Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[dman11235]

I'm not going to say what good ideas are, but you can't honestly think that all ideas have merit, because "I think we should legalize puppy rape" is an idea, but not a good one at all.  We shouldn't have to even bring it up.  And I agree with the "more ideas" thing, but what I'm saying is that not all ideas are good, and only reasonable ideas are worth counting.  So if you have someone saying that their tax plan involves only those who already have a lot of money being able to keep any of their money, effectively returning the economy system to a modernized version of the feudal system, that person should be laughed out of office when trying to say that this system is the most free and best for everyone involved.  Not encouraged with blanket statements of "all ideas are useful".  My point is this: If you have a large number of choices, but only one or two are even worth considering, then you only have the illusion of choice, and there are only one or two choices.  This works for game design, and it works for government design.  Right now, we have two choices in the government: Republican and Democrat.  The Democrats encompass a number of different ideas, while the majority of Republicans encompass a single shared idea.  All of the other parties are not valid choices for one or more of a couple reasons: no base, no platform, identical to another choice, or is terrible.  The Tea Party is identical to another choice (Republican), so it's not actually a new choice, it's just a different name for more of the same.

[altpersona]

the tea party is a new choice

compare it to pepsi and coke
add the tea party and you have coke zero.

its still a coke product but it is different while having a solid coke legacy.

the tea party is not identical to republicans. the tea party is a combo of repubs and indies who are far more conservative and generally more prone to conspiracy than regular repubs.

[darqueseid]

I understand what you are saying but something Hegel said that I do understand is that "The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees positive merit in everything."

To me this means the student looks for error to dismiss an idea, but the wiser we get we see the merit in even bad ideas. Merit in bad ideas? Yes because we learn from bad ideas just the same as we learn from good ones.

My main problem with what your saying is that its against freedom of choice.  In any democratic form of governement, even a "democratic republic", people should have the ability to pick puppy rape if they want to.  All options should be available. If you have faith in democracy then you should have faith that the correct choice will be made.

The two party system tends to shoot down otherwise reasonable choices because of one or more bad ideas. 

if I put up a candidate who's main platform was everything you agree with and a majority of people agree with, but he also said "I also think we should legalize puppy rape". he wouldn't go very far in one of the two major parties.  but if we had a multi-party system, people with good ideas could gain some modicum of power, regardless of their wacky ideas.  I have faith that the reasonable ideas would come to fruition in a multi-partisan way, and the wacky would be killed in committee. 

Ron Paul's a great example of this.  As much as people may hate him i agree with some of his views on getting us out of all these foreign entanglements and spending.  But because he has some wacko ideas, he doesn't really get a voice.  Sure he'll be talking at the convention and that's nice, but he won't garner much clout EVEN for his reasonable ideas. 

but what I'm saying is that not all ideas are good, and only reasonable ideas are worth counting. 

People don't have to make a choice based on reason, in fact it seems like they rarely do.  The electorate is comprised of a group of people, and people (especially groups of them) aren't exactly known for making reasonable choices.  the difference in what they SHOULD do and what people actually do is pretty wide on this point.   Pretty much any decision based on religious views are not reasonable and thats a LARGE and vocal majority of the country.

Edit:
It was no mistake that I stated "faith" in democracy for this reason, because democracy may not be the best form of government-it has failed quite often in the past.  It is an act of faith to trust in our democratic system, not necessarily reason.

[dman11235]

I wasn't talking about reason, I was talking about reasonable choices.  If you're hungry, then it's not a reasonable choice to satiate that with a punch to the nuts.  The later has nothing to do with the former, it's a non sequiter.

You don't seem to be getting this, but the major problem with our republic now is not a lack of choices (there's a ton of parties out there), it's that none of them are viable choices (they suck or won't win no matter what happens).  This isn't a problem that's solved by just throwing things at it and hoping it goes away, that's a very government view of things.  It is to introduce more better quality choices.  If there is a third choice that is desirable compared to the other two, then that choice will get attention.  If there's 500 other choices that are all undesirable compared to the other two, then only the relatively good two will get sufficient attention.

On your quote: just because we can learn from them doesn't mean we should pay attention to what they say.  You can learn that being punched in the balls hurts.  It's not a good idea to be punched in the balls.  That doesn't mean I should hear someone out when they say they have an idea about punching me in the balls.  That's why you learned it in the first place.  If you learned that and did nothing with the information, you just wasted the learning experience.

