Zompist Bboard Again

Zompist wrote:Fine, go tell them.

Pew Research Center
901 E St. NW Suite 300.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Do you think that the political space is one-dimensional?

If somebody says they're for free trade, does that mean that they're left or right? Would your answer be the same if I asked you this question 50 years ago?

From what you've said, most of your complaints are about the centrist half of the party. If you don't like the leftist half either... well, inter-left divisions are a long tradition by now (so we all feel that way), but waiting till the 7/8 of Americans who disagree with you to change their minds may take awhile.

So I should just keep voting for "moderate or conservative" Democrats like I have for my whole life and continue to watch the middle class society of America slowly evaporate?

I haven’t been following the discussion very closely, but I’ll mention that (at least in my opinion) the US electoral system has a very strong tendency to flatten the political spectrum into something more linear, with only two opposing parties. By contrast, most other Western democracies have several major parties and many minor ones, with a corresponding increase in representation of opinions across the political spectrum.

(The Australian Parliament, for instance, currently represents a total of three major parties, two less-major parties, four minor parties and 18 independents. At the extreme you end up with Israel, in which you can find a party for pretty much any position you desire — though that ends up as unworkable as the American system, in my opinion.)

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 11:17 pm

Zompist wrote:Fine, go tell them.

Pew Research Center
901 E St. NW Suite 300.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Do you think that the political space is one-dimensional?

You keep wanting to assign to me other people's opinions. I told you where to contest this idea of a "one-dimensional political space" and what terms are used to describe its residents. Go argue with them.

If somebody says they're for free trade, does that mean that they're left or right? Would your answer be the same if I asked you this question 50 years ago?

Depends on what they mean. Since WWII both parties have supported free trade in general, because they wanted American businesses to be able to sell worldwide. And both parties have supported tariffs for favored industries, or to punish other countries for their tariffs. I have zero belief that Trump's tariffs will restore American manufacturing jobs, but I also won't pretend that the US doesn't use tariff policies already when it suits it.

So I should just keep voting for "moderate or conservative" Democrats like I have for my whole life and continue to watch the middle class society of America slowly evaporate?

So, by recognizing the actual fact that the Democratic party is more than half "moderate or conservative", that is somehow forcing you to support them?

You obviously have no understanding or interest in what I actually believe. But FWIW, I personally think you should blame Republicans for plutocracy. And if you're mad when some of the Democratic party wants to go that direction as well, half the party agrees with you. You just apparently hate to recognize that you have allies.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 12:19 am I haven’t been following the discussion very closely, but I’ll mention that (at least in my opinion) the US electoral system has a very strong tendency to flatten the political spectrum into something more linear, with only two opposing parties. By contrast, most other Western democracies have several major parties and many minor ones, with a corresponding increase in representation of opinions across the political spectrum.

The binary division is largely the fault of FPTP voting. You can get new parties with FPTP, but this either results in nothing much, or the new party replaces one of the old ones.

This in turn comes from the Brits, of course, and largely applies there... with the proviso that, occasionally, the Liberals matter. They were a medium-sized party in the 1920s and 1930s (50 to 70 seats), inconsequential for half a century (6 to 25 seats), then medium-sized again. Their high-water mark was this year (72 seats), precisely when it didn't matter since Labour had a massive majority. (The SNP was medium-sized for a few years too, but has recently collapsed at the UK level.)

Traditionally FPTP also flattens differences between the parties in the US; as I've noted before, till the 1980s there were liberals, moderates, and conservatives in both parties.

Australia has ranked voting in both houses, I believe, which must fascinate political scientists. Are you happy with it, or not so much?

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 12:44 am Australia has ranked voting in both houses, I believe, which must fascinate political scientists. Are you happy with it, or not so much?

Personally I think it’s an excellent system. Note that the kind of ranked voting differs between houses: the lower house has a single winner per electoral division, whereas the upper house allocates a certain number of representatives to each state as a whole. The result is a sort of hybrid between the Westminster and American systems (I’ve seen it called ‘Washminster’), and I think it’s managed to take the best parts of each.

I should also mention the other important part of the Australian electoral system, which is compulsory voting. Opinions are divided on this one, but I like how it forces voting to be made easy, and removes any concerns about ‘getting out the vote’ or voter suppression. (On that last point, it’s also relevant that the Australian Electoral Commission is independent of government.)

