2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Lexicus]

It would change the bottleneck that forced each forced coalition non-party to have to have a majority of their constituents support someone they'd rather not, sit at home, or "waste their vote on a protest gesture on the ballot." Also, the "extreme right-wing," politically is not nearly big enough in number to dominate the electorate in a multi-party environment on it's own - I don't know where you got that idea (probably from people with distorted and paranoid views of reality like Ms. Strife) - but they're actually, statistically, a small minority of the population - just very vocal and in your face - much like the extreme left-wing in the U.S., in fact. A sense of perspective and proportion are very important qualities, despite the fact it's become fashionable of late to flagrantly cast such qualities aside and ridicule them in others.

Funny to me that you believe the US should adopt a multiparty system yet are unaware of how such systems can produce situations where a minority has the balance of power between two or more larger factions and can thus play "kingmaker".

 

[Patine]

Funny to me that you believe the US should adopt a multiparty system yet are unaware of how such systems can produce situations where a minority has the balance of power between two or more larger factions and can thus play "kingmaker".

I am well aware of that situation. I am well-versed on many nations' forms and situations of governance. However, "kingmaker," parties are not always, or even usually, extremists, and, even if they are, there have been MANY instances of Heads-of-Government willing to make a show of conviction by engineering the fall of their own governments and gamble with the electorate rather than continue to take the crap of increasingly onerous demands from such a "kingmaker," party. Also, such a circumstance is an outlier problem compared to perpetual and consistent issue of "all-or-nothing," government in a two-party system. So, while you have incorrectly and embarrassingly misgauged my lack of knowledge of multi-party systems, it would SEEM your view of them focuses on bad stereotypes and unfortunate outliers, which seems to a viewpoint, when advocated, that only serves the status quo.

 

[Hrothbern]

I am well aware of that situation. I am well-versed on many nations' forms and situations of governance. However, "kingmaker," parties are not always, or even usually, extremists, and, even if they are, there have been MANY instances of Heads-of-Government willing to make a show of conviction by engineering the fall of their own governments and gamble with the electorate rather than continue to take the crap of increasingly onerous demands from such a "kingmaker," party. Also, such a circumstance is an outlier problem compared to perpetual and consistent issue of "all-or-nothing," government in a two-party system. So, while you have incorrectly and embarrassingly misgauged my lack of knowledge of multi-party systems, it would SEEM your view of them focuses on bad stereotypes and unfortunate outliers, which seems to a viewpoint, when advocated, that only serves the status quo.

I think the most basic issue with a two party system is that the struggle between factions within one of those parties happens outside the democraric control of "the people".

And Kingmakers...

Within a two party system... within these parties... you can still have Kingmaker factions.

1+1
rather Kingmaker parties visble and choosable by "the people" than Kingmaker factions within the antichambres of a party


(not even mentioning that minority points of view and plurality are in general much better served when people can vote for them... the constructive positive vote)

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think the most basic issue with a two party system is that the struggle between factions within one of those parties happens outside the democraric control of "the people".

And Kingmakers...

Within a two party system... within these parties... you can still have Kingmaker factions.

1+1
rather Kingmaker parties visble and choosable by "the people" than Kingmaker factions within the antichambres of a party

I'd fully agree but it should be said that a multiparty system isn't a magic wand for good government and it doesn't prevent corrupt parties dominating a countries politics for decades, the Christian Democrats did for over 50 years in Italy.

 

[Hrothbern]

I'd fully agree but it should be said that a multiparty system isn't a magic wand for good government and it doesn't prevent corrupt parties dominating a countries politics for decades, the Christian Democrats did for over 50 years in Italy.

agree !

 

[Patine]

I'd fully agree but it should be said that a multiparty system isn't a magic wand for good government and it doesn't prevent corrupt parties dominating a countries politics for decades, the Christian Democrats did for over 50 years in Italy.

But I'd say that multi-party systems have a MUCH better track record in the direction of good government and accountability, on average, than a two-party system.

 

[Hrothbern]

But I'd say that multi-party systems have a MUCH better track record in the direction of good government and accountability, on average, than a two-party system.

yes
in general yes... but no guarantee

What are in general the success and fail factors of a multi party system ?

If you compare it with monopolies of big companies... I think as long as a small party can campaign at equal terms with the established parties... you have a competitor where people can vote on. Even the potential threat will already work to some degree.
Compared to two party systems this is essential because "the people" can vote on the outsider... instead of them whining that the party establishment blocks everything.
But also in multi party countries the hurdle can be big to get trust from the voters... and you need in practice several elections to grow to substance.

