SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.
"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."
Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.
The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.
More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Monday January 27 2020, @08:31PM (28 children)
Firstly, we (US) have many parties, but only 2 get most of the votes. And I think that's more the point- that we do have many options, but people mostly choose D or R.
I think there are many (obvious) factors, and a large one being $ spent on advertising, and generally $ involved in campaigning. I think the money machine is probably the main problem. I've been aware of it for more than 20 years, and it's always the root problem. I see no way to solve it.
Another is "popular misconception". People are fiercely passionate about this or that, but are usually very misinformed, or only know isolated bits of, not the whole truth. A great example: when I was a kid I remember GreenPeace (IIRC) being fiercely against nuclear power. More recently, the founder / head of GreenPeace reversed himself, realizing that coal and gas are much much worse for the environment. Narrow-minded, short-sighted, misinformed, hyper-focused- many ways to name it, but lack of wisdom (foolishness) is what I call it.
There's a psychological factor in that people want to belong to a group. Most animals tend to stay in groups.
But one of the biggest problems: USA was founded on representative government. But IMHO, govt. does not truly represent the people. They represent 1) people with money, including lobbyists (which I hate mostly), and 2) issues that get news coverage. Which gets back to the concept that the news media largely steers USA.
I don't think we USAians are apathetic. Sorry if it appears that way- I think we're largely unempowered and we know it, but some of us vote anyway.
You made an interesting comment/observation that both major US parties appear right of center. Remember that USA is pretty young, and was open and wild and about as close to extreme right capitalism as any somewhat civilised country has ever been. We descendants have inherited those ways, and it's not easy to adopt more leftist policies. Someone always gives up something, or perceives potential loss.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday January 27 2020, @08:57PM (4 children)
I look at it as an education problem: for example, the black voter preferring Biden. All i ever hear is that the 'average black person' is under employed, uneducated and not able to make ends meet.
And yet, they support Biden, who is a 'rich person' supporter. I would think they would support someone like Warren or Sanders, who would help them more and help them get ahead (free college education, tax the rich, etc)...
...and yet, they support Biden.
I do. not. get. it.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27 2020, @09:23PM
You aren't educated enough, then.
A shock dose of FauxNews may correct that. (large grin)
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Monday January 27 2020, @10:46PM (1 child)
I think many blacks support Biden for (one of) two reasons:
1) He was Obama's VP, and has been on the national stage for a long time, and they're used to him;
2) They think he's the most likely to win. (While I don't agree with that, if you look at the polls you can make a decent argument for it.)
And, of course, as a group they're not informed all that much better than the average white guy (except that they're less likely to watch Fox News).
I don't think it's necessarily because they like Biden, or think he will be particularly good for them. But another 4 years of the Twitterin' Narcissist could erase a century's progress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27 2020, @11:09PM
3) Being party establishment, he'll make sure that dole moneys will still flow to the underemployed black community, while replacement citizens are brought in from elsewhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 28 2020, @02:08AM
It's the same as in 2016. The black voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary in the primaries, even though Bernie supported policies that would have benefited them far more, while Hillary was cheering for Goldman Sachs. BLM protesters even crashed one of Bernie's rallies in WA state.
Black voters are just like poor rural voters, and really most US voters. They very, very strongly vote against their own economic interests.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mykl on Monday January 27 2020, @11:38PM (22 children)
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday January 27 2020, @11:51PM (15 children)
Great ideas, I mostly agree.
#2: I've heard that a lot all my life, and I don't get it. What if there is a truly good representative in office? Toss them out because years? I think if you implement 1 & 3, and some much stricter limits on campaign finance and advertising, you won't need to restrict terms- we the people will decide that.
All that said, I get that an incumbent is well known, and a challenger may not be, so it's not quite a fair competition. Need to think a long while...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @12:41AM (2 children)
The reason why major democracy reform groups support term limits is because being in office is basically one giant, running ad. In addition, the "ad" is often either free (through press coverage of the official's activity) or paid for by the taxpayers (through official activities). Without term limits, the argument goes, every time a limit comes up, you will force all parties to campaign from scratch and lose the incumbent advantage they get from the "ad" and built-in name recognition. Whether or not it actually accomplishes that in practice is the subject of quite a bit of debate and scholarship.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:13AM (1 child)
The problem with term limits in legislature is that it tends to toss people out just as they finally know the job and have good working relationships with the other representatives. So the only ones that know anything wind up being the lobbyists. Who already write enough bills, thank you very much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @07:23AM
Yeah, I get it has problems too, especially in lower and legislative offices. I was just trying to explain the key positive that many groups see in them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @12:53AM (4 children)
Ah, but what about if the current government truly represents Americans?
