Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Gallia-]

The idea that Rosstat, or anyone else, can predict GDP growth rates in 2098 is nothing short of laughable.

obviously, since economics cant even predict gdp growth rates in 2017

i was referring to the chronic ~2% growth forever on the graph

[Allanea]

The idea that Rosstat, or anyone else, can predict GDP growth rates in 2098 is nothing short of laughable.

obviously, since economics cant even predict gdp growth rates in 2017

i was referring to the chronic ~2% growth forever on the graph

Nobody can predict that either.

[Welskerland]

Another question about political parties.

I have heard that the two party system in the U.S. forces both parties to adopt more moderate stances to appeal to the majority of voters.

Would a similar thing occur under a three party system?

[Purpelia]

Another question about political parties.

I have heard that the two party system in the U.S. forces both parties to adopt more moderate stances to appeal to the majority of voters.

Would a similar thing occur under a three party system?

1. No it does not. It forces both parties to radicalize in order to attract fringe voters knowing full well that the people in the middle will vote for who ever throws more money at advertising.

2. In a three party system you get the same thing except that the third party becomes the sellout party that only ever cares about being in power and will happily ally with either of the other two for the chance to play kingmaker.

[Kazarogkai]

Another question about political parties.

I have heard that the two party system in the U.S. forces both parties to adopt more moderate stances to appeal to the majority of voters.

Would a similar thing occur under a three party system?

As Purple has said, but one thing to keep in mind is the nature of said third party. Under a system similar to the united states(Presidential, FPTP) third parties don't typically last all that long without being coapted by one of the other two. The exception to this rule would be a regional/ethnic party especially one that is particularly nationalist like for example the Bloc Québécois. If you got one of those then they can be pretty solid and will have influence far above their size offering support with the other 2 parties in exchange for concessions of sorts that favor them, namely autonomy.

Another thing to mention is if the three parties each rather than representing a specific ideology instead represent say tribes within your nation or other social groupings of the like. This can be a rather big source of instability depending on the circumstances so that is something to keep in mind.

[The Akasha Colony]

Another question about political parties.

I have heard that the two party system in the U.S. forces both parties to adopt more moderate stances to appeal to the majority of voters.

Would a similar thing occur under a three party system?

Three party systems are rather hard to create. Single member districts with first-past-the-post voting systems tend to favor two-party systems, as there is only one electoral prize and thus a strong incentive to combine into two competitive factions representing broad coalitions.

In other voting systems, such as the various proportional representation schemes with multiple member districts, there will generally be a trend toward multiple parties focusing on more specific agendas.

1. No it does not. It forces both parties to radicalize in order to attract fringe voters knowing full well that the people in the middle will vote for who ever throws more money at advertising.

This is an oft-repeated claim, but there isn't really a ton of evidence to back it up. Advertising money, so far as has been observed, does not generally have an enormous impact on the outcome of an election. 3/4 of the American electorate (and I imagine similar proportions elsewhere) already have a party affiliation and ticket splitting at the ballot box is becoming increasingly rare. There are very few truly undecided voters, as even those without registered party affiliation already lean one way or another. Unless a candidate gives them particular reason to look elsewhere (e.g. Donald Trump), they will most likely take the easiest way out and pull the lever for the party they've usually voted for in the past. On top of that, swing voters in states that aren't swing states are mostly irrelevant, their state is already firmly Republican or Democrat regardless of their vote.

The push for "fringe" voters happens for multiple reasons. These voters tend to be extreme, but also extremely vocal and dedicated, FBOW. It gives them outsize influence on politics and procedure over the "silent majority." They also tend to be willing to donate in higher amounts and more regularly compared to swing voters, who have no real investment in either party and thus little reason to donate. They become a reliable base if they can be brought into the fold, and this is obviously more desirable than trying to court fickle independents.

The reason why money is considered important is because it tends to correlate with other variables. Namely popularity: a candidate that is receiving significantly more money than the other is likely to be more popular than one that is receiving less money. It is not a surprise that Obama out-fundraised his opponents in both 2008 and 2012, or that Bush out-raised Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. This isn't because advertising tilted the election in their favor, but because their higher fundraising totals indicated higher levels of support from the beginning.

