The Future of American Democracy is in Danger

[PhaelixWW]

If they followed the Constitutional principles we'd have thousands of representatives, which is a bit unwieldy. But instead they just said "435 is good" and just stopped doing it every census. I get not wanting thousands of reps, but at least increase it SOME.

Honestly, though... why not thousands of Representatives? They don't have to physically occupy a single room anymore.

[Gestopft]

What you're describing is that Americans want Republican or Democratic representatives. They want those two parties. That's how voting works. They have no capacity to control those elections, if Americans chose to vote differently.

But Americans don't. They consistently choose to let Democrats and Republicans almost exclusively represent their interests. You can't keep supporting those parties and complain that those parties are the problem. It may be a collective "the devil we know" decision, but it's still a choice.

I really don't get the disavowal of the electorate's responsibility in choosing their representatives.

There's a reason that GOP groups fund the Green Party.

[Taifuu]

Kind of ignoring centuries of the game being rigged in a way to make that overnight change a pretty big hurdle. It's also assuming that everyone can be reasoned with and base their decisions on facts. If that were the case there wouldn't be this discussion to begin. 100% correct in theory; just ignorant of reality.

[Beefhammer]

If they followed the Constitutional principles we'd have thousands of representatives, which is a bit unwieldy. But instead they just said "435 is good" and just stopped doing it every census. I get not wanting thousands of reps, but at least increase it SOME.

It would be 570. It should be about 1200 though, but really that is unrealistic.

[Forogil]

Similar dynamic exists for political parties in the US. If you have 3 parties and 1 is dominant - say it’s 40-30-30 - then it behooves members of the other two parties to team up and get a 60-40 advantage. Once the 60-40 advantage is attained, the 40% party will move its positions until you get close to 50-50. It’s basic game theory.

Well, it is game theory, but possibly not that basic.

The fact that first-past-the-post system leads to two-party system is called "Duverger's law", and one proof is by Thomas R. Palfrey from CalTech https://authors.library.caltech.edu/81155/1/sswp688.pdf - obviously it uses the Game Theory developed by Nobel-laurate Nash.

Obviously it is an idealized proof; but it largely matches reality (there are always minor exceptions; people don't always act rationally). I don't recall the name for the law that parties will be roughly equal in size - but it follows similarly.

Added: That doesn't mean that the specific two parties are fixed forever; or that their political positions are fixed (see Triangulation and Southern Strategy).
Prior to 1822 the US had a two party system with Federalist vs. Democrat-Republicans; but the Federalist then began decreasing into oblivion and instead the election was a split between Democrats and Whigs, and after collapse of the Whigs by Democrats vs. Republicans.

[Yadryonych]

It would be 570. It should be about 1200 though, but really that is unrealistic.

How so? Even ignoring the fact that construction technology has really advanced since then and you can build a house large enough to encumber this many and many more, they can just do it online

[Advent]

I apologize for being a stupid American. Honestly following politics is like listening to Charlie Brown parent warble. It's so damn confusing and long-winded, and there's misinformation absolutely everywhere. Idk what's going on half the time, tbh.

[Coniferous]

Well, it is game theory, but possibly not that basic.

The fact that first-past-the-post system leads to two-party system is called "Duverger's law", and one proof is by Thomas R. Palfrey from CalTech https://authors.library.caltech.edu/81155/1/sswp688.pdf - obviously it uses the Game Theory developed by Nobel-laurate Nash.

Obviously it is an idealized proof; but it largely matches reality (there are always minor exceptions; people don't always act rationally). I don't recall the name for the law that parties will be roughly equal in size - but it follows similarly.

Added: That doesn't mean that the specific two parties are fixed forever; or that their political positions are fixed (see Triangulation and Southern Strategy).
Prior to 1822 the US had a two party system with Federalist vs. Democrat-Republicans; but the Federalist then began decreasing into oblivion and instead the election was a split between Democrats and Whigs, and after collapse of the Whigs by Democrats vs. Republicans.

Agreed on all points. However, it's also important to note that the last major shift like that was like 1860, very early on in the life of the nation. Since then, major shifts have happened within parties, not by having a new party take over - like how Republicans went from being the anti-slavery party to today's republican party. That's because the system hadn't fully hardened into a two party system yet. Now it's much easier to take power by taking over one of the two parties than by starting a third. In congress, the two parties control seats on committees, so most independents end up caucusing with one party or the other so they get an assignment. It's just really, really hard to imagine a third party upending that process now.

[Breccia]

A Note on the Florida University Ban

UPDATE UPDATE: Judge slaps Florida University down, sides with professors.

Defendants must take no steps to enforce its conflict-of-interests policy with respect to faculty and staff requests to engage as expert witnesses or provide legal consulting in litigation involving the State of Florida until otherwise ordered

-- what the judge said

Shut the Fuchs up

-- what he should have said