What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

Voting Thread Open!

Hi all,

This thread is a part of a new series I'm starting on fostering improved solution-based civil discourse, if you haven't read Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse you should definitely check it out! It basically goes over some of the problems which I feel contribute to our society's constant failure to get much of anything done, one of which, being a severe political division and ever-increasing levels of polarization which hamstring our elected representatives, and leave citizens unwilling to engage with one another to resolve disagreements.

But the fact of the matter is, we are going to disagree at times. That is part of living in a society with freedom of thought. That doesn't mean that we should avoid discussing issues where there is disagreement. Nor does it mean we should start calling each-other names or be content to just endlessly point fingers. What we should do in such cases, Is ask ourselves how are we going to resolve those differences?

The obvious answer (at least in the broad sense), is that we should strive to establish some democratic resolution mechanisms. I would hope that we could all at least agree upon that much. And if not, then I seriously worry about our future. But simply having a democratic system to resolve our differences, does not mean that the system we put in place is automatically perfect...Obviously, there is always room for improvement, and I believe that our own (U.S.) system is well overdue for some. Because as technology advances, and as the issues themselves change over time, so too should we evolve our democratic systems.

Why do I say we are overdue for this? Well...as many posters on this site have already pointed out,

Obviously there is an issue with the way things are set up now when comments like these have become commonplace. So the question is, what can we do to purge the rampant partisan dysfunction in Washington, and by extension, in our own lives? I have my own ideas of course, which I'll post below, but I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on what the solution(s) might be.

-Meta

 

Ideas so far:
-Replace Plurality Voting With Instant Runoff (A Form of Ranked Choice Voting)
-Replace Plurality Voting With Ranked Pairs (A Form of Ranked Choice Voting)
-Replace Plurality Voting With Approval Voting
-Split into Two Separate Countries
-Replace Plurality Voting With Jungle Primaries Plus Top Two Runoff
-Grant All of State Electoral Votes to Candidate Who Wins >50% of State Votes
-Do Away With Legislation And Live In a Society of Judges Without Presidents Legislators or Written Laws
-Have Schools Teach a 10th Grade Class on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
-Put More Emphasis on Teaching Kids Critical Thinking skills and About Logical Fallacies Data Analysis and Statistics
-Teach Our Kids About Propaganda Advertising Demographics and Their Effect on a Population
-Teach Kids More History and Teach and Involve Them More in Civics and Debate
-Expose Kids to Controversial Ideas Early On
-Make Sure that the More Viable Third Party Candidates Get Included in Debates
-Commence Warfare
-Reinstate Fairness Doctrine/Equal Time Rule for the Media

 

So...what do I think we need to do in order to end partisan dysfunction?
In short, We need to Dump FPP Plurality Voting!...and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place!

My belief is that all that dysfunction we so frequently see in politics stems from the fact that our current system is inherently set up to favor the existence of two, and only two, major parties. Aspirations of independents/third or fourth parties having significant say or representation, are quickly snuffed out by the realities of our election processes. Moderation between the two so called 'main' or 'major' parties is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Since they are each essentially in a position such as to be unchallenged/unchalleng-able by anyone else they are incentivized to endlessly demonize one another to win elections rather than focusing more on convincing the voters of why it is that their policies are what the country needs. Successfully sliming the other party in this case, leaves voters only one other realistic choice, so mud slinging and fervent demonization has unfortunately become a characteristic staple of politics. And that demonization and more often than not unnecessary mud-slinging really only acts to make it that much more difficult for sides to come together in compromise when it comes time to do so.

And no, the perpetual dominance of these two parties over everything else, and the increasing un-moderated division between the two, is not merely because American voters want it that way. If Americans actually wanted what we have now, one would think we wouldn't be seeing declining rate of confidence nation-wide as the parties continue to become ever more polarized.

​

There is a reason for why Washington and other founding fathers warned against two-party politics...and I believe we are seeing it now.

