i don’t think that’s a problem with the electoral system… the government should represent the average views and interests of a population… that’s the only thing that an electoral system should seek to address
extreme views only pit people against each other and cause fighting
what those views are is a whole other question to do with education and shared values… i think those things are improved with less polarised politics, because polarisation leads to both sides (or worse, 1 side) acting not in the interests of people, but in the interests of cementing their extreme: the more you hate “the other team” the more you feel compelled to cheat to “protect” yourself
this is not a short term fix… this is a multi-generational fix, as was the apathy and division that caused it
You are reducing politics to statistics. There is no horror that can’t be justified by such a reductionist attitude. It’s an abdication of your own thinking and ethical standards to look at two positions and decide that the truth must lie between them.
look at two positions and decide that the truth must lie between them.
that’s not what i’m saying at all… moderate means “within bounds”… ie not extreme policies, and some policies are by definition more extreme than their polar opposite
with that said, when moving entire societies from a position of discrimination against a minority, for example, it is an extreme position to say that laws should be updated ASAP to stop discrimination. governments should move slowly, for a couple of reasons (at least)
moving fast enables moving fast toward either extreme… if the civil rights movement could have had what it wanted overnight, then they were also 1 “but the economy” election away from slavery coming back. governments should always trail behind society at large, because government used in this way is a tool for restricting 1 persons freedom in the interest of another, and restricting freedoms should always be done slow enough that people can fight back… as horrible as that is for minorities at the time, it means those freedoms can’t be rolled back on a whim
if laws changed overnight, people would just not respond well just because they’re used to the alternative… it takes a while for the populace to adjust to new social norms. laws should follow the population largely agreeing that the laws are fair and just - absolutely not the other way around. the government works for the people, and doesn’t exist to serve only minority interests
You are reducing politics to statistics
i’m reducing systems for running elections to statistics, and that’s exactly what they should be: the system to elect representatives should be BORING, and as proportional as possible, and the outcome of that is, largely, that extremes just don’t come out on top
and that’s a good thing for government
if it’s meant to be, people’s positions will change over time and that will be reflected at the ballot box… biasing government to moderate changes means that there’s less hate
you shift the overton window over years if not decades; not in a day
We have a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of government, and the mechanics of politics. The political status quo (often mistaken as the ideal by centrists) only ever changes by force. There isn’t some wise council at the top of our government who decide what changes, and at what speed. Changes come from “extremists” at the speed with which they are able to overcome the resistance of the “moderates” who prefer things as they currently are. Throwing your lot in with the “moderates” is adding your weight to the political inertia that prevents progress.
i’m saying that the government should be a moderate representation of the populace… change for sure comes from the extremes of society at large, but those people should never be elected representatives: they should campaign to the people; not the government
change should shift societal norms, and then the populace should elect leaders to represent their views and thus government trails the morality of the populace ever so slightly
i don’t think that’s a problem with the electoral system… the government should represent the average views and interests of a population… that’s the only thing that an electoral system should seek to address
extreme views only pit people against each other and cause fighting
what those views are is a whole other question to do with education and shared values… i think those things are improved with less polarised politics, because polarisation leads to both sides (or worse, 1 side) acting not in the interests of people, but in the interests of cementing their extreme: the more you hate “the other team” the more you feel compelled to cheat to “protect” yourself
this is not a short term fix… this is a multi-generational fix, as was the apathy and division that caused it
You are reducing politics to statistics. There is no horror that can’t be justified by such a reductionist attitude. It’s an abdication of your own thinking and ethical standards to look at two positions and decide that the truth must lie between them.
that’s not what i’m saying at all… moderate means “within bounds”… ie not extreme policies, and some policies are by definition more extreme than their polar opposite
with that said, when moving entire societies from a position of discrimination against a minority, for example, it is an extreme position to say that laws should be updated ASAP to stop discrimination. governments should move slowly, for a couple of reasons (at least)
i’m reducing systems for running elections to statistics, and that’s exactly what they should be: the system to elect representatives should be BORING, and as proportional as possible, and the outcome of that is, largely, that extremes just don’t come out on top
and that’s a good thing for government
if it’s meant to be, people’s positions will change over time and that will be reflected at the ballot box… biasing government to moderate changes means that there’s less hate
you shift the overton window over years if not decades; not in a day
We have a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of government, and the mechanics of politics. The political status quo (often mistaken as the ideal by centrists) only ever changes by force. There isn’t some wise council at the top of our government who decide what changes, and at what speed. Changes come from “extremists” at the speed with which they are able to overcome the resistance of the “moderates” who prefer things as they currently are. Throwing your lot in with the “moderates” is adding your weight to the political inertia that prevents progress.
i think perhaps our disagreement is with terms
i’m saying that the government should be a moderate representation of the populace… change for sure comes from the extremes of society at large, but those people should never be elected representatives: they should campaign to the people; not the government
change should shift societal norms, and then the populace should elect leaders to represent their views and thus government trails the morality of the populace ever so slightly
I would rather have actual leadership than weathervanes.