What If America Had A Lot More Political Parties? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discuss a new survey that categorizes voters into at least four ideological quadrants and tries to imagine how voters would align if America were a multi-party democracy. They also discuss shifting American views on foreign policy and the status of the infrastructure and budget bills currently being considered in the Senate.
Link to the survey: echeloninsight...
Website: fivethirtyeight...
Merch: fivethirtyeight...
Twitter: / fivethirtyeight
Facebook: / fivethirtyeight
Podcast: itunes.apple.c...

[@zacharyroussie4746]

The two parties do not represent real idealogical blocks, but instead two kind of blobs of various ethnic, class, gender, and idealogical that just all tolerate each other and are always shifting and exchanging parts with each other.

[@mausklick1635]

They "represent" competing factions of capital: finance and information vs industry and resource exploitation.

[@zacharyroussie4746]

@@mausklick1635 I agree with you. I was speaking in relation to the voter bases of the parties, not that aspect.

[@karolakkolo123]

Honestly it isn't that bad. It kind of works as a brain's right hemisphere-left hemisphere kind of system

[@davide7414]

Is there really any different between "real ideological blocks" and "kind of blobs of various ethnic, class, gender, and idealogical that just all tolerate each other and are always shifting and exchanging parts with each other"? Ideologies are just a way to formulate the political/economical/social interest of a part of the society, and parties a way to defend this interest

[@solgato5186]

@@davide7414 Yes, there is a difference between ideology and happenstance.

[@aaronwinegar9724]

That key moment during Bill Clinton's era was when Clinton signed NAFTA. The Nationalist faction were already upset with Democrats over that whole Civil Rights thing, but a large portion of them stayed with the party because the Democrats were still the party of protectionism. On the day Clinton signed NAFTA, Trump was elected. Which isn't to say that Clinton shouldn't have signed NAFTA, just that doing so caused a lot of proto-Trumpists to say, "The Democrats were never the party that reflected my values, but they were the party that protected my job. If they're not going to protect my job, then I'm going to start voting for the party that reflects my values."

[@scp_sixtynine4203]

Truth be told, if NAFTA wasn't a thing, I bet Obama may have assembled the old New Deal Coalition and gotten more done in his term. Same with Biden

[@johnwellington5754]

Truth be told, most Trump voters are socially more aligned with the GOP when it comes to the culture war, they would have left the Democratic party at one time or another... I'm glad they have left, Suburban voters are more reliable and we are making massive gains in and around cities. Look at the DFW Area and Metro ATL

[@patjohnston1644]

It was Republican legislation Clinton signed.

[@floydblandston108]

Spot on! I actually had a call from Bernie Sanders personally back then, as I had contacted his office and been very public in favor of NAFTA's effect on agriculture (as per the Clinton line). He claimed otherwise, and he was correct- we were sold out completely by greedhead Clinton corporatist Dems. To this day, I can't find a farmer who would even consider voting (D). When I think of the old Democratic (Populist) Ag lobby that was destroyed by these Boomer scum, my heart aches and blood boils.

[@bernlin2000]

Republicans protect jobs alright...low-paying ones. I don't know if that NAFTA argument ever paid off, but trying to connect it to Trump is quite a stretch, there: millennials and Gen Z haven't a clue what you're talking about, and we don't vote with "free trade" in mind. I've never been opposed to free trade that actually improves economic outcomes for everyone involved. It's when the government gets to pick winners and losers that the wheels start coming off of these "agreements". Because "fair trade" is the real buzzword in that context, and it means the government gets to dole out money to the politically well-connected, and helps to reduce competition in favor of big business.

[@geraldmeehan8942]

I wish we had more parties. A parliamentary system would not bring as much gridlock

[@someoneinoffensive]

I think that's more due to the bicameral nature of the US government rather than the nature of the legislature. You still get 2 party politics in some parliamentary systems

[@mlovecraftr]

Counterpoint: Israel

[@someoneinoffensive]

@@mlovecraftr and Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. Interestingly though all of those countries function/ed without a government. Israel is similar just with massive foreign policy issues we don't often see beyond. Despite their system they still have a great healthcare system and thriving economy.

[@nicolasvenegas9808]

@@someoneinoffensive Counterpoint Brazil

[@skaffertape]

Maybe not as much, but e.g. parties can get stuck in coalition treaties that are similarly frustrating as McConnells Shenanigans. U.S. style gridlock where nothing gets done or failing coalitions that don't get anything done and frequently call snap election seem very much the same to me

[@hamstersmailman5517]

I’m never going to get over the leaving of the honorable Claire Malone 😭

[@Apocalymon]

Preach 🙌✊

[@joannawarrens5117]

Yep

[@IanZainea1990]

Rocky, but instead of saying "Adrienne" it's "Claire"

[@perrybelcourt5441]

Vermont has three political parties and a Republican governor and two senators work together for the people of Vermont

[@joemicallef4136]

Some voices are WAAYYY louder than others

[@scp_sixtynine4203]

Its ironic that a country that prides itself on choice has to make a choice every 4 years between 1 of 2 options

[@bernlin2000]

And it's between Coke and Pepsi, substantively-speaking.