To get campaigning at "equal" terms it will help if the public state funds an adequate campaigning budget based on amount members and/or polls at defined dates.
Is after all cheaper for the public state than big financial "gifts" from companies or wealthy people that have ofc need to be "paid back" after the elections.

 

[Estebonrober]

I suspect that is entirely true for an awful lot of countries.

But gross incompetence, misplaced priorities and wishful
thinking are rarely grounds for establishing criminal intent
behind reasonable doubt and imprisoning ex leaders.

If you bothered reading the article there is a moment in which a group around Kushner came to the conclusion that since it was only Blue states suffering from the outbreak they could afford to ignore it for political reasons and blame Blue governors for the slaughterhouse numbers. This crosses incompetence. misplaced priorities, and wishful thinking and walks right into criminal malfeasance.

I guess I should clarify that what I meant about going after the previous administration criminally is that this administration will have broken so many laws and norms that the adversarial nature they have developed against everyone not them will lead to a terrible result. This kind of story really upsets people and it will motivate people to act through anger.

 

[Estebonrober]

It would change the bottleneck that forced each forced coalition non-party to have to have a majority of their constituents support someone they'd rather not, sit at home, or "waste their vote on a protest gesture on the ballot." Also, the "extreme right-wing," politically is not nearly big enough in number to dominate the electorate in a multi-party environment on it's own - I don't know where you got that idea (probably from people with distorted and paranoid views of reality like Ms. Strife) - but they're actually, statistically, a small minority of the population - just very vocal and in your face - much like the extreme left-wing in the U.S., in fact. A sense of perspective and proportion are very important qualities, despite the fact it's become fashionable of late to flagrantly cast such qualities aside and ridicule them in others.

That statistically small group has a completely outsized effect on my government right now and its supporters hold a large chunk of administrative positions, from DoJ to Land management to immigration to WH advisors. Also just because some of us disagree with your ideas and you solutions does not mean you should be so antagonistic. I think you vastly underestimate the alt right here and I bet you are underestimating in Canada as well. . .

 

[Patine]

That statistically small group has a completely outsized effect on my government right now and its supporters hold a large chunk of administrative positions, from DoJ to Land management to immigration to WH advisors. Also just because some of us disagree with your ideas and you solutions does not mean you should be so antagonistic. I think you vastly underestimate the alt right here and I bet you are underestimating in Canada as well. . .

The Primary system of elimination to two meaningful candidates, cutting out, often, the majority of voters' desired choice in any GE, is the reason for this, "statistically small group has a completely outsized effect on my government right now and its supporters hold a large chunk of administrative positions," at least from 2016 till now because of a certain Primary election, and certain GE election results where, for the sixth time in American history, the majority choice of voters was ignored because of the Constitutional relic of the EC that was originally designed to appease Slaveholders and, IRONICALLY, prevent a Populist from getting into the White House. It's not matter of "being antagonistic to those disagree with my ideas and my solutions," - the fact is, the results would almost certainly have been different if a functional multi-party had been in place in 2016. That's the logical and intuitive conclusion, not just "my opinion." Also, in Canada, we don't have a socio-political faction called "the Alt-Right," (that is SPECIFICALLY an American group and movement), and our far-right analogs, like the Proud Boys waving their Red Ensign flag around, the Nationalist Party of Canada, National Citizens' Alliance, some of more extreme Western Province Separatist Parties and Movements, and the ghosts of Zundel and other's old KKK/Neo-Nazi groups don't have NEARLY as much traction here.

 

[Ajidica]

I actually read the US constitution once.

I never bothered to read their statutes. So I shall take what you say as read.

Reading the Constitution to understand the responsibilities of the modern US federal government is like reading the Magna Carta to get an understanding of the responsibilities of Parliament.

 

[Zardnaar]

We have proportional voting here. Things get dragged towards the center. We're way more liberal than USA and the Greens have 5% support.

We have 5 parties in parliment, after this election probably have 4 might even be 3 as the greens are on the borderline.

After Covid though support for the right has collapsed, Greens and Labour are polling around 60-65% combined.

We're also looking at a situation where Labour is going to win an outright majority. MMP was supposed to prevent that.

In USA Trump could have done some MAGA rallies in New York and California. Hilary winning not guranteed.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If you bothered reading the article there is a moment in

I have reread the article.

It does not seem to provide any evidence that the Kushner group plan would have worked OR was ever actually put to Donald Trump.