[skydragonknight]

Speaking of a viable third choice, I really wish more people would run for Congress as Independents, so they could vote based on the merit of the ideas presented in a Bill rather than what their party leader is screaming at them over the phone to vote for. But sadly with the invention of things like Super Pacs, it's ridiculously hard to get the level of funding necessary to make your voice heard over the blaring sirens of attack ads the main parties throw around.

[darqueseid]

I wasn't talking about reason, I was talking about reasonable choices.  If you're hungry, then it's not a reasonable choice to satiate that with a punch to the nuts.  The later has nothing to do with the former, it's a non sequiter.

You don't seem to be getting this, but the major problem with our republic now is not a lack of choices (there's a ton of parties out there), it's that none of them are viable choices (they suck or won't win no matter what happens).  This isn't a problem that's solved by just throwing things at it and hoping it goes away, that's a very government view of things.  It is to introduce more better quality choices.  If there is a third choice that is desirable compared to the other two, then that choice will get attention.  If there's 500 other choices that are all undesirable compared to the other two, then only the relatively good two will get sufficient attention.

On your quote: just because we can learn from them doesn't mean we should pay attention to what they say.  You can learn that being punched in the balls hurts.  It's not a good idea to be punched in the balls.  That doesn't mean I should hear someone out when they say they have an idea about punching me in the balls.  That's why you learned it in the first place.  If you learned that and did nothing with the information, you just wasted the learning experience.

I find it impossible to discuss the subject of free expression without a common frame of reference.  Read John Milton, Read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty,  Read Voltaire etc etc. 

The concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary.  In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas.

The two party system constrains the free flow of ideas as Skydragonknight just illustrated, you cannot gain power or hold it unless you "toe the party line" on issues.  You cannot get elected without party backing, so you better have the same views as the party. 

Independents are the only representatives that have a chance to be true representative of the people. But as was also pointed out, money speaks volumes too.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who holds office at a national level isn't in some donor's back pocket and the two party system is partly to blame for that because of major donors to one of the two major parties.   

At the very least more parties would mean people could come to compromises easier, in that you might not be totally constrained from working with the  "other side", since there wouldn't be just one other side...  and while I'm opposed to all this money in politics, more parties would mean the money would be spread around more and its effect diluted somewhat-never a bad thing. 

I'm not saying its a solution for all the governments problems, all I'm saying is that more parties, viable or not,  would be healthy for democracy. 
 

[dman11235]

I'm saying that more good parties would be beneficial and necessary.  I'm also saying that more parties period would not necessarily be beneficial.  They qualifier "good" has to be there, because otherwise they won't actually change anything.  Again, we already have a ton of parties.  It's just that we don't hear from 99% of them because they all suck.  Not only that, but in the case of the Democrats, the reason they never get anything done is because they are so varied in ideas that they end up opposing themselves at times.  So there is indeed variety, but you don't see it because none of the choices are good.  I'm going to use a gaming metaphor now to help explain this.

In class selection in D&D, you have a number of options, correct?  There's about 60 or 70 base classes, and countless PrCs.  If you're trying to make the best possible situation (note, best refers to most efficient, best for the campaign at hand, same as you would when choosing a public official, you want the best, not the most fun or handsome), then you can safely ignore most of the classes.  So are you choosing from a selection of 70 classes?  No, you're choosing from a selection of 10 classes.  All of the others aren't even worth considering.  Same thing with politics.  If you have two parties who have legitimate things they want to get done to help their jurisdiction, and then 500 who have ideas ranging from "free weed for everyone!" to "kill all minorities!" and those are their only ideas, then you can safely avoid voting for them.  they don't get elected, those ideas never come to the table, everyone wins as far as that goes.  They aren't capable of doing the task, so they get no attention.  That is how it should work.  really, the best way to do it is a party-less system, and have individuals run on their own merit.

So basically, just adding a bunch of worthless parties to the system (which has already happened) won't change anything.

[bhu]

No we dont hear from 99% of them because they have no money backing them.  Keeping the two party system is in the interests of current business and political leaders, they can't allow another voice they don't have control over.  Even if a 'good' party were to arise it would quickly be demonized in the press or quietly co-opted via money.

[darqueseid]

No we dont hear from 99% of them because they have no money backing them.  Keeping the two party system is in the interests of current business and political leaders, they can't allow another voice they don't have control over.  Even if a 'good' party were to arise it would quickly be demonized in the press or quietly co-opted via money.

this +1

Who's to say that more parties are automatically going to be trash?  Certainly the Republicans and Democrats WANT us to believe that no other party is valid but their own.  Bhu's right they don't get heard because they get quashed by the two-party system, not solely because their ideas have no merit. 