Opinion of the Republican Party falls to all-time low
Views of Democratic Party hit lowest mark in 25 years

And yet, despite our seemingly clear desire for a better, more functional, government...
time and again we as citizens have chosen the same types of politicians, from the same two parties which have failed us in the past. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which being campaign finance related issues, and media coverage. But the most impactful reason in my opinion by far, is encapsulated by a simple question that any voter might ask themselves when they walk into that voting booth and have to make a choice between three or more candidates...

"Do I vote for who I like/who I think will do the best job....or do I vote for who I think can win?"​

Some might jump to blame the voter themselves for whatever option they might choose.
But the way I see it, the very fact that anyone ever has to even ask themselves such a question is a serious flaw in and of itself, and is the key factor in our system which leads our country to the current two-party duopoly that many of us so despise. In fact, its so bad, that the mere existence of this sort of quandary can prevent a lot of the better and or more moderate candidates from running at all, as they too have to ask themselves a similar question when making such decisions.

​

But the path to breaking up that caustic two-party duopoly is not really all that complicated when you think about it. All we really need to do...is to make things fair for third parties by, again, immediately Dumping FPP Plurality Voting!...and instituting a Ranked Voting system in its place...

Doing so makes it possible for a popular third party to have substantial say in government,
and that would naturally tend to decrease division over time by forcing compromise, cooperation, and ultimately moderation. Its very presence as a meaningful force in congress would give lie to the binary thinking we currently see in Washington. And when voters are no longer forced to pick between extremes, It will lead to the re-emergence of a much needed middle-ground.

As it is now though, the rift between the two major parties is so wide and empty,
that to disagree with one side is to automatically agree with the other, to agree with one is to disavow the other. Or so the saying goes. This sort of false dichotomy is not healthy for a democracy. What we want, or should want, is to give voters more options. Having viable independents/third/fourth/fifth parties is particularly useful in cases where both of the current major parties are disliked. But please please please do note that the current non-viability of such candidates is not simply due to a lack of effort on their part; no, the system itself is inherently stacked against such candidates in an unfair way due to the booth question I mentioned earlier.

​

If we change the system to actually give third parties etc. a fair shot, it would force the two current parties to moderate... either shift their policies to better reflect what the people actually need and want...or, if they cannot, disappear and be replaced by a third party that can. In fact, the whole idea of representative democracy is that we're supposed to be able to replace representatives that are not working out... if the system as we have it set up, does not allow for us to efficiently replace our representatives or the parties in power when they are no longer liked...then it is the system itself that needs to be replaced.

And I know what some of you might be saying... having a third or fourth party, on par with the current two parties, might make for a more difficult choice for voters to make as they head off to the polls. And I would definitely agree that it is easier to choose between two options than it is to choose between three or more, But artificially limiting the number of options one can choose from also removes from them a certain amount of agency... agency which I personally would prefer to keep, for to remove it is to end up with scenarios where for, e.g. voters are forced into choosing between two options neither of which are liked (no one wants that). Its where the whole lesser evil thing comes in. Or to put it another way, if you were going to take your friends out for ice-cream, all else being equal, would you take them out to the shop boasting a full range of flavors, or would you take them to the one that only had vanilla and chocolate?

Which is why I say again, we need to send FPP Plurality Voting straight to the trash-heap of history where it belongs! and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place...

I seriously cannot stress enough just how bad our chosen FPP Plurality election method is for deciding anything other than a genuine two-choice inquiry. Its basically one of the worst options out there as far as it comes to enabling voters to voice their desires. But to really understand why, I believe that we also need to again get past this habit of binary thinking and understand/acknowledge the fact that there are often more than a mere two options for any given referendum. To our detriment, we artificially limit ourselves when we ignore that fact or insist upon using a system which is unable to fairly accommodate people choosing what they want from among all of the options, without having to risk inadvertently increasing the chance of getting something they favor the least.

Really, about the only advantage that FPP Plurality has is its simplicity.
And while simplicity can be a good thing, over-simplicity is not. As a famous person of history once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". And while it may have at one time made sense to use FPP Plurality, back when the whole idea of democracy was fairly new, and no one really quite knew how it would all work out, I believe the issues we face today have shifted to such a degree that FPP Plurality voting is now far too simple for the job we need it for.

