It would be true if these are only two parties in USA. But they are not only parties, they are only the most popular parties. So, if people vote for them, that is not because they have no other choice (like in case of two cops) but because they believe ideas and people in these parties are credible.
Most democracies at most time have two parties or alliances of parties. Because the only way to have any weight in politics is in trying to tip the balance around the median voter (see the median voter theorem). The more there is a winner-takes-all, the more the two-party system is pronounced. And if you don't play the game, it's as if you don't vote, which is why "serious" voters will vote in one of the parties that stands a chance.
Proportional representation and two-turn voting may lead to there being many smaller parties, but said party will usually organize according to two alliances. A powerful third force sometimes takes the place of a defeated party, but after reorganization around the new two parties, the dynamics stay the same.
As for "believing" - sure, voters believe in the Synopsis, but ask as for satisfaction about the winner, any voter, he'll say the elected politicians is too far to the right or to the left. Because he isn't the median voter. And even the median voter who thought the two politicians were pretty
( ... )
Re: Two-Party system
anonymous
May 31 2008, 05:01:35 UTC
Hitler didn't adapted his party line to the opinions of median voters - he was consistent to his initially marginal ideas and gradually attracted enough people to become the most influential politician. At that moment, sure, he represented these median voters, but it was them who came to him, not the other way around.
Nothing in the form of democracy prevents any of today marginal parties (or better: ideas) from repeating similar kind of success without adapting to the opinion of median voter. Only thing that prevents them is the will of the people.
The Breakdown of DemocracyfareMay 31 2008, 15:29:05 UTC
The concept of "Will of the People" is but an absurdity used as a lie to further the power of politicians over people.
Of course, the Two-Party System is but an equilibrium of Democracy (and beyond, of Politics - see the Guelphs and Ghibellines), that is perturbed by various events. But unless Democracy itself is destroyed by catastrophic such events, it will naturally return towards this equilibrium. The case of Hitler but exemplifies the typical break down of Democracy: politicians bribing people with their own money until none is left ("reparations" to allies increased the pressure), followed by a dictatorship when the voter is desperate for a way out of misery.
As for a change for the better - you'll have to either educate the public to shift the median voter, or deceive the public into voting for you anyway. But as far as education goes, Democracy has perverse incentives, and as far as deception goes, the prophets of easy way out have an edge
( ... )
Comments 4
Reply
Most democracies at most time have two parties or alliances of parties. Because the only way to have any weight in politics is in trying to tip the balance around the median voter (see the median voter theorem). The more there is a winner-takes-all, the more the two-party system is pronounced. And if you don't play the game, it's as if you don't vote, which is why "serious" voters will vote in one of the parties that stands a chance.
Proportional representation and two-turn voting may lead to there being many smaller parties, but said party will usually organize according to two alliances. A powerful third force sometimes takes the place of a defeated party, but after reorganization around the new two parties, the dynamics stay the same.
As for "believing" - sure, voters believe in the Synopsis, but ask as for satisfaction about the winner, any voter, he'll say the elected politicians is too far to the right or to the left. Because he isn't the median voter. And even the median voter who thought the two politicians were pretty ( ... )
Reply
Nothing in the form of democracy prevents any of today marginal parties (or better: ideas) from repeating similar kind of success without adapting to the opinion of median voter. Only thing that prevents them is the will of the people.
Reply
Of course, the Two-Party System is but an equilibrium of Democracy (and beyond, of Politics - see the Guelphs and Ghibellines), that is perturbed by various events. But unless Democracy itself is destroyed by catastrophic such events, it will naturally return towards this equilibrium. The case of Hitler but exemplifies the typical break down of Democracy: politicians bribing people with their own money until none is left ("reparations" to allies increased the pressure), followed by a dictatorship when the voter is desperate for a way out of misery.
As for a change for the better - you'll have to either educate the public to shift the median voter, or deceive the public into voting for you anyway. But as far as education goes, Democracy has perverse incentives, and as far as deception goes, the prophets of easy way out have an edge ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment