this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
37 points (82.5% liked)

Asklemmy

44145 readers
1316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
37
Alternatives to congress (self.asklemmy)
submitted 3 months ago by Modern_medicine_isnt to c/[email protected]
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Modern_medicine_isnt 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can you elaborate?

[โ€“] multifariace 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The US has an effectively two-party system. These parties make decisions based on the money they are given. In order to win votes, they find the most divisive issue to wedge a divide between their party and the other side. If they resolved these issues, they would have to create new ones so they are actually motivated to not compromise. There are many books and other writings about these problems.

As for the rest of the world, the US was dominant in the 20th century in power and influence. This meant that people who wanted power in other countries would look to the US way of doing politics for inspiration. I am not making all the connections for you, but I do want to mentioned how the parties in UK started hiring US campaign managers in the late 90s to help them gain power in their country. It clearly worked. Other countries have followed suit.

[โ€“] Modern_medicine_isnt 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree. But also the media has the same interest in dividing the people. They get more viewers that way. But how does ending FPTP, which I assume is first past the post voting, going to solve that. I have heard some say it would help move caddies to the center some. But I am not convinced it would move them much in most states.

[โ€“] multifariace 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The media is often owned by the same people buying the partisan politicians. First past the poll consolidates power. It makes it easier to convince voters to vote for the lesser of two evils while party funding overloads media with their preferred candidates. Some states even get away with laws that only allow the two parties to be on their ballots. If you can vote based on candidate approval, you could choose your best candidate and your lesser of evils. When people see this make a difference after one or two cycles, parties will lose power in the polls.

[โ€“] Modern_medicine_isnt 1 points 3 months ago

I agree it will help. But all the advertising will still probably dominate who wins the most votes. The people paying will just not buy advertising for the politicians who don't tow the party line.