Sure, some of the ideas don't seem to have merit on their face, but even wrong ideas sometimes contain an element of truth.

And again, its dangerous for anyone to say we'll only accept the "good" parties because who is the arbiter of what is good?  Dman are you prepared to make the decisions?  Are we going to elect the people who get to make that choice?   Well I'm not comfortable letting any one person and especially not groups of people who have a vested interest in quashing new ideas be the people that make that determination. 

Sure, of course, having only more "good" parties would be the best case scenario, but you have to take the good with the bad. Otherwise you've introduced a form of censorship in the very worst place.  Even if it seems like the right thing to do, its very wrong; especially when your talking about political expression.

[dman11235]

Entry number 4.  By saying that you claim that this idea has merit worth considering.  You are correct that sometimes seemingly bad ideas are actually good ones (two great tastes that taste great together: garlic and ice cream.  Or ice cream and just about anything.), but this is not a 100& occurrence by any means.  That's my point.  There is a ton of merit in having ideas heard, and I've not once condemned that.  All I've said is that discretion is allowed in this, and can be beneficial.  And I'm not saying that we have someone determine the value of the people and groups running, in fact, I'm saying the opposite.  I'm saying that because most people want to do the right thing, the better groups will succeed in a perfect system.  And I'm saying that because a number of the groups involved are not worth diddly squat outside of their own tiny circles, the public keeps them out of the running themselves, through not voting for them.  That is a major reason why we only have two parties.

@bhu: mostly true.  A good portion are probably like that.  However, a good portion are also not being allowed on the voting stage because they are genuinely bad ideas (I'm sure there's a white supremacist party out there, or a black supremacist, or a Christian supremacist, or any number of supremacist, heck, there's probably a political party focused on just about anything, and since a number of things are bad, a number of political ideals are bad).  Your co-opting thing?  Tea Party, Libertarians.  Both consumed into the Republican party, but the Tea Party more so.

Another reason we have two parties, however, is because the average person can't handle more than two choices.

So there are a few reasons, and I have not once said that there was only one, and it was that it's because none of the others are any good (that "they suck" thing was referring to all the reasons, including suppression by the leaders, lack of attention, and they are terrible ideas).

[darqueseid]

Entry number 4.  By saying that you claim that this idea has merit worth considering.  You are correct that sometimes seemingly bad ideas are actually good ones (two great tastes that taste great together: garlic and ice cream.  Or ice cream and just about anything.), but this is not a 100& occurrence by any means.  That's my point.  There is a ton of merit in having ideas heard, and I've not once condemned that.  All I've said is that discretion is allowed in this, and can be beneficial.  And I'm not saying that we have someone determine the value of the people and groups running, in fact, I'm saying the opposite.  I'm saying that because most people want to do the right thing, the better groups will succeed in a perfect system.  And I'm saying that because a number of the groups involved are not worth diddly squat outside of their own tiny circles, the public keeps them out of the running themselves, through not voting for them.  That is a major reason why we only have two parties.

So much to take issue with here,

#1)  People used to think the sun revolved around the earth too , so much so they crushed any opposing beliefs... In fact most of what we have been CONVINCED was true in human history has since been proven false.  There is no way your going to convince me that anyone has all the right answers now, especially not politicians greedy to hang on to power.

#2), yes, I believe allowing people to drink and drive is a bad idea like most do, that's why its illegal.   The people who are of the mindset that we should let them drink and drive are in the minority I should add and have little hope of getting their idea passed.  But even in being wrong there may be an element of truth, some drivers may be fine to drink and drive, and some drivers pose no more risk drunk than they do sober (their terrible drivers sober so alcohol doesn't do much to make them worse).  But where that argument breaks down, for me,  is that society is not willing to risk lives to go out and figure out which people are good drunk drivers.  Nor are we willing to allow you to go drive drunk to figure this out.  HOWEVER, some people believe that it is a good idea, obviously, so those people should be able to have their say don't you think?  perhaps MOST importantly, I believe in freedom of expression, so I will defend to the death their right to say it, their right to organize, and their right to create a political party based on their shared beliefs. 

#3) Of course we're allowed discretion.  Where we seem to differ is that the voter is the only one who gets to discriminate the good from the bad.  In a way Your saying that your fine with the current parties making that choice for people, which I oppose.

