Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new theory about political polarization

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 171 posts

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#21

Post by tusharchoudhary »

Political science seems to be going through a phase of questioning the rationality of voters.

The two major theories of public choice -- Median Voter theory[1] (political parties take positions that appeal to the median voter) and Investment theory of Party Competition[2] (parties take positions most beneficial to their donors), both assume emotions (irrationality) of voters to be small. In the current political climate -- while it seems that the explanatory power of emotions seems to have gone up, it isn't clear why.

This sounds very similar to the debate in economics around Efficient market hypothesis[3] and the emergence of behavioral economists.

While it is seems easy to attribute things to emotion, we might miss other explanatory variables underneath. A great sound-bite from Thomas Ferguson who first proposed [2]: "The electorate is not too stupid or too tired to control the political system. It is merely too poor."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#22

Post by _y5hn »

rayiner wrote: post #19

> It ultimately ends in total polarization," illustrates co-author David Garcia (CSH and MedUni Vienna). Not only do people categorically favor or oppose single issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and nuclear energy. "If they are pro-choice, they are at the same time highly likely to be for gay marriage, against the use of nuclear energy, for the legalization of marijuana, and so on," says Garcia. The possible va…

When ideas and opinions are heavily correlated, it's a sign of unhealthy coordination and lack of democracy. Voter turnover is not enough, you also need informed decisionmaking and true representation.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#23

Post by _y5hn »

pjc50 wrote: post #8
aebtebeten wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might hope that a common enemy (say, a virus with no known vaccine) would act to reduce polarisation in a society.

The virus is hard to personify. People want human scapegoats. That's why the politics is so vicious.

Correction: Some want to enrich themselves by lying about others, then firing them, or opposite sequence.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#24

Post by Barrin92 »

rayiner wrote: post #19

> It ultimately ends in total polarization," illustrates co-author David Garcia (CSH and MedUni Vienna). Not only do people categorically favor or oppose single issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and nuclear energy. "If they are pro-choice, they are at the same time highly likely to be for gay marriage, against the use of nuclear energy, for the legalization of marijuana, and so on," says Garcia. The possible va…

one also needs to be careful with terms such as being "anti-immigration" in relative context.

For example even the Danish right-wing populists, in 2016, supported Clinton over Trump[1]. Same for Germany's AfD, a party that in Germany has evoked comparisons to our not so democratic past, but their immigration policy is by their own declaration "a Canada style merit based system". New Zealand, with a quarter of the population being immigrants, has much higher immigration levels relatively than the US, and events like the migrant crisis tend to temporarily create more extreme responses given how small the country is.

[1]https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/559/90/sites/default/fi...

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#25

Post by buboard »

I find such studies rather shallow, just explaining away a phenomenon without looking deeper for causes. I dont think the level of political animosity that the USA seems to have now has been seen before, maybe ever. In no other country have people massively defied death in the way americans do today. When people stop valuing their lives , it seems rather like a change in psychology. Maybe it's not even a political phenomenon, but an extreme expression of underlying psychological issues in individuals that express themselves macroscopically in an irrational way.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#26

Post by raz32dust »

Disappointed to not see any mention of ranked choice voting. I think the winner takes all system leads to a two-party duopoly and makes it difficult for intermediate positions to win.

P.S: Yes, I know Australia has ranked choice and they also have problems. Of course it's not a panacea, there are other problems like the role of money in politics. But it will be better than what we have today, and should reduce polarization considerably over time IMO.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#27

Post by watwut »

twiceaday wrote: post #18
jjk166 wrote: post #6

People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.

My wife has a cup that she got as a gift from somebody she cares about. It's not a very good looking cup, it can't be microwaved, and it has to be hand-washed. She never uses it, it just sits in the closet. She has this cup not because she wants it but because she can't come to terms with not wanting it, with getting rid of it. Maybe you can vaguely summarize the situation as her wanting this cup, but that misses a l…

She wants that cup as remainder of the person that gave her the cup and as a show of respect toward that person.

She wants that concerete cut.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#29

Post by watwut »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #12
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #4

> It ultimately ends in total polarization," illustrates co-author David Garcia Actually, I think it's more likely to end with violent conflict between the groups. The horsheshoe theory simply won't die[1]. At this point in time the extremes have more in common with one another than they do with the center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20... .

I love how real horshoe theory actually is because no one actually thinks it's legitimate but it really did properly describe politics until 1945... The Nazis and communists had a lot in common in 1930's Nazi Germany. They even made jokes about how often people switched parties... "In some cities, the numeral strength of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was estimated to be large. Rudolf Diels (the head of the Gestapo…

You mean like, right after nazi took power and moved to violently suppress all opposition?

Yep, many many people joined at that particular opportune moment and it has zero to do with ideological closeness. Which did angered hard liners and true believers. Through I doubt the 70% number.

(And yes communist were violent too, which would made them suitable for SA. They were not that ideologically close nor they shared demographics.).

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#30

Post by SI_Rob »

How about, polarization is highly compressive and humans have limited time and mental resources to devote to the many competing concerns they encounter.

Those issues that they sense are important in some broad abstract game of value creation and control, but that don't have an obvious impact on their immediate sense of agency or leverage, get heavily and "lossily" compressed into extreme min-max caricatures or silhouettes as a heuristic compromise between the infinite nuance/complexity rabbit-hole of rigorous intellectual honesty and very finite human capacity for attention.

Post reply on HN