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 12:44 am This in turn comes from the Brits, of course, and largely applies there... with the proviso that, occasionally, the Liberals matter. They were a medium-sized party in the 1920s and 1930s (50 to 70 seats), inconsequential for half a century (6 to 25 seats), then medium-sized again. Their high-water mark was this year (72 seats), precisely when it didn't matter since Labour had a massive majority. (The SNP was medium-sized for a few years too, but has recently collapsed at the UK level.)

I'd like to add more provisos please

1. Northen Ireland¹. This is complicated by the NI Assembly using STV² (because having people not have anyone they voted for represented is³ more dangerous than elsewhere in the UK. There are seven parties currently in the Assembly, six of which are in Westminster. I think if the result looks like it's going to be close, unionist parties will step down to help the strongeat unionist party and nationist parties will step down to help the strongest nationalist party
2. The SNP (and to a lesser extent, Plaid Cymru, and to an even lesser extent, Mebyon Kernow⁵). Regional parties are a known exception to Duverger's law, so I'll skip this
3. The Lib Dems (and to a lesser extent, the greens). The Lib Dems are the descendant of the 19^th century Liberals, and have survived by aggressively exploiting discontent with the incumbent party in a constituency (mainly the Tories this time) and then being hyper-focused on local concerns so they can stay in the Greens do the same in places where the Lib Dems aren't traditionally present.⁶
4. UKIP/The Brexit Party/Reform⁷ they never got many seats⁸, but got a decent vote share in several elections, and were a great help to the Tories this election, when they greatly assist them with there task of electoral suicide

¹ It's traditional to ignore NI when doing things like this, but that's not entirely fair, and the rest of the UK should know more about it⁴
² That is, multi member ranked voting, like the Australian Senate or the Republic of Ireland, so the two-partyification doesn't really apply
³ Or (hopefully, but not guaranteedly) was when the Assembly was formed
⁴ C.f. Brexit, where NI wasn't really mentioned until negotiations started, when it was always going to be an insoluble problem (they 'solved' it in the end by putting the border in the Irish Sea, which then led the DUP to crash the executive again
⁵ Cornish nationalists. They have five seats in Cornwall County council
⁶ This can get ridiculously precise. On my council, guessing which party is competing is which ward is pretty much impossible without checking election results and campaign material
⁷ Reform is a renaming of The Brexit Party from when it switch to anti-vax and anti-lockdown conspiracy theories, before its final pivot to general populist far right idiots. UKIP is Nigel Farage Party Mark 1, then he left it, and founded the Brexit Party as Nigel Farage Party Mark 2
⁸ Apart from in the European Parliament, which both used Party List PR, and was always treated as a protest vote

I feel like being contrarian today!

The political space is one-dimensional and that is true no matter what the electoral system is. Depending on the electoral system, you'll get more data points on the left-right spectrum, that's all¹²; depending on the country and time period the spectrum may extend further left or further right; that's all

Of course people may have views on a specific topic a bit at odds with the rest of their political views; I believe it's less common than you'd think, and it's even less noticeable when it comes to large number of voters.

Now to answer this:

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 11:17 pm
If somebody says they're for free trade, does that mean that they're left or right? Would your answer be the same if I asked you this question 50 years ago?

Free trade is a centrist position; neither the far left nor the far right ever really liked it. It's more heavily debated in the US now than it was 50 years, but that fits with the American right going ever more radical.

¹ One exception is the French system where you get four left-wing parties defending the exact same position and hating each other all the more for it.
² Lērisama: I love what you're doing with the footnotes!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:46 am I feel like being contrarian today!

The political space is one-dimensional and that is true no matter what the electoral system is. Depending on the electoral system, you'll get more data points on the left-right spectrum, that's all¹²; depending on the country and time period the spectrum may extend further left or further right; that's all

Of course people may have views on a specific topic a bit at odds with the rest of their political views; I believe it's less common than you'd think, and it's even less noticeable when it comes to large number of voters.

Well, how would you describe someone who's close to far left on economic matters, moderately left-leaning on cultural matters, somewhat right-leaning on security matters, and thinks everyone's underlying theories are mostly bullshit? (In case you're wondering, yes, that's a description of my own views.)

Or, unrelated to that, how about the people who seem to be kind of "generic extremists" and might cheer on either the far left or the far right on any given day?

¹ One exception is the French system where you get four left-wing parties defending the exact same position and hating each other all the more for it.

Aren't some of those pro-Putin and others anti-Putin? That sounds like a fairly substantial difference to me.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:09 am Well, how would you describe someone who's close to far left on economic matters, moderately left-leaning on cultural matters, somewhat right-leaning on security matters, and thinks everyone's underlying theories are mostly bullshit? (In case you're wondering, yes, that's a description of my own views.)