#4) Most people want to do the right thing? This assertion is so absurd it is laughable..  Even if I accepted your notion as true for all of society(which I doubt), I wouldn't accept it for politicians, not even close.  Most people do whats right for themselves, politicians especially; I haven't yet seen a politician on the national stage that I felt was totally selfless-not one in my lifetime...   Maybe we have had some in the past, and sure I've gotten my hopes up, but they've all been disappointing lately.

#5) better groups succeed?  Are you kidding?  the republicans are way worse than several of the other minor parties.  The ONLY reason they exist and wield power is because they are the party of the rich-they have the backing of the establishment money.  On this I don't think there can be any argument.

#6) Perfect system? This is a system run for the people, by people; it can never be perfect, until people are perfect.

#7) The public can't vote for something that isn't there.  if the green party candidate, the independent, the libertarian isn't on the ballot they can't get voted for.  Most of the time these names are stricken, because the establishment doesn't want them on the ballot... its not just the people who keep them out, its the establishment.  Not to mention the intentional disenfranchising of voters, the "clerical errors" and such that contribute to inaccuracies in voting.  Your crazy if you think these things aren't intentional, and backed by powers that be.   

@bhu: mostly true.  A good portion are probably like that.  However, a good portion are also not being allowed on the voting stage because they are genuinely bad ideas (I'm sure there's a white supremacist party out there, or a black supremacist, or a Christian supremacist, or any number of supremacist, heck, there's probably a political party focused on just about anything, and since a number of things are bad, a number of political ideals are bad).  Your co-opting thing?  Tea Party, Libertarians.  Both consumed into the Republican party, but the Tea Party more so.

Just because they're supremacists doesn't mean we get to silence them.  Again, we live in a country with free speech, they have freedom of expression, organization as much as you do to organize and give the opposite view. 

Another reason we have two parties, however, is because the average person can't handle more than two choices.

so stupidity backs up your argument?  great.  In our system, thats partly the governments fault.  we have free public education, and if it sucks, its because the government didn't (doesn't) invest enough into it (not just in monetary terms).  If education sucks, then voters will be dumb, and its all downhill from there.

So there are a few reasons, and I have not once said that there was only one, and it was that it's because none of the others are any good (that "they suck" thing was referring to all the reasons, including suppression by the leaders, lack of attention, and they are terrible ideas).

sure there are many reasons we have a two party system, among them being that they squash the other parties or co-opt them, which is wrong.

[dman11235]

Your number one is irrelevant to what I'm saying.  You were saying that every idea has merit.  I'm saying that not all ideas have merit, but there is a case for most things.  You are being absolute in your statement, which is what I am taking issue to.

Your number two is my point.

Your number three is the opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm sorry you feel that way with your number four.

Number 5: better is subjective, as you said.  The Republicans are better than all the minority parties because they are more powerful, assuming you judge "better" to mean "more powerful".  If you judge "better" to mean "more open minded about civil issues" then they are among the worst (but far from the actual worst).

Your 6 is taking my statement out of context.  I wasn't saying that a perfect system is what we need, I was saying that this is what would happen in a perfect system.  Continuing the idea I was trying to convey, as the system approaches complete imperfection, the efficiency of it reduces to 0%.  As the system approaches complete perfection, the efficiency approaches 100%.  We are currently in the middle, and at best we can get to about 90% I'd say with this system, assuming everyone becomes wholly good.  And do note, when I say "good" here, I am purposefully leaving it as an ambiguous meaning, as I have throughout this discussion.  I do that on purpose precisely because "good" is relative.

Just because they're supremacists doesn't mean we get to silence them.  Again, we live in a country with free speech, they have freedom of expression, organization as much as you do to organize and give the opposite view. 

Silence?  No.  Not what I'm saying.  Not give national stage and policy power?  Yes.  That's what I'm saying.  Since they won't (can't) get that power, they don't count as a choice.  You will note that this can change with the public's conventions of morals.

so stupidity backs up your argument?  great.  In our system, thats partly the governments fault.  we have free public education, and if it sucks, its because the government didn't (doesn't) invest enough into it (not just in monetary terms).  If education sucks, then voters will be dumb, and its all downhill from there.

Not stupidity.  Biology.  This applies to everyone, including you and me.  We have a disposition that makes it hard to see gray areas.  This is slightly a fault of culture, but the culture arose from biology.  It's not an intelligence thing though.

sure there are many reasons we have a two party system, among them being that they squash the other parties or co-opt them, which is wrong.

And I agree, as I have throughout this discussion.  I was just trying to get you to see that it's not the ONLY reason.  And that simply adding a bunch of parties won't fix things, even if the bigger two don't do the crushing and co-opting.