...So what does that leave us with?...
It turns out, there are plenty of other options out there. Below are only a few.
Some work better for certain types of votes. Pretty much all of them would be better than what we have.

Instant Runoff - This method allows for multi-candidate elections while significantly reducing the chances of things like spoiler candidates or tactical voting. And when I say significant...I mean that there is almost no chance of those issues occurring under this system. Imagine an election but with a runoff vote, well this is basically that multiple times except you only have to poll the voters once. This method also gets props for being very easy to understand.

Ranked Pairs (or other Condorcet method) - this method is slightly more complex than instant runoff, but its advantage is that its essentially the 'perfect' method, if our measure of perfection is simply the ridding of spoiler candidates and tactical voting,
as it is literally impossible for those issues to occur under this method. By definition a Condorcet method is one in which the winner of the tally would always beat out any other option in a one on one election (assuming such a winner exists).

Approval Voting - In my opinion, this (non-ranked) method isn't the best one for contests in which there can be only one winner, though its popular in some circles for that purpose. Where it shines above the other methods imo though is in multi-option referendum type votes where more than one 'winner' option can be chosen. Voters here pretty much just say whether or not they approve of options, (they can approve of how ever many they want), and options which receive over a certain percentage of approval (say, 50%) or the top (x)# can be implemented or instated. It is simple, and can be used by itself or in combination with the other two for certain votes.​

Implement any one of those, and not only will you see our politicians begin to moderate and function more effectively, I believe that even the voters themselves will change for the better as they are forced to think more about the choices they make come election-time and will be less inclined, hopefully, to always think of things in terms of black and white.

Now, I don't expect changes like these to happen soon/overnight, or to occur without ample further debate. But its high time that we as citizens at least get the conversation going on this and start to spread awareness that there are significantly better alternatives than what we have. We have the technology to do this...we now need only inform our fellow citizens and generate the political will.

To help us out, I'm going to be putting together a few, special polls/'Demonstration' votes, to illustrate how the alternative methods work in practice, and how they compare to the antiquated FPP Plurality method. I'll start with something simple, uncontentious, inoffensive, inconsequential, and noncontroversial just to demonstrate the concepts. Then I'll move onto actual political topics, and eventually, maybe even a vote on the election methods themselves once I'm sure folks have a good understanding of them.

List of Planned Votes

Note: this isn't some official politicalforum event or anything like that. Think of it more as...an experiment/demonstration. Though I do believe the results will say something about the politicalforum community. Whatever that may turn out to be, I suppose we'll all just have to take it as it is. And having said that, I'm just as interested in finding out what folks opinions are after having participated in these alternate systems, and seeing how that changes, depending on whether or not their favorite options get chosen as winners. When I set up the votes, I'll be sure to post and link them here, so keep an eye out. For now though, what are your thoughts on these alternative election methods? Do you agree that they are a good way to tamp down on partisan dysfunction? If so, do you think elections of all types and levels should make the shift? Or perhaps only certain ones? And what other things can we do as a country to improve the way our government functions?

Thanks for reading,

-Meta

 

Great Idea!
I added that one to the list.

 

I completely disagree with the idea that violent conflict is a necessary outcome of disagreement (even in a country as polarized as ours).
Besides, if you really think that's where we're headed given our current system, surly then you would agree, wouldn't you,
that we ought to at least give a different system (say Instant Runoff) a try before we up and start shooting each-other. Right?

Also, in your example, there are basically still only two sides even when you added the third person.
In other words, there were no moderates in that bar. Second, I don't see how the gun was necessary to the analogy at all.
And third, like you yourself alluded, in that scenario there is no reason for the first guy, practically or morally, to participate.
In a true democratic system, there are typically plenty of reasons morally and practically for participants to want to be involved in the process.
Each person tends to get something out of it, even if they don't necessarily get everything that they want all of the time. That's how compromise is supposed to work.

