The Future of American Democracy is in Danger

[Endus]

The margin of victory in the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 has been under 9%. The closest any non-major party candidate has come in that time was 1992 when Perot got 19%. The last time a non-major party candidate came in second place was 1912, and this illustrated the problem a 3rd party faces, because the third party came from a split in the republican party that allowed the dems to win. The last time a different party won was 1848, before the republican party rose to prominence. Ross Perot is the only non-major party candidate since 1968 to win a county or come in second place in a state.

There's some facts. How am I wrong?

You literally just engaged in a metric buttload of cherry-picking so you could conveniently exclude, or hand-wave, the data points that disprove you. You know this. That's why you're cherry-picking so hard. Because the full data set does not back you up.

[Coniferous]

You literally just engaged in a metric buttload of cherry-picking so you could conveniently exclude, or hand-wave, the data points that disprove you. You know this. That's why you're cherry-picking so hard. Because the full data set does not back you up.

How do you think this is a good way to argue? You said it doesn't match the data, but you won't produce any data. If I ask for data, you say I'm a sea lion and a troll and arguing dishonestly. This is bullshit. Try again. To use your terminology - you're making a horseshit, dishonest argument.

[Endus]

How do you think this is a good way to argue? You said it doesn't match the data, but you won't produce any data. If I ask for data, you say I'm a sea lion and a troll and arguing dishonestly. This is bullshit. Try again. To use your terminology - you're making a horseshit, dishonest argument.

You are arguing dishonestly. And you know it. That's why you tried to cherry-pick a narrow date range, that's why you wanted to exclude Perot. Because you know a wider assessment of all the data will contradict you.

It's exactly the same kind of statistical chicanery you see from climate change deniers, trying to point to a temperature decline between two given years, and willfuly ignoring that the early year was a hotter outlier, and the later a cold outlier, so they can lie about the direction of the trend.

I did cite data; the history of national electoral results. In full. Rather than just the cherry-picked bits outside their context.
You want a link? Fine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...2%80%93present
That's Congressional results since 1856. Heck of a lot with bigger divides than 60/40.

[Coniferous]

You are arguing dishonestly. And you know it. That's why you tried to cherry-pick a narrow date range, that's why you wanted to exclude Perot. Because you know a wider assessment of all the data will contradict you.

It's exactly the same kind of statistical chicanery you see from climate change deniers, trying to point to a temperature decline between two given years, and willfuly ignoring that the early year was a hotter outlier, and the later a cold outlier, so they can lie about the direction of the trend.

I did cite data; the history of national electoral results. In full. Rather than just the cherry-picked bits outside their context.
You want a link? Fine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...2%80%93present
That's Congressional results since 1856. Heck of a lot with bigger divides than 60/40.

Back to "You are being dishonest and you know it". Ok, time to give up arguing with the hopelessly confused person who thinks he's clairvoyant. God complex much?

[Endus]

Back to "You are being dishonest and you know it". Ok, time to give up arguing with the hopelessly confused person who thinks he's clairvoyant. God complex much?

What "god complex"?

You're stating things that are factually untrue. I don't need a "god complex" to be able to spot that, and when you refuse to accept the facts when they're given to you, that makes your intent dishonest, rather than simply an accident of not knowing any better.

[Coniferous]

What "god complex"?

You're stating things that are factually untrue. I don't need a "god complex" to be able to spot that, and when you refuse to accept the facts when they're given to you, that makes your intent dishonest, rather than simply an accident of not knowing any better.

My god, you are some hopelessly sure you're right about everything it's disturbing. My statements aren't factually untrue because every once in a while there's a 60/40 election (again, last time being 30+ years ago). But you go on believing you're right about everything, it's cool.

This is why people stop posting on these forums - you go around thinking you win every argument because people give up on you because you are hopeless.

[Endus]

My god, you are some hopelessly sure you're right about everything it's disturbing.

And yet, you're spending your time attacking my character, rather than making any effort to show me that I'm wrong.

