Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Two Nations, One Vote

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:27 / 03.11.04

So here we have it. The actual democratic nightmare: a huge voter turnout, and a country split down the middle (or actually, into Coast and Centre). Whoever wins the US election - and right now it looks like Bush, but there's all pesky provisional votes and so on still to come - it looks to me as if the government elected will simply not be representative - because the country is apparently made up of two wildly different identities (well, sure, more than that, but I'm keeping it simple).

What does that mean? Can a different democratic system deal with that and create a functional and mandated government, or is democracy flawed as a system? One half of the US will legitimately feel that they are being traduced by their leadership, whatever happens.

Thoughts?

09:45 / 03.11.04

One of the problems with the US is that it is a culture based on arguement. It has become a society where everyone is "outraged" about something or other. People get shot in America for cutting someone off in traffic. Is it any surprise that the country is split down the middle? A governmental system that is conflict based will become more polarized as the society's complexity increases. Eventually, it will explode apart, due to the fact that a system cannot sustain that type of pressure forever. The real question is: When it does, what system will follow it?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:00 / 03.11.04

Well, it doesn't have to split apart. It might evolve. And would the splitting be a good or a bad thing? Would the evolution?

10:31 / 03.11.04

Good point. The problem with said evolution, however, is that the system has become extremely hardened and entrenched. It has been set up to "endure", making change in the system very difficult. In such a system, splitting apart usually occurs because of the increased resistance of the system to change, coinciding with increasing pressure to change. In terms of evolution, it has been found that it does not occur gradually, and usually occurs in response to pressure on the organism. I would argue that a government is not all that different, with the exception that when a government evolves, it is frequently a messy affair.

As to whether said evolution would be a good thing or a bad thing, it would depend on the nature of the pressure on it, and the chaotic factors that would be spawned. If the infrastructure of the society in question is destroyed, for example, it is much more likely to devolve. If infrastructure remains intact, there are more options. An anarchical system, for example, is much more possible with the existence of linked computer systems, i.e., "internet", than without them, the reason being that such an anarchical system would be dependent on the existence of sophisticated levels of communication, if such a system were to exist on a large scale.

12:22 / 03.11.04

Reading this from an European viewpoint, I consider the problem to be in-built in the two-party system: you either vote Democratic or GOP, with no real alternatives. Thus, it is really not surprising that the country can get quite divided.

Here in the Old World in many states there are two or three big political parties (20-40% support/party), but also couple or medium-sized ones (15-10%) and handful of small ones (5-1%). Thus, the country is not split 51%-agaisnt-49%, as is often the case in USA, but rather 30%-25%-24%-15%..., which obviously creates less bitter feelings.

So... could some sort of anti-trust legislation against political parties be a good thing? Something like "if one party gains more than 50% of the votes in two consecutive elections, that party will have to split into two"?
(NB: this isn't actually a serious proposition, just toying with an idea. I don't believe such legislation could in reality be effective and/or desirable)

18:15 / 03.11.04

I add that Canada also eschews bipartisan democracy in favor of a number of well-known parties and a handful of lesser known ones. The fates and fortunes of the various parties are in constant flux (in fact, we had a significant merger between two of our parties recently), and between them, they actually cover the political spectrum, rather than altogether leaning right and playing tip-of-the-liberal-hat-tug-of-war over the few hot-button issues Rove decided to inflame.

In my opinion, some of the best governments are minority governments, where alliance and compromise allow representation for the wider spectrum of concern and viewpoint. And it gets pretty damn hard to have a minority government in a two party system.

19:59 / 04.11.04

To a certain extent, issues that might have become a separate party are swallowed up in the major parties. They are almost like sub parties. The Democrats, for example, would include the Socialist and Labor parties, while the Republicans include the KKK, NRA, religious zealots, SUV drivers, and Fascists. The Libertarians, Reform party, and I think the Constitutionalist were all birthed from the Republcians at one point, but splintered off into separate parties. So there you have the process in reverse. Note that that's all the traditionally "conservative" elements I just listed there having splintered off. I suspect the next election may see a lot more support for these third parties as the core of what is known as "Republican" becomes more dominated by bigoted religious fundies and corporate interests. I really really hope it does, cause I think the multi party approach would do things a lot of good here.

Tryphena Absent

14:40 / 05.11.04

Excuse me if you think I've got this wrong but this is how I interpret the US atm...

People get shot in America for cutting someone off in traffic. Is it any surprise that the country is split down the middle?