[@kimandreskogstrand5004]

AOC said it best: _In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party._ And those two does not even represent the furthest span in the party. Imagine if you are a socialist, I mean a real socialist, not what Americans think are socialist... and the only choice you have is between two ultra capitalists neoliberals... This is one of the reasons voter participations is so embarrassingly low in America.

[@glenncalkins4764]

"Communism" is not the same word as "Socialism."

[@dudebussylmao3062]

Communism is one form of socialism, so it's not like they're some totally separate phenomenon. Second off, Cuba is not a communist country, it is a socialist country headed by a communist party which has the goal of eventually creating communism. Third, tell that to the Democratic Socialists of America who are dog-whistling their support of the Cuban regime

[@Wompwompwomp.ny1]

Socialism is a wagon with square wheels and communism is when u just take the wheels off the damn wagon.

[@richardpierpoint3006]

@@Wompwompwomp.ny1 Shut. Up. Arsehole - muchas gracias, amiga y ir con el Diablo...

[@SirSX3]

Depends on who you ask. Marx himself used them interchangeably. But of course these days Communist don't mean the "higher stage" that Marx wrote, but the Leninist/Stalinist version.

[@koalasandwich567]

I completely agree, I'm a moderate and even it bugs me when people pull the communist card on socialists.

[@benfidar]

Makes sense to me. Life long liberal, not progressive. Labour Party member would suit me fine. My daughter, definitely Green. Sometimes my wife is almost Conservative, i.e. Tory, or on the edge between Tory and Labour. In 2016, some friends and I were marveling how we were personally conservative, professional, family oriented, prudent in our personal lives, nervous with drug liberalization etc, but fiscally liberal, and entirely unrepresented by the Democratic party (and rejected by the Republicans). Nearly everyone we knew were like us, across racial, national origin, gender, and age lines. Economic inequality is my highest priority, for example.

[@IanZainea1990]

Does not surprise me that cultural conservative and economically liberal is the majority. I believe the democratic party and left spend too much time on cultural issues. They need to spend sometime on it, absolutely. But economic policies should be the #1. Plus, imo, when people are economically happy (i.e. have a savings), people in general are way more receptive to cultural change.

[@IanZainea1990]

20:26 I don't see Biden or the Democratic party as being equivalent to the Labour Party in the UK. The even though the Labour party has shifted right since Thatcher, they're still to the left of Dems.

[@asf8648]

Not really. Reading both platforms they agree on most things

[@SirSX3]

@@asf8648 people who believe this probably can't read very well

[@ayushbajaj2360]

No, Biden is definitely the Labour Party equivalent

[@allyourcode]

The environment is not an economic issue?? Ok, I guess that explains why oil lobbyists show up in droves whenever the environment is being discussed...

[@jameslongstaff2762]

I really love this podcast so much!

[@robotpanda6322]

Nate: neoliberals elites has a lot of power in politics =( Nate: but I am something of an elite myself =)

[@leealexander3507]

Maybe we do need more political parties. I would really like to have a left wing party rather than having to choose between a moderate right wing party and a far right party.

[@dolorsitametconsectur]

I think that the People’s Party probably has the best chance to do it other than socialist party USA. They claim to be centrist, but their policies seem to say otherwise.

[@PatFarrellKTM]

Kristen Soltis Anderson is good. You should have her back for future podcasts.

[@allyourcode]

It is a very absurd myth that "deficit reduction" is a conservative issue. Bush II and Trump both drove up the deficit with tax cuts. Clinton balanced the budget. It doesn't take a genius to see why conservatives SAY they are concerned about "deficit reduction", but then do the opposite: they have redefined that term to mean "SPENDING reduction", which as we all know is a very different thing. We also know that the targets of their spending reduction are not generalized. For example, does anyone really believe that they want to reduce military spending even though the US vastly outspends the rest of the world?? Moreover, Romney reflected their private thoughts on the matter very candidly when he didn't think that his 57% comment was being recorded. When we are being honest and sober with ourselves, we all KNOW that deficit is a very simple two part formula: revenue - spending. "deficit reduction" is a thinly veiled code word for "spending reduction" that is designed to put a more palatable responsible-sounding vernier on their real position. I don't understand why the rest of us need to play along with this charade. Are oil subsidies good for the deficit? Do you see conservatives railing about how the American tax payer is giving free hand-outs to one of the most profitable industries in existence? Stop calling their position "deficit reduction" when that's obviously not what they really mean!

