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

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#21

Post by ZeroGravitas »

denton-scratch wrote: post #17
kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.

They tried to change this in the UK.

It eventually went to a public vote.

The same guy that ran the Brexit campaign successfully convinced people that 'wasting' money on more democracy would lead to more dead babies and soldiers. Too many ironies there to list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341.amp

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#22

Post by kstenerud »

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point.

Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil.

The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack upon that belief becomes an attack upon the person, at which point they will retaliate for the offence or dig in to defend. This is most commonly observed in the "Backfire Effect".

Identity beliefs are pervasive in the USA, so much so that I doubt many are aware of it (the authors of this paper certainly aren't). For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." but in Germany you say "I support the CDU." Notice the difference? One is an identity, the other is an action. Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics!

Identity beliefs aren't limited to politics, either. They can be religious, ethnic, or even ideological (e.g. incels, preppers, anti-vaxers, jihadists, etc).

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#23

Post by colordrops »

DeathArrow wrote: post #3

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

Both sides contributed significantly to the polarization and brought us down this path. The believe otherwise is to have been fooled by one of the sides.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#24

Post by [deleted] »

shrimpx wrote: post #20
kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization. Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?

[deleted]

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#25

Post by vidarh »

shrimpx wrote: post #20
kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization. Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?

Because when the points of meaningful disagreements are few, people often have a need to emphasise those points in order to justify their choice.

I don't think this is by any means universal and it doesn't need to get hostile.

Proportional systems often force parties to be prepared to cooperate or be left with no influence so even with starkly polarised views on certain issues it doesn't pay to get too hostile about it. To take a concrete example, in Norway the two centre-right centrist parties are classical liberals (Left/Venstre) and Christian democrats (KrF/Christian Peoples Party). The Christian democrats are hardline on abortion by Norwegian standards. It's of course genuinely important to them, but it's also clear that it's gained extra importance to them as one of the few areas where they clearly stand out to their potential voters. Yet they remain on "friendly terms" with the liberals who are one of the most firmly pro choice parties. I'm guessing part of this is that in addition to being aligned on a number of policy areas they're also not competing for the same voter base, so letting the polarisation escalate to hostility serves no purpose for either of them.

But when you have two parties fighting over control in a non-proportional system and you care about power in the short term, it pays for them to both seek towards the other to fight over voters near the centre and to exaggerate the importance of the remaining differences.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#27

Post by lnxg33k1 »

I think polarisation within the voters is not necessarily a bad thing, you need to stick to your ideas, and somehow if someone is for wealth redistribution and public infrastructure and someone considers that taxation is theft it's hardly a situation that can be mixed within the people, or if someone wants to lock immigrants in a cage and someone wants open border it's hardly matchable. but I think this is where the power of the democratic process comes to mind, if you have people actually voting according to their ideas, the representation that those ideas would make sure that within parliament there is a balance of those point of view, so like, maybe let's not completely open the border, but make it dependent on immigrant background, or let's decrease taxes and public spending by cutting some money waste, etc. Voters I think must be polarised, it is the parliament who needs to create a balance through discussion.

I mean I am not sure if I am polarised but sticking to the example I am not sure what my point of rendez-vous would be with a guy who considers taxation as theft for example

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#28

Post by vidarh »

denton-scratch wrote: post #17
kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.

Yes, but it is the norm. As far as I can tell, the UK, France and Belarus are the only countries in Europe without some form of proportional representation in elections for parliament. France tends to have a more fragmented result partly because of a tradition for a lot of electoral alliances etc. between the main parties to counter the effects of the electoral system and partly because it doesn't use First Past the Post. The UK and Belarus are the only two countries in Europe to use FPTP exclusively (Poland uses it for its senate but not for its lower house)

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#29

Post by vidarh »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #21
denton-scratch wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.

They tried to change this in the UK. It eventually went to a public vote. The same guy that ran the Brexit campaign successfully convinced people that 'wasting' money on more democracy would lead to more dead babies and soldiers. Too many ironies there to list. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341.amp

Another reason why it lost was because a lot of proponents of PR saw it as a trap to get electoral reform off the agenda. Most people in the UK I know who supported PR voted against the change for that reason, and considered accepting it as part of the coalition agreements as a total betrayal by the Liberal Democrats.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#30

Post by nosianu »

kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

> Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics!

Yes, but that was before vaccination scepticism and AfD (new-ish right wing party that made waves the last few years and now sits in the Bundestag too). Now we (Germany) see similar vitriol. We even had murder (some guy murdered the cashier at a petrol station because they were outraged he asked to wear a mask) and as recent as this week headlines about violent anti-vaccination protests. We also read about splits in families similar to what we were used to reading about from the US. Looks like we are catching up.... /s

https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-con...

https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany (AfD party)

Post reply on HN