So a better example I think, would be to think of two guys sharing a ride to a bar.
One guy wants to go to a bar where the drinks are cheap and where they crank the music up to 11.
The second guy wants to go to a bar with soft conversation-facilitating music and drinks so expensive that the first guy can't afford them.
So who gets to choose? Assuming they can't get another ride and the bars aren't next to each-other,
they can either say, screw it, and just not go anywhere, or perhaps they can take turns.
But now add in a third person, a moderate. And the three gents will end up settling on that one bar down the road
where the music is moderate and the drinks, while not the cheapest, are still affordable.
Sure, not a perfect outcome for either of the first two guys, though the moderate will surely like it,
and at least guy one will be able to buy a drink and guy two will be able to hear himself think.

-Meta

 

What are you talking about? Where have ever said anything about replacing Americans or Ethnic Cleansing???
It seems to me, that your post is based on the exact sort of harmful false-dichotomy binary thinking I was talking about in the OP.
In other words...the type of post you just made is actually part of the problem. You assumed, based on who-knows-what,
that I am not on, your side. You assume that there are only two sides. You assumes that if I am not on your side, I must be on this other side.
And then you assume based on that, that I must believe things of which I know for a fact I have never stated or posted anywhere!

Do you think what you posted was helpful in any way? Do you think it is beneficial for civil discourse or for reducing dysfunction,
for people to unilaterally assign beliefs to one another? To pigeonhole each-other into ridiculous and or narrow positions that they've never claimed to support? If so,...I'd love to see you try and explain how.

-Meta

 

Are you talking...Articles of Confederation?

I don't believe there is ever going to be a system in which everyone always gets exactly what they want.
But like I was mentioning before, that's kind of how compromise is supposed to be.
Everyone gets a little of what they want. Or that's the ideal anyways.

In a democratic system, the goal is not to satisfy everyone 100%,
but to generate the largest amount of satisfaction for the largest cross-section of a varied populous.
Our current voting system tries to approximate, but I believe the alternative methods would do a much better job.
Either way, whatever we do, I'd still consider it at least a win, if we could figure out how to solve our issues without having to pull out the guns.

But I am curious, supposing the only change to our current system we could make was to the election method.
What is your opinion of something like Instant Runoff as it compares to FPP Plurality Voting??
Would you say that one is better than the other? Do you think they're both exactly the same?
Please let me know how you feel about them. Thanks!

-Meta

 

In which case, they'd probably each just end up paying for their own drink.
Add in a third guy, we still can't call him a moderate though, because there aren't opposing views to moderate between in this case.
The first two guys each essentially have the same position of self-interest with no additional differences in what they want, other than that.
So the third guy comes in, and we'll say his position is simple self-interest too, and all things being equal, we end up with the same result.
Assuming there aren't any factors pushing any of the men to single out one of the others,
in the end each guy still ends up paying for their own drink.

But that doesn't really tell us all that much about voting, as it relates to things like Plurality vs Instant Runoff which is why I didn't think it was a particularly good analogy, at least the way its constructed now. I think you could probably tweak it a bit though.

There's a lot that taxpayers get out of government. So-called welfare is only a piece of what government does.
And one does have to consider the bigger picture. Consider things like protection from the military, police,
firefighters, or availability of various types of infrastructure. These are just a few ways that taxpayers
benefit from having government around, and there are plenty of others. That said, there are certainly
serious flaws in how a lot of that stuff is provided, welfare included, and we should do what we can
to improve upon how those things function. If we happen to disagree on how things should be improved,
well then...that's where our democratic processes ought to come in.

??

Remember, in that example the men all had to share the same ride, not much unlike how all of us are forced to share a country. They don't particularly have any use for the others, though perhaps they just enjoy eacother's company. Either way, if they don't cooperate, then you wind up with a situation in which either some or all of them don't get to go to a bar at all.

So, assuming that their ride/gas and or friendship required them all to go to the same bar,
how would you have them decide on which bar to go to, if not democratically?
Take turns perhaps? One bar one week, another the next?
But you still got to decide on which to visit first.

-Meta

 

What is your opinion on things like spoiler candidates and tactical voting?

-Meta