[darqueseid]

Your number one is irrelevant to what I'm saying.  You were saying that every idea has merit.  I'm saying that not all ideas have merit, but there is a case for most things.  You are being absolute in your statement, which is what I am taking issue to.

Every idea has merit, even the bad ones, if only to throw into stark contrast the good.  Assuming we agree to disagree on this point its not the crux of the matter anyway; the main issue is that people have freedom of expression and their views, good or bad, aren't allowed to be expressed on the national stage, because they aren't part of the 2 party power machine.

Your number two is my point.

I'm assuming you didn't read the whole thing as the however in there is pretty important.  lets say 2% of the population believes they should legalize drinking and driving.  well they should be represented somewhere in the government.  Even if its only 2%, they should still have a voice-AND they have a right to organize a party and voice it for themselves without a wealthy political machine descending upon them to co-opt or destroy them.

Your number three is the opposite of what I'm saying.

So you don't believe the voter should be the final determiner of the good and the bad?

I'm sorry you feel that way with your number four.

realism vs idealism.

Number 5: better is subjective, as you said.  The Republicans are better than all the minority parties because they are more powerful, assuming you judge "better" to mean "more powerful".  If you judge "better" to mean "more open minded about civil issues" then they are among the worst (but far from the actual worst).

sure, I think we agree here.  Said another way: More powerful does always mean one has "better" ideas (or even good ones in the case of certain parties).

Your 6 is taking my statement out of context.  I wasn't saying that a perfect system is what we need, I was saying that this is what would happen in a perfect system.  Continuing the idea I was trying to convey, as the system approaches complete imperfection, the efficiency of it reduces to 0%.  As the system approaches complete perfection, the efficiency approaches 100%.  We are currently in the middle, and at best we can get to about 90% I'd say with this system, assuming everyone becomes wholly good.  And do note, when I say "good" here, I am purposefully leaving it as an ambiguous meaning, as I have throughout this discussion.  I do that on purpose precisely because "good" is relative.

let me distill this if I can...

if you agree that we can never be a perfect system, then you must accept that some groups will get power not because they have "better ideas", but because they are established, or well supported, etc etc. (it seems we may already agree that this has happened)

if you accept the above you should agree that the establishment will do just about anything to hold on to the power they have gleaned, including killing parties that may have "better ideas". (again I don't think we were arguing on this point, but maybe)

If you accept the above assertions, then you must accept that the 2 party system does not promote freedom of expression and in some ways actively works against it. (argument here maybe)

If the two party system actively works against freedom of expression then it is a flaw in the system and should be remedied (you may argue as maybe you don't want free expression)

If the above is true, The only way (that we've presented thus far) to fix the flaw such that the voters are the deciding factor, is to allow all ideas to be expressed, IE all ideas to be represented in many parties instead of just two. (is there another solution?  if so, what?)

Just because they're supremacists doesn't mean we get to silence them.  Again, we live in a country with free speech, they have freedom of expression, organization as much as you do to organize and give the opposite view. 

Silence?  No.  Not what I'm saying.  Not give national stage and policy power?  Yes.  That's what I'm saying.  Since they won't (can't) get that power, they don't count as a choice.  You will note that this can change with the public's conventions of morals.

not counting as a choice is tantamount to silencing them.  The fact that it can be done on public convention of moral ground makes it even worse.   Morals, I hope you can agree, are not always right, in fact, are often very wrong.

so stupidity backs up your argument?  great.  In our system, thats partly the governments fault.  we have free public education, and if it sucks, its because the government didn't (doesn't) invest enough into it (not just in monetary terms).  If education sucks, then voters will be dumb, and its all downhill from there.

Not stupidity.  Biology.  This applies to everyone, including you and me.  We have a disposition that makes it hard to see gray areas.  This is slightly a fault of culture, but the culture arose from biology.  It's not an intelligence thing though.

I don't think people are biologically stupid.  (How do you go from optimist to cynic in 0.2 seconds??) I think people are pigheaded, in they always think their idea is right, and they are willing to crush the opposing idea, regardless of if it has merit or not.  Maybe that is biological, maybe learned, but it seems like even more of a reason to oppose only a 2 party system, because people are just going along with what has already been established.  And anyway, making a choice for someone else, without their consent is pretty wrong (even if you don't think they can handle it), especially when we are talking about political choice.

sure there are many reasons we have a two party system, among them being that they squash the other parties or co-opt them, which is wrong.