[@colinfrederick2603]

Can you do a podcast on why America *can’t have* more than 2 parties? ie, the current political science explanations on why things like First Past The Post and Strategic Voting doom us to two craptastic choices?

[@terdragontra8900]

5:38 This should not be a spicy take, this is absolutely true! The set of ideas we call the American """left""" and """right""" are largely incoherent.

[@bh1935]

I really wish we could have this system. i wish there was a way

[@davidstorrs]

Thank you for the content, but could you please focus more on sound leveling? You have panelists who are very quiet and panelists who are very loud, and it makes it a drag to keep adjusting my audio.

[@ricks6250]

this is what happens when you remove class analysis from every single part of discourse. Y'all "economically progressive" is not a thing. Being in favor of gun control is not "a left leaning belief"

[@pizzajona]

10:45 For me, climate change is 100% an economic issue. The young and future generations, including myself, will face so many costs trying to adapt. Obviously this is anecdotal, but no one I know cares about climate change for the polar bears or because they’re a hippie. It’s because we’ve been taught in middle and high school that it’s happening and we don’t want to suffer the consequences. It’s interesting this Republican pollster doesn’t view climate change (or at least people’s views of it) as an economic concern. Dems have to drill into people’s mind that they will be hurt financially by climate change. Spend billions to save trillions (conversion not to scale).

[@ayushbajaj2360]

Yeah but for most people climate change is an emotional issue of how much you value activism and perfecting society, even though it should be an economic issue

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Proportional representation and STAR or ranked choice a existential reforms at this point. One party is fully authoritarian if not fascist and the other compliant to corporations.

[@buckyharris9465]

I like this new (?) setup in which the screen isn't always either just one face or all four faces. Sometimes we get one-on-one dialogues -- e.g., between Sara and Kristen, or Nate and Kristen.

[@harrisonkendall2883]

I have an economics question. If Democrats can get their reconciliation bill through with increased government spending but offset the majority of that spending through tax increases on the rich, funding the IRS, etc, do they really have to worry about inflation? According to my rudimentary understanding of economics, inflation is more about the amount of money floating around in the economy more than it is redistributing that money in a way that is arguably more fair and progressive. Shouldn't this in and out cycle with "taxes - spending = $0" result in there being not inflation at all?

[@chefawkes]

Your right inflation is about the money floating around the economy. But its also about how much productive capacity is sitting idle to soak up that money. If the money supply increases, but our productive capacity to create the things money buys also increases, then even without increasing taxes there wont be inflation. There's a really good book called The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton that explains this more.

[@chrislubs1341]

Money/Financial power like any utility provides some public good, as pooling resources enables projects grander in scope than any private wealth: "What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA," in a wisely regulated system. But a perversion of private ownership corrodes this foundation through manipulation for asset acquisition supplanting productive use of resources: e.g. think of cornering available water supplies, not for insurance against natural fluctuations, but for concentrating power to enslave through everyone’s need for water. A good monopoly like a benevolent efficient government makes sense. For a clearer KZbin correcting some misconceptions about mechanisms of inflation and historical boon/bust cycles watch Finance Manager Interview #001 - Richard Werner

[@patrickbateman783]

money printer go brrrrr 🖨 💵💵💵💵💵

[@anamosamapper7521]

I believe the term for views which don't fit the common left-right divide is usually syncretic, not idiosyncratic, as it describes what the view is (essentially a mix of the standard sets of ideas) rather than a value judgement alone (basically just calling it strange).

[@thomashiggins9320]

First flaw: policy is not ideology. Policies are attempts to provide practical solutions to real-world problems. Ideology is a philosophical understanding of humanity, that informs views of the nature and origin of rights and liberties, the proper foundation of relationships between people and, as an extension, the proper relationships between people and their government. Policies, even economic policies, seldom have much to do with ideology, as a practical matter, although some leftist ideologies do incorporate views of humans as inherently productive. That said, people mostly focus on which policies would best remedy the actual problems of the day, and know little (and care less) about the nature and origin of human rights. The comment about the coalitions required in muti-party democracies is on-point. The coalitions still have to be formed, it's just that they take place in the parliament, and not in the parties. The end result isn't all that different, though. "Republicans want someone to fight for them." For what, and against whom? People care more about wars when they're going very badly, and lots of troops are getting killed, or they're going very well. If it's just dragging on and on and on, then people focus on other things, first.