I'd say left-wing? That combination doesn't strike me as particularly eccentric. You don't get a lot of interest in abstract theories on the left until you reach pretty radical views.
I'd say left-wingers are way less lenient on crime than right-wingers belief. Again, you have to go really far left before getting to prison abolitionists.

Or, unrelated to that, how about the people who seem to be kind of "generic extremists" and might cheer on either the far left or the far right on any given day?

Far right. People often shift their political views as they get older, plus nobody wants to be called a Nazi; so far right groups like to muddle the waters. But I mean, no matter what Sahra Wagenknecht used to believe when she was younger, I don't see how the BSW can be anything other than far right.

¹ One exception is the French system where you get four left-wing parties defending the exact same position and hating each other all the more for it.

Aren't some of those pro-Putin and others anti-Putin? That sounds like a fairly substantial difference to me.

It's not really that clear cut. (I could write pages about what's wrong with LFI but it's not really a matter of political views; their platform is rather mild. They do concentrate terrible human beings, but that seems compatible with any political view. If it turns out the political spectrum is two dimensional after all, then the dimensions are left-right, asshole-not asshole)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:46 am I feel like being contrarian today!

The political space is one-dimensional and that is true no matter what the electoral system is. Depending on the electoral system, you'll get more data points on the left-right spectrum, that's all¹²; depending on the country and time period the spectrum may extend further left or further right; that's all

It depends on what you're trying to explain, and what period.

Left/right is pretty useful for US politics since 1980. For the 1945-80 period, not quite so much. If extreme conservatives appeared (Joseph McCarthy, Goldwater), they'd be GOP; very liberal guys would be Democratic (Eugene McCarthy?). But other than that it wasn't so clear. Nixon seemed conservative at the time, but he expanded the state, normalized relations with China, and founded the EPA. I read an interview with him in the 90s where he basically approved of what Bill Clinton was doing. (He hated Hillary though; she worked for the committee investigating impeachment over Watergate.) Similarly Kennedy wasn't exactly a flaming liberal; he centered his foreign policy on anti-communism, drastically cut taxes on the rich, and distanced himself from the civil rights movement.

Political scientists have suggested that US politics, at least before 1980, was dominated not just by a left-right axis but by pro- and anti-civil-rights. The Civil Rights bill of 1964, begun under Kennedy but passed under Johnson, is representative. The vote was 289-126 in the House, 73-27 in the Senate.

* Among Democrats, the House vote was 153-91, Senate 46-21. Republicans: House 136-35, Senate 27-6.
* Among Northerners: House 281-32, Senate 72-6. Among Southerners: House 8-94, Senate 1-21.

One might suppose that the anti-civil rights voters were actually right-wingers... only this contradicts the Roosevelt years: his greatest support was in the South. The historical truth is that the South was more left-wing and anti-civil-rights at that time.

And for a completely different axis, British politics since 2016 seems much less dominated by left-right and more by Brexit. If that's even the axis: Labour seemed intent not to have any policy differences at all from the Tories, it would just kind of do things better. Which was actually a winning strategy this year.

If it turns out the political spectrum is two dimensional after all, then the dimensions are left-right, asshole-not asshole)

I'd like to see an elaboration of this theory. But it'd be tricky. The thing is, voters like a fighter, and only rarely like a nice guy. "He's an asshole, but he's our asshole" is a judgment that could apply to many a winning candidate, including not a few on the left.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 5:59 am And for a completely different axis, British politics since 2016 seems much less dominated by left-right and more by Brexit. If that's even the axis: Labour seemed intent not to have any policy differences at all from the Tories, it would just kind of do things better. Which was actually a winning strategy this year.

Hmm, that makes me wonder what the main axis is here. I think it’s similar to the British case — the major parties aren’t very strongly differentiated. There was a brief attempt recently by some in the Coalition to bring US-style abortion wars to Australia, but Dutton very firmly shut it down (doing a sensible thing for once in his life).

If I had to name a single differentiating issue, it would probably be global warming. Labor is against it, the Nationals are for it. The Coalition talks around it a lot. But, as far as I can tell, none of them are willing to make any kind of serious effort to change the situation (though then again that basically summarises most of Australian politics at the moment).

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 7:15 am

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 5:59 am And for a completely different axis, British politics since 2016 seems much less dominated by left-right and more by Brexit. If that's even the axis: Labour seemed intent not to have any policy differences at all from the Tories, it would just kind of do things better. Which was actually a winning strategy this year.

