How to prevent degradation of democracy due to extreme partisanship?

[myata]

The problem has been formulated earlier. A political duopoly inevitably engenders extreme partisanship and a race to the bottom. The democracy as a whole will degrade, not can, all the way to some hard stop scenario. Nothing is guaranteed by any paper or formal process, however thoughtful and smart. It's only a matter of time and entropy.

Proposed is a solution to heal the problem of extreme partisanship. It may not be easy but it's possible, at least in theory and in the U.S. where democracy is alive and capable of change and adapting. In Canada, not so much. It will need a concerted non-partisan effort of reason and will: to understand the problem; the risks and dangers it can bring to the country; and look for reasonable, working solutions for the entire society.

First, the country would need to abolish the duopoly in the representative branch by transitioning to proportional representation. A wealth of methods exists and thoughtful consideration can identify an option that would work. That would eliminate partisanship on the legislative level and relieve partisan pressure on the judicial branch. Where there are many parties, the allegiance is to the country. In a duopoly, one needs the support of the partisan tribe and it's easy to confuse loyalties.

Secondly, the system may encourage non-partisan presidents. It may not be a formal requirement, but parties may establish a tradition by discouraging election of candidates who openly declare commitment to partisan, as opposed to national priorities.

How realistic would this kind of reforms be? Only on a speculative level, at this point.

 

[Michael Hardner]

"thoughtful consideration" seems to be beyond us.

 

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, myata said:

The problem has been formulated earlier. A political duopoly inevitably engenders extreme partisanship and a race to the bottom. The democracy as a whole will degrade, not can, all the way to some hard stop scenario. Nothing is guaranteed by any paper or formal process, however thoughtful and smart. It's only a matter of time and entropy.

Proposed is a solution to heal the problem of extreme partisanship. It may not be easy but it's possible, at least in theory and in the U.S. where democracy is alive and capable of change and adapting. In Canada, not so much. It will need a concerted non-partisan effort of reason and will: to understand the problem; the risks and dangers it can bring to the country; and look for reasonable, working solutions for the entire society.

First, the country would need to abolish the duopoly in the representative branch by transitioning to proportional representation. A wealth of methods exists and thoughtful consideration can identify an option that would work. That would eliminate partisanship on the legislative level and relieve partisan pressure on the judicial branch. Where there are many parties, the allegiance is to the country. In a duopoly, one needs the support of the partisan tribe and it's easy to confuse loyalties.

Secondly, the system may encourage non-partisan presidents. It may not be a formal requirement, but parties may establish a tradition by discouraging election of candidates who openly declare commitment to partisan, as opposed to national priorities.

How realistic would this kind of reforms be? Only on a speculative level, at this point.

 

If you can’t figure out that the planet really is warming, then you’re badly checked out from reality. Who finances the opposition? Oil and coal companies.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

If you can’t figure out that the planet really is warming, then you’re badly checked out from reality. Who finances the opposition? Oil and coal companies.  

We're long past the point where conspiracy theorist crackpots need to be ignored on climate.

 

They get their two minutes of free speech at the public meeting, then sit back down in your folding chair and shut up.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're long past the point where conspiracy theorist crackpots need to be ignored on climate.

 

They get their two minutes of free speech at the public meeting, then sit back down in your folding chair and shut up.

But when someone says, “Hey, the two political parties need to find common ground,” and one of those two parties is committed to doing all they can to destroy the environment we live in as much as they possibly can… there is no common ground to be found. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

But when someone says, “Hey, the two political parties need to find common ground,” and one of those two parties is committed to doing all they can to destroy the environment we live in as much as they possibly can… there is no common ground to be found. 

Oh, you're talking about AMERICA now.

[myata]

13 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Canada doesn't face as many challenges in this regard,

You are dreaming. And you don't need to go far inventing your solution it's already right in front of your eyes. Yes this is the state well-meaning, benevolent government evolves to, naturally and absolutely predictably, if left out of all checks and controls by the society. Keep dreaming.

8 hours ago, Rebound said:

there is no common ground to be found. 

But a democracy cannot exist with one side only, even of eternal wisdom and goodness. That never worked and will not. So the solution lies in the objective reality, that is variety. Allow the politics to represent the society as it is, not as someone thought of it three centuries back.

[OftenWrong]

Have many, many parties. In other words do it European parliament style. That great bastion of strength in troubled times that sets the standard for civilized conduct.

Here they are having a meeting with their Prime Minister-

 

[Rebound]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

But a democracy cannot exist with one side only, even of eternal wisdom and goodness. That never worked and will not. So the solution lies in the objective reality, that is variety. Allow the politics to represent the society as it is, not as someone thought of it three centuries back.