[@ichifish]

You make good points. I disagree with two of them: "Policies, even economic policies, seldom have much to do with ideology, as a practical matter, although some leftist ideologies do incorporate views of humans as inherently productive." All policy starts with ideology. If your ideology is rugged individualism, then you're very unlikely to back policies like childcare, healthcare, etc. and more likely to loosen gun control or lower taxes for the wealthy, even when those policies hurt you personally. If your ideologically inclined towards education you're more likely to back educational loan forgiveness, even if you don't have children or aren't going to college (and even though there's a strong argument that that would increase inequality). "That said, people mostly focus on which policies would best remedy the actual problems of the day, and know little (and care less) about the nature and origin of human rights." In fact, the biggest change for both sets of partisans is that they are voting ideologically rather than pragmatically: poor conservatives vote for tax cuts for the rich, support ending the estate tax, and vote against healthcare and worker protections (to name just a few). They don't do that just they've been hoodwinked into believing trickledown works, they do it because those policies confirm their "survival of the fittest" ideology.

[@thomashiggins9320]

@@ichifish Clearly, I have not explained myself, well enough. Here's an ideology that everybody in the United States should be aware of, it's called, "Classical Liberalism." It has nothing in particular to do with what people today refer to as "liberal," and it does NOT cover only the Democratic Party of the United States. Classical Liberalism is based on the philsophical writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and (to a lesser extent) Jean-Jacque Rousseau. Locke wrote that human beings are the products of nature and, as with every other living creature, had the "inalienable rights" to try to live and, in keeping with that, had the liberty to secure the resources needed to survive and procreate ("Life, liberty and property"). All creatures have such rights, in a state of nature outside of the bounds of any governance, they may exercise those rights freely, and without constraints. However, in that state of nature, no creature has any moral obligation to respect the rights of any other. As such, Hobbes wrote, life in a state of nature is nasty, dark, violent, brutal and short. Moreove,r, since everyone spends so much time trying to defend themselves, they have little time to devote to pursuits that would actually improve their quality of life -- especially since any product of their own industry would just make them targets for violence from those who sought to take their goods from them. However, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to imagine better lives for themselves, and choose to work cooperatively in pursuit of those goals. On way they do so is to form governments in which they grant power and authority to some members of their group, who have the responsibility to protect everyone else from external threats. To maintain social stability within the group, the members choose to place limits on how they will exercise their rights, and create rules and laws to set those boundaries. In most cases (during Hobbes' day), people choose a strong leader to follow and, having done so, they must obey that leader dutifully, since the only alternative is the chaos of nature. This, wrote Hobbes, is the origin of monarchy, which he felt was the best possible government. Locke took some of those same ideas, that humans have inailienable rights as the products of nature, but argued humans instead picked the best *members* of their society to govern -- a "natural aristocracy." A king, wrote Locke, is just another member of the aristocracy, although usually the most powerful of the lot. (Needless to say, most kings and aristocrats angrily reject these ideas. To them, all power and authority comes from *God* and not from the consent of the governed. They held that, since God ordained them to be born to their position, they had the right to act as they chose, and the lesser classes were morally obligated to OBEY.) Rousseau went one step further, and wrote that people have the ability to create a government of equals, bounded by written rules in a "social contract," that everyone agreed to abide by, so as to maintain social order and internal peace. Neither kings nor aristocrats were needed, Rousseau argued, since people have the ability to create rational rules for themselves, and most had the self-discipline to abide by them. The influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States should be obvious. Thomas Jefferson incorporated the principles of Classical Liberalism in the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Congress tried to implement them in the near-disaster of the Articles of Confederation. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and others founded the much more successful U.S. Constitution on those principles. Classical Liberalism is the founding ideology of the United States of America, and other than acknowledging that human beings have the right to own property and secure the resources needed to improve their survival and prosperity, it's absolutely silence on such things as economic and fiscal *policy*, and such matters as taxation and tax rates; expansion or contraction of the money supply; the extent to which the government should intervene (or even take part in) the national economy; and how much of a social safety net to provide (if any). Ideology concerns itself with the nature of humanity and the origin of rights, and any discussion of "ideology" that doesn't go into those matters utterly misses the mark. (And, yes, this means the *vast majority* of both Democrats and Republicans agree on the tenets of Classical LIberal ideology. They just disagree on economic and social POLICY.)

[@ichifish]

@@thomashiggins9320 Well you've certainly explained yourself this time! I see what you mean. As I understand it and took it to be used in the discussion, ideology means "a core set of beliefs held by a group of people."