And I agree, as I have throughout this discussion.  I was just trying to get you to see that it's not the ONLY reason.  And that simply adding a bunch of parties won't fix things, even if the bigger two don't do the crushing and co-opting.

Again, what will fix things then?  I think more parties would foster more ideas and increase cooperation. I'm not saying its a perfect solution, nothing ever would be for an inherently flawed system, but do you have a better idea?   What is your big solution to stopping the partisan politics and co-opting we've discussed.  I think we an at least agree that it is a problem, so how do you fix it?

[dman11235]

I'm assuming you didn't read the whole thing as the however in there is pretty important.  lets say 2% of the population believes they should legalize drinking and driving.  well they should be represented somewhere in the government.  Even if its only 2%, they should still have a voice-AND they have a right to organize a party and voice it for themselves without a wealthy political machine descending upon them to co-opt or destroy them.

I read and understood the "however" and still agree with that.  They get a voice.  But the don't necessarily get their way.  In fact, they shouldn't get their way.  Because it's a bad idea.  And the other people involved in the system see to it that the bad idea doesn't happen.  See later for the discussion on voter knowledge.

So you don't believe the voter should be the final determiner of the good and the bad?

No, that's the part I agreed with.  The other part (the part you said I said) is the opposite of what I was trying to say.

realism vs idealism.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who specifically wants to do the wrong thing.  It's just that most people don't know what the right thing is.  Or more accurately, most people have differing views on "the right thing".

if you accept the above you should agree that the establishment will do just about anything to hold on to the power they have gleaned, including killing parties that may have "better ideas". (again I don't think we were arguing on this point, but maybe)

This is faulty logic.  They will do what they can and are willing to do, assuming that the power is even desired.  Which is a far cry from what you said here.  In the current system, they can and are willing to deceive others, cheat and steal from the system, and play propaganda.  If they weren't willing to do any of those things, it would be better, but still not be perfect.

Which is a problem, since your conclusion is something I mostly agree with.  I have always agreed that a two party system is inherently flawed.  However, I was also saying that a multi-party system can also be flawed.  In fact, the US government is run as a multi-party system.  It's just that only two parties matter.  So yeah, you can see the issue.  It's that the other parties aren't good enough to make a dent.  And I believe that if another party comes along and manages to be a valid third party, eventually one of the three parties will dissolve, leaving two parties again.

not counting as a choice is tantamount to silencing them.  The fact that it can be done on public convention of moral ground makes it even worse.   Morals, I hope you can agree, are not always right, in fact, are often very wrong.

It's not silencing.  It's exercising your right to vote.  They aren't getting represented because they merely aren't getting elected, which I would think is a good thing.  The reason they don't count as a choice is because they won't get enough votes to matter statistically.  So them running in no way shapes the election.  If they instead win, then they win.  And the electing group will have to deal with that.  Or do you believe that those who lose the vote should get policy making powers?

I don't think people are biologically stupid.  (How do you go from optimist to cynic in 0.2 seconds??) I think people are pigheaded, in they always think their idea is right, and they are willing to crush the opposing idea, regardless of if it has merit or not.  Maybe that is biological, maybe learned, but it seems like even more of a reason to oppose only a 2 party system, because people are just going along with what has already been established.  And anyway, making a choice for someone else, without their consent is pretty wrong (even if you don't think they can handle it), especially when we are talking about political choice.

Because it's not stupidity, it's biology.  We are not designed to handle that many choices.  No one can weigh that many (complex) choices efficiently, and so we only use two.  Complexity angers and scares us, it's just who we are.  Humans are by no means perfect, and are in fact far from it.  It's not stupidity, it's just our model version not being the best it can possibly be.  And yes, you are included in the "can only choose between two options" crowd.  Everyone is.  When faced with more than two or three options, we tend to freeze up a bit and think for a while.  this is our brain catching up to the information.  Eventually we will cut down the choices to two or three, THEN we can make a decision.  It's not cynicism, it's realism.  I'm a idealistic romantic realist.  And yes, it sucks.

Again, what will fix things then?  I think more parties would foster more ideas and increase cooperation. I'm not saying its a perfect solution, nothing ever would be for an inherently flawed system, but do you have a better idea?   What is your big solution to stopping the partisan politics and co-opting we've discussed.  I think we an at least agree that it is a problem, so how do you fix it?

I'll say the same thing I said at the start: more valid options.  Don't give options that are just terrible, no one will pay attention to them, so they won't really be new options.  We have options right now (there's countless parties, in fact, just go look them up), it's just that none of them are any good (or they are just like one of the two big parties but crazy), so no one votes for them.

