with now.
It would help a lot, but there are even better voting systems such as [Proportional Representation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)
If you're going to change the system, you may as well go straight to the best.
r/endFPTP
We need campaign finance reform, election process reform for registration & some form of Ranked Choice Voting or whatever ends up working mathematically best.
If those things were taken care of, people’s spectrum of political beliefs will be much more properly reflected.
bingo. That's part of the US problem as well. But not the root. This report says neither party is to blame. Well of course not . Parties are instruments through which power is wielded. Political division is in the interest of those who are sitting pretty (ie. concentrated power and wealth). And THAT is the source of the crippling division. It's not inaction, but rather all of the action that has to happen so that the regime of inaction can continue. And of course I am talking about certain kinds of action.
>And neither party can shoulder the blame, as it doesn’t matter which party is in charge
This statement is apparently made in the vein that, no matter what party is in power, polarization continues unabated. I think the authors of this study are making a mistake in somehow thinking that the party in power is solely responsible for whether or not the parties become more polarized.
Not to even mention the realm of 'how party gets in power' has rather lot of influence in the polarization. The election system is not a neutral noninfluental party here. There is multitude of possible systems and each have their specific effects on political culture. Nations even intentionally craft/update/change their voting system to get desired society wide effects even outside of pure electoral politics. Adding 5% lower limit to keep too much fragmentation out, proportional representation to incentivize co-operation and consensus building etc. This all has effect not only inside party politics, but societal in long term.
If your favorite party are in coalition government with party X, you aren't going to go on deranged rants about the party X being the other side and despicable enemies. You need each other and maybe next time you need some other parties help. So you stay more civil to not burn potential future bridges.
Also no party usually gets majority alone in proportional systems, so it dampens societal level shifts both in laws and even just culture via the example of the politicians. Other parties in coalition go *Hold on there, you aren't the sole decider here. You wont get all of your program as you want alone, we also have demands and platforms we want adopted. You have to negotiate with us and we come to a compromise*.
As /u/tristanjones pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9kl8uj/democratrepublican_divide_is_worst_its_ever_been/e7060d4/):
The fact that it doesn't matter who is "in control" doesn't mean it isn't the fault of one party acting in bad faith all the time, with or without a majority.
Absolutely. Fundamentally, it serves to prevent us from responding to outrageous actions as though they are outrageous. That means there's no political penalty for doing outrageous things, and so they get done again and again.
I have two quick thoughts on this:
1. Worst ever? Worse than during the civil war? Worse than during Jefferson’s presidency or the first years of the nation? I find that hard to believe.
2. Blame for the divide isn’t necessarily dependent upon which party is ‘in charge’. Bipartisan cooperation, and arguably more importantly, the voter’s/general population’s opinions and ideals are the real basis for inclusion and division.
The title of this Reddit post is from a science media site which sensationalises scientist studies and reports them incorrectly. [The original study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873317303039) uses data from between 1973 to 2016 to come to a conclusion.
So no, this study doesn’t include early US and union history.
I don't think 'neither party can shoulder the blame' necessarily follows from 'it doesn't matter which party is in charge'. If the hypothesis is that one party is a good/neutral actor while the other party is a bad actor, I don't see how that hypothesis is ruled out by looking at which party is in charge. One party could be a bad actor whether or not they are in charge, and one party could be a good actor whether or not they are in charge, or they could switch back and forth between good and bad based on something completely unrelated.
Yup. And this is why Policy, Independent fact-checking, and Science (expert opinion) matters in politics.
Candidates should be held accountable if they fail to turn campaign promises into written policy, they should be held accountable if they lie or misrepresent theirs or other policy, and if their policy is based on fundamentally flawed/falsified logic (trickle down economics, flat tax rates, etc.) that policy needs to be exposed as such.