[@thomashiggins9320]

@@ichifish I appreciate your patience and willingness to plow through all that, especially given the cell-phone typos. 😀 But, yeah, actual Socialist ideology, as well as Communist ideology, incorporate (ill-considered) economic ideas, but that's mostly limited to extreme leftist ideologies. Most others are mostly silent on economics, apart from some vague comments about property or "prosperity." That's because Socialism, and then Communism, appeared in the early-mid 19th Century, in direct response to the perceived unfair division of the unprecedented amount of tremendous wealth created when industrialization multiplied the effects of human labor. Most other ideologies date back to pre-industrial times. That said, the right-wing horror-show of Fascism is the most recent ideological development. It dates back to Mussolini's creation of the Fascist Italian Combat Squad, in 1919. Now, then, some policy ideas that may have originated with one set of ideologues may get adopted by others, if they're seen to offer practical benefits. The most famous example is the decision by Prussia's "Iron Chancellor," Otto Von Bismarck, to support the creation of a government-funded old-age pension, in response to the political unrest ripping through Europe in the 1840s. An ardent royalist entirely devoted to enhancing the power of the throne of Prussia, and using that to create a nationalistic German state, Bismarck perceived the pension plan as a way to reinforce social stability in the lands controlled by Prussia. To say that Bismarck's decision to support an old-age pension originally proposed by Socialists meant he approved of their *ideology* is beyond laughable. Bismarck found Socialism both personally and morally offensive, and smashed any Socialist organization he could find in what would eventually become Germany. Similarly, when the U.S. adopted our Social Security system during the Great Depression, strongly based on the German model, it no more meant we drifted from Classical Liberalism than Bismarck drifted from his loyalty to the Prussian (and then German) throne. As in Germany, it was a practical response that promoted social and political stability in a time of profound distress.

[@trickyfish100]

Nate's not-so-hidden centrism really comes out at 6:00.

[@lukebentley9993]

Awwwwwww yeah, a Perry Bacon Jr callout!

[@djvarley1]

I think the constitutional structure of the US political system makes it very difficult to have a multiparty system. Firstly, the Electoral College virtually precludes anything but a two-party system at the presidential level. Most multiparty democracies have parliamentary systems, whereby the head of government and cabinet members are taken from among the legislators. After an election, a government must be formed by getting a majority of the legislature to back it. In the US, the President is both Head of State and Head of Government. He or she forms the government by appointing cabinet secretaries without needing to take into account the composition of the legislature. To enact a piece of legislation, it has to be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President. Having multiple parties in the House and Senate may change the tone of discussions in those bodies, but it wouldn't make it any easier to come to consensus in my view. Because third parties are so difficult to form and get elected in the US, instead what you have is factions within the two main parties. The strength of those factions waxes and wanes over time, which is what produces the policy shifts within each of them. Unless there are some constitutional changes, I think the US will be stuck with the two-party system for a long time to come.

[@Squash713]

Great guest. Have her back on again, please!

[@ichifish]

Kristen Soltis Anderson had her own podcast - the pollsters - cohosted by a democratic pollster. It was quite good, not sure what happened to it.

[@dianasherrill6154]

The problem people don't understand with government spending too much, is that the money is coming mainly from the lower and middle classes not the rich. The tax rate for the rich is so low and with so many loopholes there is NO WAY we can get things that are NEEDED done!

[@FreeMissions]

The top 1% paid about 40% of total federal taxes in 2018. The top 5% paid about 60% of total federal taxes in the same year. They could definitely pay more, but let's not pretend they aren't already covering the lion's share.

[@thesweatleaf]

@@FreeMissions But in WWII and the Cold War, their share was much higher and America did much more.

[@FreeMissions]

@@thesweatleaf No doubt. I did say they can pay more. But the original comment said "that the money is coming mainly from the lower and middle classes not the rich" which is a patently false thing to say. If the top 5% are covering 60%, it's impossible for the lower and middle class to "mainly" cover anything. The truth is, the lower income brackets pay ZERO towards federal taxes. Can the rich pay more? Sure. They can. But are they already paying the lions share? They certainly are. The purpose of Diana Sherrill's original comment is to pretend that taxes are hurting the poor (FALSE) and middle class (slightly), and to convince us that we can't raise taxes. I call BS on that. www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/earn-under-75000-you-may-pay-zero-in-federal-income-taxes-for-2021.html

[@thesweatleaf]

@@FreeMissions It is not wrong to say most of the money is coming from the lower and middle classes, considering they are taxed at a much higher rate than the landed elite. The tax system IS hurting the poor disproportionately; because of tax cuts: 1) there are fewer jobs, 2) the poor pay higher health care costs, 3) upward mobility is severely reduced, 4) small businesses have higher costs. This is in its entirety about shifting the tax burden as far down as possible - and while we are still shifting, the low and middle classes are out of resources to pilfer to the top!

