A new theory about political polarization • Hacker News Board

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#81

Post by notafraudster » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

Faark wrote: post #74

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

All of this seems to have an unstated prerequisite: The US two party system where voting for a third party actively damages your own interest. It's not perfectly solved in other countries, but having more "evils" to choose from is a good start. Obviously politicians have have little incentive to change the process they already had to master to gain power though in the first place.

I agree that countries with more than two parties have more opportunities to create majority winning coalitions that cut across painful cleavages. In a three party system (for simplicity I'll do equal sized parties) there are four majority coalitions: all three parties, or each of the three two-party coalitions. This is very good for healing wounds and building bridges and very bad for stability (because there is a majority coalition that can always improve on the status quo, no matter what the status quo is, creating cycles between each of the coalitions). I definitely agree that it makes it easier for regular citizens to disconnect the party they support from sort of more mundane social interactions. I definitely agree it's better for negative out-group affect. It's much harder to hate the other if the boundaries of who is in the other changes regularly and people cycle in and out.

But the US is a presidential system. While the presidency isn't everything, it is a big enough prize. No system can get around the winner-take-all nature of the presidency. I favour ranked choice and/or MMP and would support any reform proposed to achieve better institutions of electoral representation, but nothing is going to get around the fundamentally two-party nature of the contestation of the presidency. If we look at the whole history of the US, the party system has changed a number of times, but each time it has been around assembling roughly two groups contesting the presidency, regardless of how those groups map to formal parties (not at all in the JQA/Jackson era, very strongly today).

Still, regardless of the institutional setup, it's the case that inter-party polarization can emerge from either increasing extremeness, or better correlation between party and ideology, or better correlation between multiple dimensions of ideology, and the same processes I mention above are visible in other multi-party countries as well, to a lesser degree.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#82

Post by Tiltowait-- » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #75

This is interesting mathematically... but false empirically. The forces behind modern political polarization are extremely well-known and well-documented in political science, and they are: 1) The awareness by political parties that extreme views motivate extreme voters to vote, more than moderate views motivate moderate voters to vote, therefore parties and candidates are being pushed further away from the center th…

> Political primaries are now democratic, so less centrist candidates are being selected than from when candidates were selected by party leadership

That's not true at all. At least on the Democrat side. The party chooses the nominee, not the people.

"The DNC, led by Wasserman Schultz, Admitted In Court they Rigged Primaries Against Sanders"

>A Federal Judge dismissed the lawsuit after DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select their own candidate.

http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...

"DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely a ‘Political Promise'"

https://observer.com/2016/10/dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-...

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#83

Post by Tiltowait-- » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #72

narrator wrote: post #59

I think what broke the political dialog in this country is the whole hearted embrace of the association fallacy[1]. For example. I was talking with someone about COVID-19 and why it could have been released from a lab accidentally. The person I was talking with then accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible. She th…

I'm not sure why it matters if prominent people believe in what is ostensibly a conspiracy theory. Alex Jones was prominent, but that doesn't mean chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay for example. In fact you should be placing more scrutiny on prominent people (politicians especially) for pushing such a thing, because usually they have an agenda they're trying to push. The fact that you chose to accuse someon…

The thing about Alex Jones is that he takes about 18 hours of reading and condenses it into about 7 words.

Turning the frogs gay

Evidence suggests that pharmaceuticals are making their way into waste water and altering the hormones of amphibious animals.

They're reading all our emails

The NSA turned off encryption methods on American communications, which were previously in place, after 9/11 with the implementation of the patriot act

Interdimensional space vampires

Elites believe that the world was 'seeded' by aliens, they are pagans who have two kinds of holidays. Those that require sexual sacrifice, and those that require blood.

Parroting communist propaganda? Remember the "dotard" remark that was literal propaganda and was picked up and parroted by people who knew better?

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#84

Post by sova » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

Politics is much more nuanced than Left and Right. Plus, a person can have multiple identities depending the question to vote on. So, while it's interesting to correlate emotion with voting outcomes, it still assumes that Far Left and Far Right are different people, instead of schizophrenic blobs as they actually are. At least that is an alternative way of looking at it. This assumes people are consistent in their personal views, and I find that to be a very dubious claim.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#85

Post by Tiltowait-- » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #16

verdverm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't see COVID as a crisis anymore with better numbers out now and if anything saw people become more self center rather than coming together in this time of trouble.