[radionausea]

Because it's not stupidity, it's biology.  We are not designed to handle that many choices.  No one can weigh that many (complex) choices efficiently, and so we only use two.

I've been glancing over this thread (the politics involved are something I can't have an impact on) but this is tantamount to saying that Americans have a biological predisposition to stupidity compared to continental Europe where two party systems are abnormal. 

Even in the UK where we have an effective two party system (Labour and Conservative) we have a coalition government at present. And our system is polarised compared to a lot of other nations. (650 seats in the House of Commons [MPs representing Boroughs], 306 are Tory, 257 Labour, 57 Lib-Dem, 30 split between independents and smaller parties]

[veekie]

Its a matter of leverage I think. Larger countries find it easier to become polarized, because a party can gain sufficient dominance in one direction to quash another party's efforts in another using the liberated resources. Money talks, and that means upstarts gaining a foothold in one state, cannot compete with the cash and media resources of the other states combined, even if you only take the leftovers.

[dman11235]

It's not stupidity, since it's the norm.  Even over there, you have very few choices that you actually make your mind of.  And when given three or more choices, people tend to disregard one or more when making a decision.  I am over-simplifying the phenomenon, but it's basically how the mind operates with regards to choices.  In the UK, I see this happening.  You have two major parties, a third not so large party, and then a bunch of others that few people vote for.  So you managed to get a third in there before the coagulation of the system, effectively, but people still choose mostly between the Labour and Tory.

And you may not realize that you're doing this, but you do do it.  When making a decision between a large number of choices, you pare it down to two or three, and then actually start making a decision.

[skydragonknight]

It's inherently how human beings solve complex problems - by breaking them down into simpler ones. In math when there are several variables, you use what you know to attempt to eliminate as many as you can in order to create a simpler problem that is easily solvable. In psychology, you can take what seems like a complex problem in an individual and work away the layers and more often than not find a relatively simple root cause. In chemistry you could have a molecule composed of several hundred atoms, but when looking to see if it will react with another molecule, you typically only need to look at a few key sites that have a partial charge.

Nearly any complex problem can be solved by breaking it into its essential components and eliminating the peripheral components until only a few core components remain. For the problem of 'which party represents me', people will typically pick a number of decisive issues they can count on one hand and side with who they perceive as the best party on those issues*. If two parties reasonably represent them on those issues, a person will go for the stronger party, since they will have more ability to take the appropriate actions. If given a choice between a weak party that perfectly represents them and a party that somewhat represents them but it far more powerful, a person will more often choose the more powerful party, since they will have a higher success rate in general and so on average will progress that person's goals more than the party that represents them better. And so a stronger a party is, the more people will vote for it by default if it even remotely resembles their views. You basically multiply the power of the party by how much it represents you to get the expected return, and compare. Since you really only care about a few core issues (the others are merely tiebreakers), it isn't too hard to weigh expected return in your head and either have a clear outcome or "too close to call". The candidates themselves of course add an extra dimension, especially if they deviate from the party norm, but that's a peripheral component for a lot of people.

*I will assume for the moment the person in question makes their choice rationally rather than rationalizing their choice. Perhaps a foolish assumption, but this is science!

[darqueseid]

Because it's not stupidity, it's biology.  We are not designed to handle that many choices.  No one can weigh that many (complex) choices efficiently, and so we only use two.

I've been glancing over this thread (the politics involved are something I can't have an impact on) but this is tantamount to saying that Americans have a biological predisposition to stupidity compared to continental Europe where two party systems are abnormal. 

Even in the UK where we have an effective two party system (Labour and Conservative) we have a coalition government at present. And our system is polarised compared to a lot of other nations. (650 seats in the House of Commons [MPs representing Boroughs], 306 are Tory, 257 Labour, 57 Lib-Dem, 30 split between independents and smaller parties]

I was going to bring this up, but you beat me to it.   

and your exactly right; just because people naturally distill choices doesn't mean that they can't handle multiple ones.  At least not everyone has difficulty seeing gray areas, some countries have 7 different VIABLE parties of which the voters decide and they come up with a coalition.   Even if you argue that all of Europe isn't that way, your basically saying that countries like italy, or Israel or even french Polynesians are smarter than Americans(and the british) because they can handle making these decisions