[@FreeMissions]

@@thesweatleaf The numbers say otherwise. You can make all the bullet points you want, at the end of the day 60% of federal revenues coming from the top 5%. I don't know how you spin that. You want to talk state taxation? That's a different story. And there's 50 different stories for each state. Again, can the rich pay more? Surely they can. But as far as federal tax revenue goes, the poor are not paying for it. The middle class are paying a little bit.

[@jonathanjollimore7156]

And this is why their are both left and right people in both party's unhappy with the fact both Democrat and Republican party have people near the center that upsets people on far right and left ends of both party's. But GOP seem to have fewer and fewer centrists in it's party now

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Yeah it's more like the centrist conservatives are politically homeless or pretending to be nationalists rather than defecting to the Democratic Party

[@alawishus44]

Can you make sure these come out at the same time as the podcast? I much prefer to watch, but if my only option is to listen I will.

[@joannawarrens5117]

It’s frustrating. Also the Thursday Podcasts are not necessarily downloaded on KZbin at all!

[@matthias2756]

Imagine thinking Joe Biden was aligned with labour 😂😂😂 This guest has no clue

[@chemicalfrankie1030]

im watching this in June 22 - man how things have changed in just 1 year!!

[@markmclaughlin3277]

It’s so frustrating to hear Americans talk about European politics.

[@charlesrobinson9881]

A vote for a third-party candidate is in effect a vote for the major candidate you like least. Democrats voted for Nader and elected Bush. Republicans voted for Ross Perot and elected Clinton. Republicans voted for bull moose Roosevelt an elected Wilson. This effect is unavoidable under our presidential election system.

[@nromk]

You solve Cuba by accepting it as such, Miguel Díaz ain't going anywhere

[@Xena3]

I would love to see more dominant parties and a federal and state level Rank Voting so everyone votes for who they want getting more people engaged in the process.

[@evanarroyo1384]

Presidential primaries would be an absolute breeze. Republican Party and democrat party are incredibly broad and interpretations vary. For example you have the more conservative republicans, more Christian republicans but these two can be confused, you also have moderate republicans, all of these can divide themselves into different parties causing more unity, and Democratic Party, you have the socialists, have also more moderate democrats, the majority, all of these can be split.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

I’d check your assumptions saying people have idiosyncratic political views wrt to the two parties. It is equivalent to saying a Christian is idiosyncratic if they were methodist or lutheran or baptist wrt to the greek orthodox or catholic church. The perversions are the parties not the people.

[@paytonmcdermott9111]

TF is acela?

[@ichifish]

The Acela Corridor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Corridor

[@paytonmcdermott9111]

@@ichifish that's dumb

[@Hatumex]

It's over a year since work from home started can someone get Nate to record on something that's not a laptop, he looks like a gremlin staring down on the camera.

[@jonasmiller5755]

We need ranked choice voting

[@xcsheehan]

5:40 Nate, well done

[@bernlin2000]

We have more of a power-sharing political arrangement in DC than anything resembling even a "2-party" voting system. And that's to be expected when we've had no change in the top 2 political parties for over a century: they might have flipped philosophies, but "Democrats" and "Republicans" reign supreme. The American voter? Not so much...but what do we expect, when we keep voting for the same 2 parties and expecting something to change.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Maybe questions framed by party marketing are by definition are not representative or are not capable of capturing their thinking, because marketing is about eliciting emotion not deliberate thought

[@NotANameist]

What kind of nutso polling had libertarians twice as likely to consider themselves Democrats?

[@patrickbateman783]

I'm a LOLBERT (Libertarian) an most of my friends are too. None of them will ever describe themselves as Democrats.

[@lu881]

The part that got you here starts here: 18:03

[@leealexander3507]

When it comes to Covid I think I am capable of conducting myself responsibility just as I am with most things. I don't think the courts or the government have any business sticking their noses in what we do in our bedrooms. Our government is supposed to take responsibility for the well being of it's citizens but the only citizens most of them care about I as the very wealthy citizens. A lot of the time they act as if corporations are their most important citizens. I can't entirely blame them. The Supreme Court turned us from We The People Of The United States Of America to We The Corporations Of The United States Of America.

[@francisfoley1278]

Kristen Soltis Anderson is fantastic. She would be a great regular.

[@danryder3865]

Independent is so understandable

[@fionafiona1146]

I best like Ranked choice MMP

[@kevinweber5129]

Yes they need a Christian Socialist party in the South (which is what the Democrats were from 1932 - 1968).culturally conservative but progressive on economic issues.

[@akeleven]

Funny how you refer to only two parties as if Democrat and Republican were god-given divisions. What about independents or libertarians and the rest of people who just are tired of the polarized rhetoric of the two main parties - who have both totally failed to achieve any of their promises.