Many people are being told that COVID is a liberal hoax.

Who are these people, and who is telling them that? Cite sources.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#86

Post by accountwhatever » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #72

narrator wrote: post #59

I think what broke the political dialog in this country is the whole hearted embrace of the association fallacy[1]. For example. I was talking with someone about COVID-19 and why it could have been released from a lab accidentally. The person I was talking with then accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible. She th…

I'm not sure why it matters if prominent people believe in what is ostensibly a conspiracy theory. Alex Jones was prominent, but that doesn't mean chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay for example. In fact you should be placing more scrutiny on prominent people (politicians especially) for pushing such a thing, because usually they have an agenda they're trying to push. The fact that you chose to accuse someon…

Funnily enough, Alex Jones' statement is mostly true:

"Hayes and his colleagues raised 40 male African clawed frogs in water containing atrazine, from when they were larvae all the way up until sexual maturity. The atrazine levels were about what the frogs would experience in environments where the pesticide is used, and below levels that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for drinking water.

They compared this atrazine-exposed group with 40 other male frogs reared in atrazine-free water.

At the end of the experiment, all frogs in the atrazine-free group remained male, while 10 percent of the frogs exposed to atrazine were completely feminized — their genes said they should be male, but they had female anatomy, including ovaries. The feminized frogs were able to mate with males and produce viable eggs."

https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs...

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#87

Post by woodandsteel » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

A very good comment. I would add that the parties used to be more moderate in part because the Democrats included both Northern liberals and Southern racists, and the Republicans included many Northern liberals. But when the civil rights laws were passed by the Democrats back in 1964 and 5, Southern white racists started a slow process of migrating to the Republicans and the Northern liberals to the Democrats.

Also, changes in the primary system lead to party leaders, who tended to nominate moderates who could win a broad range in the middle, losing power, and the nominating process being taking over by people on both extremes who tend to vote more in primaries than the general public does.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#88

Post by avmich » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #76

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

Of the explanations you have given here, most of them appear to be good things. Voters learning more about and becoming more aware of the actions of their representative parties. Except the hastert rule. The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil, and would appear to be an underlying reason for all of the other trends you've described in your post. Because it makes it impossible to govern, except in an extremely p…

> The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil

Why?

> Because it makes it impossible to govern,

There are at least two approaches to govern while maintaining the rule. First, to bring different points of view closer, which may bring minority to a majority while keeping majority on the other side. It's not easy, of course; it encourages position reformulation, determining the crucial issues etc. - a work for negotiation. Second, one of the party may get majority on the next elections because of the opposition of another party. This approach takes more time, but in general encourages more awareness of positions in the electorate.

Hastert rule had reasons to appear; why it's worse than what it was before that?

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#89

Post by throwaway6274 » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #66

throwaway6274 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How strange, as I’m the opposite. I’m about as anti-conservative as they come: UBI, legalize almost everything, universal healthcare and insurance, but I’m extremely against abortion.

You are in an unenviable position, because the Democratic Party has all but said that you can't be both a Democrat and pro-life. There is a minor party called the American Solidarity Party that is a little more of a mix, similar to Christian democratic parties in Europe. They oppose abortion and the death penalty but support universal health care, environmental protections, stricter regulation of financial markets, e…

> You are in an unenviable position

Yep, it doesn’t seem to be a common position, for sure.

I have heard of the American Solidarity Party and like some of their viewpoints, but I think that any consenting adults should be able to have a relationship (and the corresponding legal benefits). I also don’t like the religious motivations behind many of the arguments of the ASP; my views against abortion are secular in nature, and I think the religious arguments probably hurt the pro-life movement as a whole.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#90

Post by woodandsteel » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #71

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

the whole concept of party polarization is a non-sequitur to what's important, and that's how closely our representatives represent our collective interest balanced against the forward-thinking good of the nation. the labels are clearly holding us back, but we dearly want to fit in (be in the party) and be perceived as being in the right, no matter what's good, truthful, moral, generous, patriotic, etc. the wisdom of…

The problem is that voters often disagree greatly, and the only positive way forward is a compromise, but strong partisan and ideological polarization makes that impossible.