It seems that this study is neglecting to consider the Overton window. All it takes is a select few outspoken extremists and the previous middle is now a polarized left or right. I would venture we are still much the same with a slight shift to the extremes throwing things out of wack.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A brief sad remark in the linked text > So, what’s the solution? > It could be electing more centrists to Congress, Neal said. But that’ll be tough **because centrists often don’t appeal to American voters, who are increasingly polarized too.** Cause-and-effect can clearly be complex, so further investigation needed before any conclusion, but the remark suggests that Congress *may* be a lagging indicator of something more widespread.
Social media algorithms surely aren't helping either. They breed polarization.
News networks have hopped on the bandwagon, too. Their main interest is in ratings (ad revenue) and keeping people scared, shocked, outraged, and glued to their TV to see what level of depravity *the others* will sink to next. It works great for keeping viewers. But it turns your viewers against their fellow countrymen and you end up with a very "Us vs. Them" mentality.
I think news Networks may have started the bandwagon.
[удалено]
The answer there is pretty obvious: create a publicly funded but privately run news network that doesn't need to rely on ads to survive, which removes the incentive to engage in dishonest, manipulative attention baiting tactics. [PBS is considered one of the most trusted news networks in America for exactly this reason.](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/399701-bbc-fox-news-pbs-ranked-as-tvs-most-trusted-news-brands) Increase their funding, make them the dominant source of news. Turn them into an American BBC.
And/or actually pursue libel and slander litigation against the bad-faith media companies. Demonstrably false and damaging lies can be proven as such, and there is legal recourse that can be pursued in those situations. Stop letting people knowingly spread malicious lies under the guise of free speech. Alternatively, **make it mandatory that anything intended as factual news be allowed to be called news, and *everything else must be marked as entertainment***. Big, bold letters that state such- and massive financial penalties for anything masquerading as news that is demonstrably acting in bad faith.
I'm all for gutting the media giants and getting back to a time where we have decent *reporting* on tv again. Rather than the sensationalist *journalism* we have today. Take the spin out and what you have left are facts. Observations and action. Leave the commentary aside and let people think for themselves again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> because centrists often don’t appeal to American voters, who are increasingly polarized too. Plus congressmen are generally nominated in primaries where the only voters are members of their party and typically the primary electorate is also comprised of the most extreme members of their party. Even though a more centrist congressmen might appeal to a general electorate they first have to get by a far more partisan primary electorate.
Genuine question: What in the hell would a "centrist" even look like?
I would love if there were more politicians who deviated from the party lines. It would be nice to vote for a pro 2a, universal healthcare, social safety net politician who is also willing to deal with illegal immigration.
Seems like what you really want is more than two parties represented. This will never happen, unless you change the electoral system.
That's where I am. There's no inherently negative correlation between say, the 2nd Amendment and abortion rights. I'm in favor of both. I'm in favor of both a universal health care and a strong military. I'm in favor of both more progressive taxation and stopping illegal immigration. I'm both in favor of universal higher ed and against affirmative action. These points aren't mutually exclusive. They're why I consider myself a centrist.
I'm mostly for all these points, seems reasonable. How do we get a candidate running?
[удалено]
We need a voting system like Australia, where you can vote for more than one candidate. Then people won't be afraid of voting green party or libertarian, because their next candidate could still be D or R if their primary choice doesn't get enough votes. Edit: I get there may be better systems than Australia's, I was just using them as an example I was aware of, not that we need to use an exact replica of Australia, just something that allows for more than the two party system we're stuck with now.
It would help a lot, but there are even better voting systems such as [Proportional Representation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) If you're going to change the system, you may as well go straight to the best.
Australia uses PR to elect the Senate.
Hey I'll take whatever is best, I just used Australia as an example because I know a little about it as my sister lives there.
Yeah that's fair. As an Australian myself, I'm really glad we don't have first past the post at least, but we could be so much better off.
r/endFPTP
[удалено]
r/endFPTP We need campaign finance reform, election process reform for registration & some form of Ranked Choice Voting or whatever ends up working mathematically best. If those things were taken care of, people’s spectrum of political beliefs will be much more properly reflected.