Isn't the problem that the government never actually takes any action to protect anyone? They don't protect you from guns, they don't protect your vote. Their actions are always extremes, no real gun legislation but the death penalty is in place. No free health care. From the outside it just seems an inherently selfish society, everyone is always out for themselves so no one looks after the important things. Your state should look after your rights, it seems to me that your country isn't split down the middle, your problem is the same everywhere because even when you get the better option, no one legislates so you actually, definitely get your vote. That's the messiest betrayal in a country that puts so much faith in the idea of democracy. You need to work on the basic ideology because while that remains the same there's no hope of sorting any of the arguments out, which brings me to-

In terms of evolution, it has been found that it does not occur gradually, and usually occurs in response to pressure on the organism.

02:56 / 08.11.04

Democracy is not bad because it causes bipartisan division; it is bad because it permits a sizeable majority to do whatever the hell it wants.

Regarding the division in America, it isn't universally accepted that the division is across a giant, horrific chasm. Keep in mind that intermarriage between democrats and republicans is quite common (the term intermarriage would never be used in this contect except jokingly), that, in a number of elections, people can be found who say "I think both candidates could do a good job, but I think X could do a better job." The division isn't entirely geographical, either. Keep in mind that the state of Colorado just elected a democratic state legislature despite voting for President Bush.

Anti-trust on Parties. The states have different election laws that make it easier or more difficult for third party candidates to get on the ballot. Third parties whine about this all the time, but they're probably right. Laws could be changed to make it easier for third parties to grow and displace the old parties. The most significant change in law would be a run-off style of voting, in which you cast your first vote for one candidate, and your second for another, and the second vote only counts if your first choice loses. This might lead to having the Republicans and Democrats nominating two candidates instead of one, but I rather doubt this would be much of a problem. That would mean the party would have to split its funding for one election on two different voices, which would be disadvantageous to both.

12:19 / 09.11.04

Isn't the problem that the government never actually takes any action to protect anyone? They don't protect you from guns, they don't protect your vote. Their actions are always extremes, no real gun legislation but the death penalty is in place. No free health care. From the outside it just seems an inherently selfish society, everyone is always out for themselves so no one looks after the important things. Your state should look after your rights, it seems to me that your country isn't split down the middle, your problem is the same everywhere because even when you get the better option, no one legislates so you actually, definitely get your vote. That's the messiest betrayal in a country that puts so much faith in the idea of democracy.

You are preaching to the choir.....

20:39 / 11.11.04

Faith in "democracy" (sort of--in the fine piece of scholarship that is AMERICA: THE BOOK, a parody by the writers of The Daily Show, they note that given that a huge percentage of incumbants win, and the fact that our choices are often between bad and worse, limited to two and only every 4 years, for president, that the government makes it pretty clear it doesn't really need voters..) but no real faith in government.

21:45 / 19.11.04

One of the major factors that reinforces the Rep/Dem divide in America is a strong cultural tendency to regard willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness. Our culture is obsessed with the notion of the hero who is perfectly moral and utterly uncompromising in hir pursuit of justice. As a consequence of this hero obsession, both of our political parties (casting themselves in the hero's role) honestly believe that, given sufficient power, they will be able to usher in an utopian age.

This informs the hostility that we see from the major parties against any progress towards any pluralism in our representative bodies. Pluralism represents a dilution of power, and thus a postponement of the theoretical utopia.

In this light, I try to view neither of our political parties as actively malicious, but instead highly deluded as to extend of their ability to shape and improve our world, and blind to the seductively corruptive nature of such power.

So, any thoughts on how to go about disassembling the hero culture?

04:19 / 20.11.04

One of the major factors that reinforces the Rep/Dem divide in America is a strong cultural tendency to regard willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness.
I can't recall ever having met someone who expressed this sentiment. As long as compromise is taken in a general way, most people I know (and they are almost all Americans but some are Republicans and some are Democrats and some are unaffiliated) speak very positively about compromise.

Some people think compromising principle is bad, though. These folks would recommend against doing what you think is morally wrong even when others put pressure on you. In the political sphere, an example of this kind of compromise would be, say, to vote for the war in Iraq if you believed it was an unjust war. Another example would be to support violating the first amendment from time to time because others believe it should be repealed altogether. I think we manage to do quite enough compromising of principles.

I reckon the problem is a lack of courtesy. Our politicians can have a diminished sense of propriety when they begin to focus on winning elections.