[@troymann5115]

The "Talking Heads" format for all of your content is a really boring way to present really interesting concepts. I had no idea WTF you were talking about and had to look for the link in the description. Why don't you show some charts once in a while instead of people talking? I love Nate and have his book, but for the love of Pete, show some visuals.

[@sidarthurgortimer355]

It's a podcast, the audio is the point. I download the audio file from their website and listen to it while I'm walking the dog, and I think most people do something similar. The video of them talking is just a bonus. If they started referring to visual things then it would make it hard to listen to.

[@nicolasvenegas9808]

Why did they start talking about forming government? they never said they were going to make a parliamentary system

[@Edwin-xi1rv]

This would almost be a requirement. You would need to change something fundamental about the American system to allow for multiple parties to have a shot.

[@nicolasvenegas9808]

@@Edwin-xi1rv i wouldnt be so sure, puerto rico managed to get a limited multi party system by electing 10 representatives at large(using SNTV)

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

China's pre-2016 generally wasn't good/unsteady on the path to cratering worldwide which I think was noted (Pew). The pandemic/Xinjiang/Hong Kong was really a finisher. This has been almost singularly due to China's own actions, like the government driven/sanctioned increase in incredibly toxic Chinese nationalism and wilful or otherwise inability to engage in any diplomacy. Look up Wolf Warrior diplomacy to see how insanely bad China is. As corrosive and idiotic as trump often is, China often out does him at times best described as school yard antics. Threatening and cutting off western companies over a personal statement (NBA ongoing) was an attack on free speech any American could grasp. For the right its "Communists and culture war", the left human rights. In agreement for different reasons. The idea of China being a threat, Cold War 2 is already here. The spike in anti-Asian racism is a very clear sign. Elite bipartisan actions isn't just talk, its sanctions, immigration, military posture and incredibly rare kind of travel warning. Bad enough EU rejected a 7 year in the making trade treaty. Economic reasons will increasingly fall by the wayside with potential on-shoring, Chinese Rule By Law (Exit ban hostages and stealing companies right under foreign partners) and manufacturing leaving China for greener pastures. How many votes it drives I don't know but it isn't something to be dismissed as "foreign policy" like Cuba.

[@jojo-gy9pp]

What is a populist?

Someone who does whatever because that's what the people want, but who doesn't consider the consequences properly. "More government funding for everything, and lower taxes for all"...

[@brucekent927]

Socially conservative economic liberal

[@jemalo36]

Populists can be BLM, LGBTQI+, Trump Supporters, Anti-Vaccination Campaigns, Far-Right Nationalism, Christian Fundamentalism, Political Islam, ... it's really a flourishing era for social populism, thanks to the digitalisation of information and media.

[@patrickbateman783]

Someone who wants free stuff.

[@thesweatleaf]

20:18 What party does he say is represented by Bloomberg? Sounds like "O-sella"

[@theprimalfuckhead526]

Acela, it’s referring to the Acela corridor from DC to Boston. I think we are pretty distinct, I was watching Fear and Maudling Hasan Piker’s podcast, with Andrew Callaghan as a guest and he was saying that the East Coast is sort of boring because unlike the south and the west coast most of the people there have a job, there’s less jokerfied rappers living in a van beefing in the north versus the south.

[@noahwinberry2475]

I don't remember if they said they polled people of other parties. If not, the socially progressive and economically conservative (Libertarians) 12% of the population could be a bit higher. Same for Greens. This also misses the inevitability of special issue parties like Marajuana, Pirate, and racial justice parties which would strain coalitions on local and state levels and possibly nationally.

[@sidarthurgortimer355]

Members of minor parties are such a tiny portion of the electorate that it wouldn't change anything. And this study showed only 6% in the socially progressive/fiscally conservative camp, not 12%. As they point out, the opposite is much more common.

[@mausklick1635]

lol no charts no watch

[@SusanHaumeder]

Come on guys, reading statistics?? Please get to a chart fast, or map. Sure explaining the metrics or survey questions is fine but that's it for me. Yes comments and analysis is fine, but where is the picture for the many/most visual learners - who dominate the population.

[@henrybird26]

Study the past.

[@fqwgads]

We need STAR, approval, and/or proportional voting to have multiple parties

[@edwardmiessner6502]

What pray tell is STAR?

[@SinnedNogara]

We would need mixed-member proportional or single transferable vote.

[@SirSX3]

USA is the only country with FPTP that has a two party system, every other country with FPTP from Canada to UK to India has a multiparty system. This is a bad argument.

[@jasonMontalvo1]

This analysis doesn't map perfectly to what I'm seeing.

[@scotthullinger4684]

The answer to "what if" would be this - A hell of a lot more crazy political scene than at present.