It certainly matches up well with all the stereotypes of the vulgar American redneck tourist pretty closely. A government ready to compromise core values in return for oil (Saudi Arabia anyone?). A people who believe that it's their manifest destiny to rule the world, while betraying their allies and overthrowing democracies and installing puppet tyrants (the shah of Iran).
You already have a government that perfectly reflects the population - easily led (ask Putin), believing your economy is the strongest in the world while you can't afford universal health care that other countries take as a basic human right, incapable of enforcing taxes against the rich so you just pass laws allowing them to keep the money same as any 3rd world dictatorship, a corrupt political financial regime, rampant racism, misogynistic and anti-"get, that's pretty much a government that represents the USA.
All empires come to an end, mostly from internal strife. Why should the USA be an exception? Or more to the point, how could it not eventually come to an inevitable end?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:21AM (3 children)
The horror... The horror...
(so horrific that you have good chances to be right!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:32PM (2 children)
Well, you know how it is - truth is not just stranger than fiction (everything in The Handmaid's Tale is happening to women somewhere in the world at this moment), it's stranger than we can even try to imagine.
Anyone remember Nehemiah Scudder [wikipedia.org]? We've gone WAAY beyond that in the 80 years since it was written (it's set in the years after 2012, so he n got the date right).
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:44PM (1 child)
I missed reading this one!
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:10PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @12:58AM (6 children)
Ummm... what makes a good representative? Policies or personal traits?
If the first, the identity of the person doesn't matter much - you can throw him out.
If the second, the risk of the person to "go rogue" in regards with the policy is high enough to consider throwing him out.
If both in the same time? Now, that's hard! In any case, sticking with such a person on long term it's very likely to be polarizing.
Who should you love more - thy neighbor or thy representative?
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:03AM (5 children)
Neither - I forget the official logical fallacy but you only offered 2 options then argued your point.
I know I'm vague, because it's difficult to define, but the answer is in the word: representative. Representing their constituents. Evenly, fairly.
I think they need a more tiered system like a good organizational structure. One senator covering 20 million people is not good math for good representation. I know they have many approachable people working for them, but I still think it needs better structure. Maybe I'll do it. :) Time to run for office.
But I forgot to include one of my strongest tenets: I don't like terms much anyway. I think we need to be able to vote them out more quickly. Maybe quarterly would be good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:17AM (1 child)
Senators, at the national level, represent States, not people. It's the House of Representatives that represents the people. I'm not entirely sure what the difference between senators and representatives is in those state governments that use both.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:55AM
You mean state senators in bicameral legislatures? They used to have a similar function to federal senators, representing regions, but that was invalidated by the Supreme Court deciding that the "one man one vote" principle was binding on the states.
So they are now elected like representatives, but there are fewer of them and their districts are larger and they may have longer tenures in office.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:59AM (2 children)
False dichotomy? Yeah, naaah, mate.
1. I offered 3 choices (one, the other or both). So it'd be a "false trichotomy" (grin)
2. you discounted the (large grin). Now, I lost the link to (a very old now) comment on S/N explaining what my (grin) does mean, so I'll try to paraphrase: "it means that c0lo is goofing around, wasting everybody's time, and it's your fault if you take him seriously". Now, I reckon you can extrapolate what a "large grin" may mean.
If voting often is not a problem, how about direct democracy [wikipedia.org]?
True, TANSTAAFL, everyone will need to pay attention and think a bit about the initiatives (and their consequences) they are about to vote; but the advantage... oh, yes, baby! No more whinging about how it was the Hellary's or the Orange Clown's fault when the things turn ugly (eh, I wish. I don't know about reason or intelligence, but for sure rationalization really differentiates humans from the rest of animals - grin; but only a small one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:50AM (1 child)
Sorry, I got you, and I much like you and your style, wisdom, humor, views, etc. :)
What would 4 be, quadcotomy? Or maybe lobotomy?
I tend to hold this political stuff in and when I do let it out, I can be a bit passionate. But I'm still holding back. Some things seem super obvious to me, like that we need more frequent elections, and less campaigning. Being a descendant of the American Revolutionary there's a bit of fire in me. You know, someone's got to take this stuff seriously and do something about it!
I've pondered direct democracy for a long time. Well, the Founding Fathers discussed it, and decided that 1) communication was too slow in those days- too cumbersome for everyone to discuss issues, and 2) sometimes the masses are just plain wrong, misinformed, partially informed, etc. Look at lynch mobs, riots, etc. Better that a few wisest people specialize in knowledge, wisdom, and governing.
But we're back to the popular misconception problem- it's guiding the voters.