In fact, if you look at the list of countries with democratic governments, multiple different viable parties is more prevalent than the countries with just two.  (autocracies and such don't count, they are single party systems and most agree they are bad)

and you seem like your attacking your own argument, when you say that people "handle multiple choices by distilling them down to two".  if your arguing that "people can't handle multiple choices"; and then you turn around and give us the exact methodology that people use to do what your saying they can't, your not making any sense.  Regardless, Distilling them down to two is one method, but not everyone uses that, some can handle making the right choice out of multiple, without distilling.

beyond that;

Nearly any complex problem can be solved by breaking it into its essential components and eliminating the peripheral components until only a few core components remain. For the problem of 'which party represents me', people will typically pick a number of decisive issues they can count on one hand and side with who they perceive as the best party on those issues*. If two parties reasonably represent them on those issues, a person will go for the stronger party, since they will have more ability to take the appropriate actions. If given a choice between a weak party that perfectly represents them and a party that somewhat represents them but it far more powerful, a person will more often choose the more powerful party, since they will have a higher success rate in general and so on average will progress that person's goals more than the party that represents them better. And so a stronger a party is, the more people will vote for it by default if it even remotely resembles their views. You basically multiply the power of the party by how much it represents you to get the expected return, and compare. Since you really only care about a few core issues (the others are merely tiebreakers), it isn't too hard to weigh expected return in your head and either have a clear outcome or "too close to call". The candidates themselves of course add an extra dimension, especially if they deviate from the party norm, but that's a peripheral component for a lot of people.

This is what I'm on about, your not talking about people choosing the party or the representatives that best support them, people are choosing the party because its powerful.   THEN the party becomes more powerful, and more people choose them, feeding the beast, and it only grows larger and larger and it begins to crush or absorb other viewpoints.  It becomes an establishment party, with people choosing that party for no-other reason than because its that party.  Or worse, they choose it because there's no other choice that comes close to representing their values.  People talk about "holding their nose" to vote for the other party all the time-in fact i've heard it more in recent years than ever before. 

Also I never said more parties would solve all our problems in fact I pointed out that it will always be an imperfect system, I just think it would be more healthy for our government in a lot of ways if we had more parties. 
So far I've listed the following reasons in one way or another:
-more freedom of expression (because powerful parties tend to kill or absorb the ideas of newcomers)
-it limits establishment Power brokers (parties that get to decide who they back in elections they know they will win thereby feeding into their power base)
-Provides more choices for voters so they don't have to hold their nose and support people they don't like
-further limits the power of money (I'm opposed to it in politics, but more parties means the money would be more spread out)

I'm not sure what your arguing at this point, we seem to agree on much, but I think all of the above are valid points and support my position.  If there's a counter-argument to be made FOR a two party system then by all means go ahead.

[dman11235]

Could you please stop using the terms "smarter" and "stupider"?  It's not an intelligence thing, there's no learning involved.  It's about our ability to process choices.  We process one at a time and have a hard time deciding between more than three choices, and it's even easier to decide between two.  That's just how we are.  If you have more than this number of choices, you will pare it down until you only have this number of choices.  In the US, this has manifested as a nation-wide two-party mentality which extends beyond just politics.  This is a result of our culture.  In other places (but not every other place), it has distilled in a different way, but the mentality is still present subconsciously.  It's the "with us or against us" mentality, by the way.  It is ingrained into our DNA, so every person has this.  The number of political parties has no bearing on it.  When a country has more than two political parties, this is an indication that they have more than one, not that the people are smarter or have better brains or anything.  They still distill their individual choice to two or three.  And no, this is not contrary to my argument.  Again, I have always supported having more than two parties.  I have always said that more parties generally equals good.  This is an explanation as to why we have two parties, and why breaking it will be hard.  And as for the supposed contradiction: When you decide between 500 things, all of reasonable worth, and whittle it down to two or three and then make a final decision, you are not deciding between 500 things.  You are deciding between a successive 2-3 things that when added together equal 500.  Each decision is still made between two things, it's just a way of getting around that limitation.  Even the people who decide between multiple things at once are still doing this, it's just quieter, and sometimes faster and sloppier.  Does that make sense?  Continue with this and you can have more than two parties in politics, because some parties won't count as the decision for some people, and others for others.

I have not once said "I want a two party system".  I think that would be bad.  I did say that I want a multi-party system where the parties don't all suck.  The issue I took with your remark is that it was absolutist.  You claimed that simply adding parties to the system would help.  I've been trying to point out that the type and quality of the party matters.  If you add a ton of terrible parties that no one will vote for to the system, they aren't really doing anything to alleviate the issues of the two party system.  The thing that needs to happen is that people VOTE for other parties.  Simply existing will (and does, since there are a ton of parties right now) do nothing.