However I do note the overtly significance involvement of financial capitalists:

Countries that have successfully contained their outbreaks have empowered scientists to lead the response. But when Jared Kushner set out in March to solve the diagnostic-testing crisis, his efforts began not with public health experts but with bankers and billionaires. They saw themselves as the “A-team of people who get **** done,” as one participant proclaimed in a March Politico article.

Kushner’s brain trust included Adam Boehler, his summer college roommate who now serves as chief executive officer of the newly created U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, a government development bank that makes loans overseas. Other group members included Nat Turner, the cofounder and CEO of Flatiron Health, which works to improve cancer treatment and research.

A Morgan Stanley banker with no notable health care experience, Jason Yeung took a leave of absence to join the task force. Along the way, the group reached out for advice to billionaires, such as Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen.

It is to me the cringing intellectual corruption that assumes that because bankers and millionaires are successful
in making money, they are generally competent and can solve medical problems; that I find most significant.

What also isn't clear to me is whether that group had any formal responsibilities allocated to it
e.g. specific role under the US healthcare statutes.

Of more interest regarding POTUS culpability is:

According to one participant, the group did not coordinate its work with a diagnostic-testing team at Health and Human
Services, working under Admiral Brett Giroir, who was appointed as the nation’s “testing czar” on March 12.

Now that is a formal position, and I think that we can assume that Donald Trump knew of the appointment of Admiral Brett
Giroir, and more important as Commander-in-Chief, the Donald has a line of command responsibility there.
If I was looking for evidence to prosecute the Donald, I'd rather look at the recorded communications there.

Reading the Constitution to understand the responsibilities of the modern US federal government is like reading the Magna Carta to get an understanding of the responsibilities of Parliament.

Good comparison.

 

[Arwon]

I would say that local government actually matter quite a lot, but that it tends to exhibit the same dysfunctions regardless of who is nominally in charge, so people mostly treat it as if it doesn't matter.

I should note here I'm writing from a place where we don't have local government at all, and in the rest of the country they mostly just run garbage collection and sport fields. It may be a bit different in other countries but I'd maintain that nobody cares about other countries' local council elections.

 

[mitsho]

It‘s actually less about Multi- versus Two-Party systems. I‘d rather put the difference in what the parliament in question does. Long explainer incoming:

Spoiler :

There are „working“ and „talking“ parliaments, or rather these are aspects every parliament does, but some do more of one thing. F.e. In both US chambers, there‘s hardly any work done: Law proposals come fully formed into the chambers and then are voted upon, sometimes they get sent back or another thing is added to the law. But no committee debates results in „let‘s increase that tax here by 0,4%“ or „let us also include this type of car in that category of environment-unfriendly cars“. Because these questions are asked and answered in the US before the laws ever get to the floor.

Which isn‘t necessarily bad, but in combination with a two-party system just leads to a lot of intransparency and frustration with the public: „They do whatever they want in Washington“. It also leads to one party just dominating the law-making side for two years and then a rapid swing back. It also makes the opposing party complain loudly on the floor and with every procedural trick they have, which results in the „talking“ part. The law proposals of the democrats that die in the senate right now are just that: they are talking to the American public „look what we would (!) do“.

Compare that to f.e. Germany which also has a „talking“ parliament in that few laws are actually prepared in the committees. But since a coalition holds the power instead of a single party, these two parties have to agree beforehand. In Austria the coalitian parties even have set exceptions for them where they can look for other parties to get the majority. Working parliaments are for example the European parliament (because there is no government to yell at and there is just such a big diversity in members of parliament) and the Swiss one (because 4 out of many parties form the government, changing coaltions exist in parliament).

What I am trying to say: As long as both the US chambers are just „playing theatre“, it‘s no use to abandon the 2-Party system. Rather, what the US system does is put the coalition building before each election, whereas most other put it either just after one (coalition governments) or during the law-making process (concordance governments).

(The third aspect of a parliaments work is „supervising“, i.e. like the impeachment process or any other function of supervising/controling other institutions of the state such as whether the intelligence agencies are allowed to do this or that. This doesn‘t necessarily have to be public by the way.)

So yeah, political science is complicated and the context always matters. Also with regard to the role of local governments, I didn‘t know that f.e. The mayor of Melbourne can‘t really do much apparently.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I should note here I'm writing from a place where we don't have local government at all, and in the rest of the country they mostly just run garbage collection and sport fields. It may be a bit different in other countries but I'd maintain that nobody cares about other countries' local council elections.

