'68 all over again?

[garote]

It has been well weird seeing the reactions to the protests and looting in the news.

Especially the "conservative" news. Tucker Carlson leads the charge here, by proclaiming that the protestors and the "liberal media" are directly responsible for - and encouraging of - vandalism and looting, because they hate white people and they hate America. And that "statistics prove" that twice as many white people are shot by police than black people (strangely failing to mention that black people make up %13 of the population) In other words, all those angry brown people protesting are just a bunch of hoodlums who hate the police and want free reign to commit crime.

Which is really obviously paranoid and ignorant, and yet it’s apparently what a lot of people in this wack country believe.

This all happened 50 years ago. And just like then, it's leverage to get a Republican elected.

Here's how it works:

First, assume that there is absolutely no middle ground between encouraging crime, and severely punishing crime. Second, declare that the other side (Democrats) are encouraging crime, because they are on the criminals' side, because the criminals are a threat to Republicans who are all "decent people", and Democrats are happy when Republicans get killed. Third, promise to crack down on these criminals in exactly the way the Democrats won't.

And ... pull up the curtain to reveal your Republican candidate du-jour. Ta daa!

We are going to be hearing about these protests for the next 100 days straight, as loud as possible, from people like Tucker Carlson. The perfect fear-stoking smoke screen over the last four years of crass, divisive rhetoric from the commander-in-chief, and his complete lack of progress on anything but the standard court appointments and graft.

Comments

[tcpip]

Although in this case I can't imagine the Republicans revealing a new candidate, unless the party splits.

Which they should. Yes, it means that they'll get smashed, but best to cut out that cancer that is Trump and the alt-right.

[garote]

Oooh that'll never happen. :)

It's an interesting situation, really. For a long time I believed that the best solution was to go with ranked choice voting, so the stranglehold of the two parties could be broken organically.

Then I read about a theory: The US survives as a single nation despite 200 years of fractious issues because the fringe groups - whenever they appear and whatever their demands - are forced to associate themselves with one of the two major parties to get any political traction at all. As a result, the major parties remain bloated and full of their own infighting, rather than small and refined. Thus, when they do get into power, the fringe groups feel that they have some representation and are less likely to resort to extreme measures outside the mechanisms of government to get it. (E.g. terrorism, sabotage, encouraging revolution.)

[tcpip]

> Oooh that'll never happen. :) <


Ross Perrot did :)

> For a long time I believed that the best solution was to go with ranked choice voting, so the stranglehold of the two parties could be broken organically.<

It still is the best choice, really. Even if it has led to some bad results here in AU.

Like most things about democracy an informed voting public is necessary.

[garote]

And why is it the best even though it’s led to some bad results?

I'd certainly agree that it seems to make the most sense mathematically: The party that pleases the most people the most intensely gets elected.

But there is the question of what such a system does to the nature of political parties.

[tcpip]

> And why is it the best even though it’s led to some bad results?<

As per my caveat. All forms of democracy need to have people making informed decisions. People who rank badly will still generate bad results, even if ranked choice is a good method.

[garote]

The "informed decision" is a moving target. Obviously we don't live in a world where everyone is adequately informed, or we would need only one party to represent them. And there are moral issues with ineradicable gray area that must be translated into law. E.g. assisted suicide, law enforcement, reparations for slavery, usage of public land, preservation efforts.

Given that there will always be some portion of the public that is not adequately informed, or just plain doesn't agree, the question of how those people deal with their lack of representation is an important one.

Ranked choice voting means that the party that manages to place itself most squarely in the middle, declaring the most broadly appealing goals and as few of the contentious ones as possible, always wins. What stops it from effectively creating a one party system, in content if not in number? There could be 100 parties, but the least contentious one is guaranteed victory every time. Eventually the country is brimming with a bunch of agitated outsiders who want change but will never be able to vote it in. Is that democracy a success, or a failure?

[(Anonymous)]

The actual experience of ranked-choice voting certainly doesn't suggest that the least contentious, middle party, is the one that always wins.

[tcpip]

Sorry that was me.

[garote]

It probably depends on the contest being decided. San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley (the area where I live) have been using it in local elections for a while, and to me that makes a lot of sense because it's generally a contest among individuals. It's when parties - and a large voter base - get involved that I suspect things might go sideways...