My statements aren't factually untrue because every once in a while there's a 60/40 election (again, last time being 30+ years ago). But you go on believing you're right about everything, it's cool.

1> A 60/40 split isn't a close race, and it's an entirely arbitrary figure.

2> 2008 wasn't 60/40, it was only 59/41. This goes to show why arbitrary figures come off as cherry-picking, since you're picking your figures to exclude evidence that disproves your position.

3> Beyond just the divide, there's the swinging back and forth between parties; 2008 was followed by 2010, where it swung by 64 seats towards Republicans. One of the larger swings between any two sequential bodies of the House of Representatives.

You're claiming that American elections are in a state of "equilibrium", and the simple data of election results can not be reasonably construed as supporting that claim. Your statements are untrue because there's no basis for them in those facts, to begin with. It's something you made up, not something you derived through analysis of the facts.

Edit: It would really help if folks like yourself stopped pretending that criticism was somehow an unfair imposition upon you, in a public discussion forum.

[Coniferous]

And yet, you're spending your time attacking my character, rather than making any effort to show me that I'm wrong.

Says the guy who just keeps calling me dishonest in every single thread. Look in a mirror every once in a while my man. Go back and check - as usual, you're the one who started with the personal attacks. And the part of you that's saying, "Well I'm right, he is dishonest" - that right there is your god complex. Otherwise have a good night.

[Endus]

Says the guy who just keeps calling me dishonest in every single thread.

I point to conduct. Not character. Am I really the bad guy for noticing and calling out bad-faith arguments? Take a little personal responsibility.

Look in a mirror every once in a while my man. Go back and check - as usual, you're the one who started with the personal attacks. Otherwise have a good night.

The closest I got was noting that you were "arguing dishonestly". That's not a personal attack; that's a description of the character of your argument.

What should I do when I see someone making a dishonest argument? Just let it pass uncontested? That doesn't make any sense.

[Coniferous]

I point to conduct. Not character. Am I really the bad guy for noticing and calling out bad-faith arguments? Take a little personal responsibility.



The closest I got was noting that you were "arguing dishonestly". That's not a personal attack; that's a description of the character of your argument.



What should I do when I see someone making a dishonest argument? Just let it pass uncontested? That doesn't make any sense.

Again, you just think this because you are hopelessly wrapped up in your own god complex. See my edit above. This is the same thing we had before when you told me that you could be objective (god complex) but that I was subjective. You're saying that you can call me dishonest because you are right (god complex), but that me calling you dishonest is a personal attack.

Isn't the answer to your question completely, mindblowingly obvious - make a fact based counter argument. Point out flaws. Calling it dishonest is hopelessly counterproductive because it appears to be as a blind personal attack with zero substance. In our discussion you repeatedly made references to "cherry picking" and "extant" counterexamples without ever mentioning one - which seems like a pretty low bar to meet if my argument is so blindingly dishonest. Because you think you're god, you assume I know what you're talking about and I have no idea, because I'm not being dishonest. And after me repeatedly prodding you (but trying to avoid the dreaded "sea lion" label) the best you can do is say that there were some 60-40 elections (that were still 100% 2 party dominated)? That's your evidence?

What I see is someone who pivots to personal attacks every time he realizes his arguments are weak.

[Gestopft]

I did cite data; the history of national electoral results. In full. Rather than just the cherry-picked bits outside their context.
You want a link? Fine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...2%80%93present
That's Congressional results since 1856. Heck of a lot with bigger divides than 60/40.

However, the least that the two main parties control between them is...what...94% of Congress? If you're trying to argue that actually, 3rd parties have a chance if people REALLY want it, man, this isn't the best evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really depressing to look at that list and see our population triple since 1912 and still only have 435 representatives.

ooohhhhh yeah. We need to- at a minimum- double the size of Congress (would be nice if the added seats were awarded proportionally, but hey, I can dream, right?)

[Endus]

However, the least that the two main parties control between them is...what...94% of Congress? If you're trying to argue that actually, 3rd parties have a chance if people REALLY want it, man, this isn't the best evidence.

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.

[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.