Hmm, that makes me wonder what the main axis is here. I think it’s similar to the British case — the major parties aren’t very strongly differentiated. There was a brief attempt recently by some in the Coalition to bring US-style abortion wars to Australia, but Dutton very firmly shut it down (doing a sensible thing for once in his life).

I'd say nationalism, rather than Brexit¹, and it was very popular up until about 2022, when the Tories suddenly became the party of a small state and supply side economics again²

If I had to name a single differentiating issue, it would probably be global warming. Labor is against it, the Nationals are for it. The Coalition talks around it a lot. But, as far as I can tell, none of them are willing to make any kind of serious effort to change the situation (though then again that basically summarises most of Australian politics at the moment).

I'm familiar with that. It's the same here, except it's Labour's stance on everything. I think the only new thing was £22 bn for the NHS, which is a lot, but not much proportionally, and certainly much less than it needs

¹ Labour at the time were internationalist, but Jeremy Corbyn himself was ambivalent on Brexit, hence the Lib Dems
² Hence why they lost so badly; they lost the trust of vaguely left wing nationalists under Truss, and then Reform outdid them on stopping immigration³ They did pivot back towards nationalism a bit under Sunak (specifically refocusing on being anti-immigration and anti-asylum), but even then negotiated a marginally better Brexit⁴
³ We need pretty much all the immigration we have, so it's really hard to cut down. After 14 years of posturing and doing nothing, people were starting to see through it
⁴ The Windsor agreement. It exempted some goods from checks at the Irish Sea border, making the Unionists marginally less angry about the existance of the border

---

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:46 am ² Lērisama: I love what you're doing with the footnotes!

It's rather useful, and somehow fun, isn't it?

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:50 am I should also mention the other important part of the Australian electoral system, which is compulsory voting. Opinions are divided on this one, but I like how it forces voting to be made easy, and removes any concerns about ‘getting out the vote’ or voter suppression. (On that last point, it’s also relevant that the Australian Electoral Commission is independent of government.)

I remember reading once that it led to a disproportionate number of candidates being elected whose surnames begain with letters earlier in the alphabet.<sup>1

1</sup> Because candidates were listed alphabetically by surname², and lazy people put their cross or whatever against the name at the top³.
² Athough, this being Australia, the list would have been upside-down, so maybe it was letters later in the alphabet; I forget.
³ Didn't this then cause the "None of the below"⁴ party to win several elections when they tried to fix this problem?
⁴ Or was it "None of the above"? (See #2)

alice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:51 pm
I remember reading once that it led to a disproportionate number of candidates being elected whose surnames begain with letters earlier in the alphabet.<sup>1

1</sup> Because candidates were listed alphabetically by surname², and lazy people put their cross or whatever against the name at the top³.

No, in the Australian system, you write a number next to a candidate - "1" for your first preference, "2" for your second preference, and so on. The lazy or indifferent people you mean just wrote 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 from the top to the bottom of ballots. Back when candidates were listed alphabetically, this led to some parties nominating a lot of candidates whose surnames started with "A".

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:57 pm

alice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:51 pm
I remember reading once that it led to a disproportionate number of candidates being elected whose surnames begain with letters earlier in the alphabet.<sup>1

1</sup> Because candidates were listed alphabetically by surname², and lazy people put their cross or whatever against the name at the top³.

No, in the Australian system, you write a number next to a candidate - "1" for your first preference, "2" for your second preference, and so on. The lazy or indifferent people you mean just wrote 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 from the top to the bottom of ballots. Back when candidates were listed alphabetically, this led to some parties nominating a lot of candidates whose surnames started with "A".

Yes, indeed. I can’t actually remember whether they’re still ordered alphabetically, but I think it’s random now.

(If you do attempt to mark people with a cross or similar, then your ballot is spoiled and will not count.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:42 pm (If you do attempt to mark people with a cross or similar, then your ballot is spoiled and will not count.)

So you don't have to have your ballot count if you don't want it to then...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 7:36 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:42 pm (If you do attempt to mark people with a cross or similar, then your ballot is spoiled and will not count.)

So you don't have to have your ballot count if you don't want it to then...

Absolutely. In every election, there’s usually a considerable number of spoiled ballots (IIRC the proportion is often as high as 10%). And the secret ballot means you can’t be punished for it.

That being said, compulsory voting means you still have to go in and fill out a ballot. So spoiling a ballot is a deliberate choice; it’s not quite the same as simply sitting out an election.