[@k7u5r8t4]

I believe you mostly assume that, because you imagine that happening from one day to the next? I live in Denmark, where we have PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Nationwide ( all Parties with 2% or more get representation). We have 12 (twelve ) Political Parties in our Parliament right now. And overall it functions quite civilized and not at all "crazy" like we see with the Retrumplicans in USA. Our current Government consists of 3 Parties ( Social Democrats and two center right leaning Parties ). It is a majority Government, which is NOT the norm here historically. We have had minority Governments most of the time, meaning they had to find support from issue to issue. Sanders would thrive in a system like this!?!

[@ianfarler526]

these people are so out of touch with America. Nate at least gets it

[@markbertram9240]

Take a look at Canada.

[@RobertEWaters]

Do we have to?

[@jbnelson]

Aww, cute BB-8, Kristen!

[@ckq]

I'd still hate all those parties.

[@mariov5035]

😂

[@zacharyroussie4746]

Registered party member here, never missed a primary or general election and vote nearly always one way. I agree.

[@NotANameist]

Same

[@brucekent927]

Immigration is the main issue here. Demographic replacement driven by 1965 Hart Cellar Act and then the bubble bursting with the 1990 immigration act removing limits has shifted the Overton window way too far to the left. There was bound to be a backlash especially since except white Americans all other racial groups vote for the liberal party

[@jemalo36]

As a socialliberal I agree - Immigration needs to be more harshly regulated

[@ericboom1712]

As a swede, idk why i am here

[@sam1503cd]

I found this really quite amateurish but maybe my standards are too high.

[@solgato5186]

fawx

[@ChrisCapoccia]

coalition government is a wash. american system starts with coalition already formed and people voting for the "coalition" they want. Euro coalation system means you vote for your party, but you don't actually vote for the coalition you want. your party could join up with a group you adamantly oppose. Either way, you still get opposition politics

[@nicolasvenegas9808]

While i agree with your point that parliamentary systems dont let voters decide their coalition, That is no excuse for a presidential system to be a two party system

[@NotANameist]

@@nicolasvenegas9808 why not? It’s the same difference more or less. Parliamentary systems don’t let voters elect an executive.

[@JKDC97]

I’m not sold on having a multiparty system in the United States. The prospect of neo-Nazis having their own party and representation in Congress is horrifying. We saw it in some countries’ European Parliaments and I would hate to have that here.

[@mediamaniac867]

Yes but more mainstream parties can always refuse to enter a coalition with them. In the US, neo-nazis run as Republicans, giving them more leverage if they're elected than they would as a maligned opposition party.

[@JKDC97]

@@mediamaniac867 The “upside” (if you can call it that) of the U.S. system is that it’s definitely not popular to run as a literal, unabashed neo-Nazi in the U.S. A Republican neo-Nazi ran for a congressional house district in Illinois and was completely disavowed by the Republican Party. As bad as Republicans are, even they know it’s not a good look to run as a Nazi. I would be afraid if we had a multiparty system, as we could have fringe parties like the AfD getting representation in Congress.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Ok, some pollster drew the lines so that the quadrants contained whatever percentages. Who cares? You could ask different questions and draw different lines, and you would get different percentages. If you were comparing polls with the same methodology over several years, it would mean something. As it is, when I get to about a third of the way through the video without anything real having been said, I'm done. You've run out of time to get to any meaningful content.

[@pacificatoris9307]

So glossy .. don't have time to read any of the bill in the table, but it's amazing how these topics could be discussed without reference to race.

[@margotpreston]

A comment for the almighty algorithms.

[@Stephenwhite013]

This clown calling other people elites when he’s definitely an elite

[@patrickbateman783]

Agreed.

[@ianfarler526]

Lol this girl is a joke

[@patrickbateman783]

Democrats are the Real Libertarians 😅🤣😂😅🤣😂😅🤣😂

[@mrsmith9031]

I think America is lucky to have just 2 main parties, but the federal structure is the pluralism, as are the primaries, if there were more it could be a bit too messy. Also I dont think we should normalise trans atheletes who were born men, competing in women's sports. It would be terrible, if all the womens medals were won by trans atheletes who were born men. Saying "They just want to compete in the gender sports they identify with" is all for and well, but they do have a unfair advantage, namely being they were born men, and that is just wrong. If Muhamdad ali said he wanted to just comnpete in lower weights in boxing it would not be fair, same for trans atheletes in womens sports, I can not understand the attiutiude of a trans athelete who wants to cpomp[ete oin womens sports and win, when they KNOWS and all the trans firneds and family KNOW the trans had a unfair advantage, the reason we have womens sports is as men and women are doifferent, trans tech is not good enough yet at all for trans to be actual women, which is why it is so easy to tell the difference between 90$ of trans and women,