Whether it matters is rather different from if we care about it.
Our local government runs lots of important things but due to most of its funding coming from central government and Westminster dictating how most of its spent the locally elected politicians aren't all that important.

 

[uppi]

It‘s actually less about Multi- versus Two-Party systems. I‘d rather put the difference in what the parliament in question does. Long explainer incoming:
What I am trying to say: As long as both the US chambers are just „playing theatre“, it‘s no use to abandon the 2-Party system. Rather, what the US system does is put the coalition building before each election, whereas most other put it either just after one (coalition governments) or during the law-making process (concordance governments).

I disagree. The true coalition building does not really happen before the election, because it stops as soon as the primaries are decided. After that, there is no need to make any concessions to a political faction, as long as the opponent's policy would be (or is perceived to be) worse for that faction . A "vote for me and I'll do X" becomes "vote for me or the other guy will screw you over". So the true "coalition" of the winner represents maybe 30% of the primary voters.

And then this "coalition" is very informal and enforcement of any agreements is extremely indirect if it happens at all. This all means that control of the political agenda is in the control of relatively small groups while large groups are virtually disenfranchised.

A multi-party system would alleviate these issues, but of course this would not be the solution for all problems. There are enough other design flaws in the US constitution.

 

[IglooDame]

Now that is a formal position, and I think that we can assume that Donald Trump knew of the appointment of Admiral Brett
Giroir, and more important as Commander-in-Chief, the Donald has a line of command responsibility there.
If I was looking for evidence to prosecute the Donald, I'd rather look at the recorded communications there.

A clarification, Admiral Giroir reports to the Surgeon General as part of the US Public Health Service, a uniformed component of the Dept of Health and Human Services, so it doesn't have much to do with the President's role as C-in-C, albeit as a federal agency is still firmly an executive responsibility.

 

[EnglishEdward]

A clarification, Admiral Giroir reports to the Surgeon General as part of the US Public Health Service, a uniformed component of the Dept of Health and Human Services, so it doesn't have much to do with the President's role as C-in-C, albeit as a federal agency is still firmly an executive responsibility.

Thank you for that clarification.

It seems to me that the key thing here is unless the POTUS has personally intervened there has to be, amongst other things, an
assignment of dutiies and some form of reporting line to the President to hold the President responsible for criminal negligence for staff failings.

My best guess is that his son-in-law was appointed without any clear terms of reference or assigned duties
and therefore escapes responsibility in that one can hardly be negligent in discharging non existent duties.

The matter is perhaps comparable with Dominic Cummings in the UK who has power but no formal responsibility.

 

[mitsho]

I disagree. The true coalition building does not really happen before the election, because it stops as soon as the primaries are decided. After that, there is no need to make any concessions to a political faction, as long as the opponent's policy would be (or is perceived to be) worse for that faction . A "vote for me and I'll do X" becomes "vote for me or the other guy will screw you over". So the true "coalition" of the winner represents maybe 30% of the primary voters.

And then this "coalition" is very informal and enforcement of any agreements is extremely indirect if it happens at all. This all means that control of the political agenda is in the control of relatively small groups while large groups are virtually disenfranchised.

A multi-party system would alleviate these issues, but of course this would not be the solution for all problems. There are enough other design flaws in the US constitution.

Primaries belong in with the elections in the distinction I made. They are a part of it, so before the election = before the primaries. But you are right that this further dilutes the representativeness. My main point was that what most people attack as a problem of multi-party system is actually more of a problem of how the two chambers of parliament are set-up. In that they are a „talking“ parliament where your main purpose is to have big talks or do big maneouvers so that you look good for your constituents. Getting something done in the US means negotiating for the votes you need outside of parliament first. So, on the floor, nothing of value actually happens or rather is pre-determined. (With the caveat of the supervision tasks where these hearings then are also televised or any kind of investigative report into malfeasance). Thas is what I mean with „talking“ instead of „working“. And what results in for example the 3-second session that happened early on during the pandemic in one state.

You can have this kind also in multi-party systems f.e. when two parties control the legislature completely. And you can have „working“ situations in these set-ups when f.e. The governing parties need either a super-majority or the sub-states have to be asked or they want to include actors from the private sector (health insurers). These discussions happen in any case. I personally prefer when they are included in the parliamentary process rather than happen in backroom deals. Transparency and Democracy in general also means a very clear pre-determined process - and I rather have the opposite impression in the Anglo-Saxon world (what‘s a better term for the UK and US?): that they make it up as they go along.