How about this: semi direct democracy: official elections on issues, results are tabulated and published, tabulated and published by nation, region, state, county, district, and then we decide how we like the senators' and representatives' job performance. And we'll all know how people really feel about certain topics, rather than what $ can buy in advertising, lobbying, congressional influence, etc.
I've used sarcasm, cynicism, subtle humor, etc. here, but too often people don't grasp it and argue inappropriately, downmod me, etc. I'm trying to learn to be more clear and exacting. I struggled much with writing growing up. Had to have some tutoring. Phenomenal English teacher in college helped me greatly. But I'm still behind... I guess it's better to be behind, than be a behind... ba-dump.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:57AM
To slip on my pedantic hat, there is a distinction between "false dilemma" (presenting only two choices when there are more) and "false dichotomy" (presenting as distinct two choices which aren't actually disjunct).
"False choice" takes care about the generalization to "limiting to N choices when there are more" - even if, when N is high enough, it becomes hard to tell if we are seeing a "deliberately false choice" or just "human imagination limits" (or, for the matter, a mixture of the two; or even other motives not necessary "chotomical" one with the other... large grin).
I don't know how to call "mashing together heaps of options that are neither distinctive nor making a comprehensive set". Maybe... I don't know... call it "a referendum used in the exercise of direct democracy"? (large grin)
1. no longer an issue based on the technical reality.
2. wouldn't be an issue if not artificially maintained so.
You mean something like "creating an artificial scarcity of time to make one's mind in regards with the politics"? Or, less pretentious: "Keep 'em busy and may the best dog wagger among us be the winner".
1. Why, isn't one secondary advantage of the "gig economy" and the "keep them working 3 jobs just to stay afloat"?
2. If that's not enough, how about the DDoS of non-sense news to exhaust the remaining bandwidth/processing power of a wetware that was not educated into critical thinking anyway.
Ummm... regarding that "representatives' job performance".... there's something called imperative mandate [wikipedia.org]. It has been tried a couple of times, didn't get working for long enough when it was tried.
Look mate, seriously, a question you need to answer yourself to: how much of you is you, how much of you is others and if you like the point of balance between the two.
Speaking about myself: I'm serene and at peace. With myself.
Maaaybe not at peace with all the others but, really, does it matter? (grin)
I don't know about that. Being an asshole on S/N has some sort of "je ne sais quoi", something familiar and full of an ageless charm, a full-bodied flavor of long passed times.
Yeah, yeah. I guess some may call it "the smell of an old fart" and dismiss it in the "Ok, boomer" category, but is still good fun.
You don't actually need to let this hold you back, just look at TMB... Besides, remember? "when a man has to go, ...."?!?
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @02:30AM (4 children)
With term limits, they know they need to have a job lined up after, so they're more likely to be corrupt, granting all sorts of political favours so that they can have seats on boards of directors, become lobbyists themselves, etc. This will just accelerate the pace of corruption.
Problem is, there is no solution. People who seek power are the very people who should never be given power.
It would be better to pick politicians by random draw, or from a group of homeless folk - at least the homeless won't aspire to steal billions. They would be far more likely to be so grateful that they would do everything that they can to live up to the position, unlike the politicians who say "I was born for the job of President!" or who lose twice and won't take "fuck off Clinton" as an answer because they think it's their "destiny," that they're "owed" it.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:06AM (3 children)
See my above answer, but basically- elections much more often, maybe quarterly. Might make 'em pay attention to the job at hand, which is the People.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @02:05PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:17PM (1 child)
Being an engineer, I may be too practical for politics. I agree with you 100% in principle, but practically: how do you get congress, or anyone, to give up power? It took a Revolutionary War in 1776 to do that. Can't do that again.
Many congress members have suggested and even started legislation to limit terms, limit campaign finance, etc., but how are you going to get a power-hungry group of mini-despots to give up some power for the greater good?
Maybe we can pass out free bottled water to congress, that we import from our good neighbors Canada, and we don't tell them about the special ingredients.
Okay, ball's in your court. :)
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:51PM
Given the rising inequality in the US, some sort of insurrection is probably inevitable.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by Jay on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:31PM
This is one I've struggled with, because some elected officials are really, really good, and people very much appreciate what they do. I think I just came up with a solution, however:
After 2 terms you must primary, and each primary you need 50% + 10%*#of primaries to stay in. So after your 2nd term, your next primary you need to win with 60% of the vote, the one after 70%, etc. That way if you're awesome and everyone loves you, you can still stick around. But once even a small percent of people are sick of you, you're likely going to be out. And at some point even if everyone loves you to death and there's no competition, you're still out.