America has always been greatly harmed throughout its history by Southern conservatives.  Their attitudes lead to a Civil War which, in retrospect, I think we should have let them won, so they’d go away and become the dictatorial third world banana republic they aspire to be. 
 

We’ve had one crisis after another created by Southern conservatives, such as Jim Crow, desegregation, the Civil Rights movement, and it continues to this day.  America has endured one crisis after another. 
 

Is there “middle ground” on abortion? No.

Is there “middle ground” on gun control? No.

Is there “middle ground” on climate change? Not yet. 

Is there “middle ground” on civil rights? From reading Reason10’s posts, obviously not.  Every Single Time an African American gets any attention of any kind for any comment about race, the conservatives leap out of their termite holes to condemn it.  They figured out their code words which they repeat, but beneath that, it’s very obvious they’re racists. Just as the whole Obama birth certificate thing was racist. White Man John McCain was born in Panama, and nobody questioned his birth. Sarah Palin admitted that her family regularly traveled into Canada for healthcare, and nobody asked which hospital she was born in. Only the black man. Obvious why.  

[myata]

44 minutes ago, Rebound said:

America has always been greatly harmed throughout its history by Southern conservatives.  Their attitudes lead to a Civil War which, in retrospect, I think we should have let them won, so they’d go away and become the dictatorial third world banana republic they aspire to be. 

But that still wouldn't answer the problem with politics representing the entire complex spectrum of interests and views in the society that is "squeezed" to the absolute minimum possible by the FPTP. A functional democracy cannot "clap with one hand". And there are well understood instruments to allow meaningful representation. In my view, it's only a question of the ability to evolve and will.

[myata]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Here they are having a meeting

But of course. A picture with no context to prove all points and answer all questions. No things are the greatest as they were at the times of Adam, no change needed. Look.

[Rebound]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

But that still wouldn't answer the problem with politics representing the entire complex spectrum of interests and views in the society that is "squeezed" to the absolute minimum possible by the FPTP. A functional democracy cannot "clap with one hand". And there are well understood instruments to allow meaningful representation. In my view, it's only a question of the ability to evolve and will.

Our political system does not operate on the basis of people doing what they believe is best. Oil and coal companies don’t operate on the basis of doing their best to make the world better.  Gun manufacturers aren’t busy thinking how to make the world safer. Tobacco companies didn’t exist to provide the maximum benefit to human health.  

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, myata said:

The problem has been formulated earlier. A political duopoly inevitably engenders extreme partisanship and a race to the bottom. The democracy as a whole will degrade, not can, all the way to some hard stop scenario. Nothing is guaranteed by any paper or formal process, however thoughtful and smart. It's only a matter of time and entropy.

Proposed is a solution to heal the problem of extreme partisanship. It may not be easy but it's possible, at least in theory and in the U.S. where democracy is alive and capable of change and adapting. In Canada, not so much. It will need a concerted non-partisan effort of reason and will: to understand the problem; the risks and dangers it can bring to the country; and look for reasonable, working solutions for the entire society.

First, the country would need to abolish the duopoly in the representative branch by transitioning to proportional representation. A wealth of methods exists and thoughtful consideration can identify an option that would work. That would eliminate partisanship on the legislative level and relieve partisan pressure on the judicial branch. Where there are many parties, the allegiance is to the country. In a duopoly, one needs the support of the partisan tribe and it's easy to confuse loyalties.

Secondly, the system may encourage non-partisan presidents. It may not be a formal requirement, but parties may establish a tradition by discouraging election of candidates who openly declare commitment to partisan, as opposed to national priorities.

How realistic would this kind of reforms be? Only on a speculative level, at this point.

LOL myata. Out of one side of your mouth you say it's ok for the FBI to lie and commit crimes to influence elections, out of the other you pontificate about the dangers of partisanship. 

Please forgive me for noting that you're a hypocrite of the highest order. 

[myata]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Our political system does not operate on the basis of people doing what they believe is best.

Oil and gun, etc business are not a part of the political system though they try to influence it. But there's no reason why people, citizens could not modernize and update their political system when it's in a clear need of such maintenance. Look, in the evolution in general there's no promise of eternal existence for anyone and anything: species; societies; civilizations; even life itself. That much is clear. Partisan political system is heading into a dead end and it may require a major, concerted and intelligent effort of the society to escape it.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Oil and gun, etc business are not a part of the political system though they try to influence it. But there's no reason why people, citizens could not modernize and update their political system when it's in a clear need of such maintenance. Look, in the evolution in general there's no promise of eternal existence for anyone and anything: species; societies; civilizations; even life itself. That much is clear. Partisan political system is heading into a dead end and it may require a major, concerted and intelligent effort of the society to escape it.