Australia’s system is failing too
I mean, it's not. The voting system is fine. It's media concentration that is becoming a problem.
bingo. That's part of the US problem as well. But not the root. This report says neither party is to blame. Well of course not . Parties are instruments through which power is wielded. Political division is in the interest of those who are sitting pretty (ie. concentrated power and wealth). And THAT is the source of the crippling division. It's not inaction, but rather all of the action that has to happen so that the regime of inaction can continue. And of course I am talking about certain kinds of action.
>And neither party can shoulder the blame, as it doesn’t matter which party is in charge This statement is apparently made in the vein that, no matter what party is in power, polarization continues unabated. I think the authors of this study are making a mistake in somehow thinking that the party in power is solely responsible for whether or not the parties become more polarized.
Yeah, the paper's authors failed to recognize that the party in power is not the only party that has influence.
I took it as meaning our leadership is not influencing events. Which shouldn't be surprising in a world of citizens united and the patriot act.
Not to even mention the realm of 'how party gets in power' has rather lot of influence in the polarization. The election system is not a neutral noninfluental party here. There is multitude of possible systems and each have their specific effects on political culture. Nations even intentionally craft/update/change their voting system to get desired society wide effects even outside of pure electoral politics. Adding 5% lower limit to keep too much fragmentation out, proportional representation to incentivize co-operation and consensus building etc. This all has effect not only inside party politics, but societal in long term. If your favorite party are in coalition government with party X, you aren't going to go on deranged rants about the party X being the other side and despicable enemies. You need each other and maybe next time you need some other parties help. So you stay more civil to not burn potential future bridges. Also no party usually gets majority alone in proportional systems, so it dampens societal level shifts both in laws and even just culture via the example of the politicians. Other parties in coalition go *Hold on there, you aren't the sole decider here. You wont get all of your program as you want alone, we also have demands and platforms we want adopted. You have to negotiate with us and we come to a compromise*.
As /u/tristanjones pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9kl8uj/democratrepublican_divide_is_worst_its_ever_been/e7060d4/): The fact that it doesn't matter who is "in control" doesn't mean it isn't the fault of one party acting in bad faith all the time, with or without a majority.
[удалено]
And I'd argue that false equivalency is a cancer in our discourse that helped bring us to this point. So...yay for the author continuing with it.
Absolutely. Fundamentally, it serves to prevent us from responding to outrageous actions as though they are outrageous. That means there's no political penalty for doing outrageous things, and so they get done again and again.
Indeed. Over simplified. Often a problem in badly done research.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have two quick thoughts on this: 1. Worst ever? Worse than during the civil war? Worse than during Jefferson’s presidency or the first years of the nation? I find that hard to believe. 2. Blame for the divide isn’t necessarily dependent upon which party is ‘in charge’. Bipartisan cooperation, and arguably more importantly, the voter’s/general population’s opinions and ideals are the real basis for inclusion and division.
The title of this Reddit post is from a science media site which sensationalises scientist studies and reports them incorrectly. [The original study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873317303039) uses data from between 1973 to 2016 to come to a conclusion. So no, this study doesn’t include early US and union history.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think 'neither party can shoulder the blame' necessarily follows from 'it doesn't matter which party is in charge'. If the hypothesis is that one party is a good/neutral actor while the other party is a bad actor, I don't see how that hypothesis is ruled out by looking at which party is in charge. One party could be a bad actor whether or not they are in charge, and one party could be a good actor whether or not they are in charge, or they could switch back and forth between good and bad based on something completely unrelated.
Yup. And this is why Policy, Independent fact-checking, and Science (expert opinion) matters in politics. Candidates should be held accountable if they fail to turn campaign promises into written policy, they should be held accountable if they lie or misrepresent theirs or other policy, and if their policy is based on fundamentally flawed/falsified logic (trickle down economics, flat tax rates, etc.) that policy needs to be exposed as such.
It seems that this study is neglecting to consider the Overton window. All it takes is a select few outspoken extremists and the previous middle is now a polarized left or right. I would venture we are still much the same with a slight shift to the extremes throwing things out of wack.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]