If you think the oil, coal, banking and gun industries are not part of the American political system, you aren’t paying attention. 

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

are not part of the American political system, you aren’t paying attention. 

I admit readily that I'm no expert in the U.S. politics.

[reason10]

21 hours ago, myata said:

The problem has been formulated earlier. A political duopoly inevitably engenders extreme partisanship and a race to the bottom. The democracy as a whole will degrade, not can, all the way to some hard stop scenario. Nothing is guaranteed by any paper or formal process, however thoughtful and smart. It's only a matter of time and entropy.

Proposed is a solution to heal the problem of extreme partisanship. It may not be easy but it's possible, at least in theory and in the U.S. where democracy is alive and capable of change and adapting. In Canada, not so much. It will need a concerted non-partisan effort of reason and will: to understand the problem; the risks and dangers it can bring to the country; and look for reasonable, working solutions for the entire society.

First, the country would need to abolish the duopoly in the representative branch by transitioning to proportional representation. A wealth of methods exists and thoughtful consideration can identify an option that would work. That would eliminate partisanship on the legislative level and relieve partisan pressure on the judicial branch. Where there are many parties, the allegiance is to the country. In a duopoly, one needs the support of the partisan tribe and it's easy to confuse loyalties.

Secondly, the system may encourage non-partisan presidents. It may not be a formal requirement, but parties may establish a tradition by discouraging election of candidates who openly declare commitment to partisan, as opposed to national priorities.

How realistic would this kind of reforms be? Only on a speculative level, at this point.

 

Unelected Joe taking the oath of office represented the END of Democracy as we know it.

[myata]

47 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Unelected Joe taking

The problem of extreme partisanship, illustrated, live. And it's not going anywhere. Any and every new low see above, repeated by some representatives of supposedly responsible democratic party with zero factual evidence, is already the level of African tyrants. Now in the political mainstream courtesy of the simple feature: there are no other alternatives. And there's no reason why it should stop there.

Three FPTP systems remaining in the first tier of democracies are sailing at different speeds but to the same destination. For the survival short of some deep drama, of the three my bet would be on the UK: it's the only one that over the centuries showed the ability to change and adapt. U.S., the weight of the tradition and memory maybe too high. And Canada, just sailing asleep and blissfully, into the wall.

Edited August 7, 2023 by myata

[robosmith]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:48 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Oh, you're talking about AMERICA now.

This is the US Federal Politics forum.

[robosmith]

On 8/7/2023 at 10:39 AM, myata said:

Oil and gun, etc business are not a part of the political system though they try to influence it. But there's no reason why people, citizens could not modernize and update their political system when it's in a clear need of such maintenance. Look, in the evolution in general there's no promise of eternal existence for anyone and anything: species; societies; civilizations; even life itself. That much is clear. Partisan political system is heading into a dead end and it may require a major, concerted and intelligent effort of the society to escape it.

Large companies can and do hire professional organizations to manipulate public opinion and they're very successful at it.

They create an echo chamber which perpetrates their interests, effectively selling their products.

Gun manufacturers do their best to promote a dystopian view of society that is so dangerous you NEED a gun to defend yourself. And then claim that the only solution is more guns.

I guess that is one of the results of a more diverse citizenry here, since Canada has mostly avoided that phenomenon.

But here, people who are afraid, are unwilling to even LISTEN.

[myata]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Gun manufacturers do their best to promote a dystopian view of society that is so dangerous you NEED a gun to defend yourself. And then claim that the only solution is more guns.

Sure, no argument. But: it's much easier for them to do that in a black and white setting where if you don't vote for us you lose all. Just look, if there were a proportional system with majority of the parties against massive assault gun ownership, it would be much harder to pump this message as opposed to, if you don't vote for me, them will take all your guns. An important and not so easy question is both dumbed down and polarized to the max volume possible. It's the binary system itself that works as an amplifier of these messages; where the echo chamber would be a small part of the society it is promoted, by the binary option, to becoming a key election point and a contender.

[WestCanMan]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:13 PM, Rebound said:

If you think the oil, coal, banking and gun industries are not part of the American political system, you aren’t paying attention. 

Big Pharma and the military industrial complex might outrank the president right now. 

Coal isn't a big player on the national level, that's why Biden has one story about his hatred of coal that he tells the whole country and a different story for places like WY, PA, WV, etc. 

The 'Personal firearm industry' isn't a big player and never has been. One stealth fighter probably costs more than all the shotguns ever sold in the US.