It's also not advertising that's the most important form of spending. In base elections like 2016, it's organizing and get-out-the-vote operations. These operations have become increasingly important especially within the last few election cycles; this was a critical part of Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 and Republicans have been trying to emulate the Obama operation ever since. It doesn't matter how many people you can persuade to your side, it matters how many people you get off their ass to actually vote. Setting up the infrastructure to start assembling and monitoring voter lists, analyzing trends, and doing all sorts of big data analysis is not cheap.

If advertising were the major factor in determining election winners, Donald Trump should be getting obliterated, given how little he's spent on advertising compared to Hillary Clinton. And yes, he's losing at the moment, but by a comparatively slim margin relative to his spending disadvantage. He's got a solid base of Republican support that could simply never countenance a vote for a Democrat (especially Clinton), no matter how much advertising either party hit them with.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

So, if I want a democratic society, then I'm better off with political parties?

Political association is inherent to liberal democracy. You can have a democratic society which does not have effective opposition political parties, or parties that are stooges of the ruling party. Both Singapore and Russia do this. This would be illiberal democracy, however, so it depends on whether you believe liberalism is a positive aspect of a society.

lol for some reason I thought Singapore was fairly liberal

[The Akasha Colony]

lol for some reason I thought Singapore was fairly liberal

It's a developed country with a thriving financial sector and close ties to more "conventional" liberal democracies, but the priority of Singapore's government has never been on the often-messy process of liberal democracy, it has always been on the maintenance of a pragmatic and orderly state. The image of democracy is necessary for this goal as it gives the illusion of an outlet for popular frustration, but without the actual risk of losing power to a real opposition party.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Guys what shoes should my female detectives wear ;.; ? I want a look as formal as possible where e.g. men wear suits but I still want women to be able to chase down criminals. What is the most formal type of shoes with no (or at worst very minimal) heels? For women obviously.

[EsToVnIa]

Flats

Believe it or not, women fashion is one of the few parts shows like Bones, Law and Order, NCIS, etc. get right

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Flats

Believe it or not, women fashion is one of the few parts shows like Bones, Law and Order, NCIS, etc. get right

Meh. It would probably look pretty bad with a formal women's suit with pants (because running) but whatever. It's the best I can do.



actually not too bad although it's not fully formal

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

In any case does anyone have information regarding the ratio of uniformed to plainclothes cops for any real life police department?

[EsToVnIa]

these are perfectly acceptable to wear with a women's suit

[Rich and Corporations]

Three party systems are rather hard to create.

First past the post, combined with regional parties work.

it's not impossible, it's just that in all areas there are two dominant parties, but a substantial portion of the country has a different party.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

(Image)

these are perfectly acceptable to wear with a women's suit

fair enough

[Bears Armed]

Three party systems are rather hard to create.

First past the post, combined with regional parties work.

it's not impossible, it's just that in all areas there are two dominant parties, but a substantial portion of the country has a different party.

Also, you can sometimes have cases where an existing major party splits in two and both new parties retain support from fairly large shares of the original grouping for at least a while: For example, in the UK 'Labour' originally functioned as a part of the Liberal party before splitting off...

[The Akasha Colony]

First past the post, combined with regional parties work.

it's not impossible, it's just that in all areas there are two dominant parties, but a substantial portion of the country has a different party.

Also, you can sometimes have cases where an existing major party splits in two and both new parties retain support from fairly large shares of the original grouping for at least a while: For example, in the UK 'Labour' originally functioned as a part of the Liberal party before splitting off...

The system though discourages such a state from existing for very long. Labour rapidly consumed most of the remnants of the old Liberal party until the remaining rump became the Liberal Democrats, who hardly count as a serious third party except for their brief membership in David Cameron's coalition government.

The collapse of the Whig party in the United States and the consolidation of its former base into the new Republican party (with small minorities fissioning off into other existing parties) was even more rapid. The Whigs went from winning the presidency in 1848 to collapsing in 1852 and already reforming in time to win the 1860 election as the Republicans.

[Gallia-]

Political association is inherent to liberal democracy. You can have a democratic society which does not have effective opposition political parties, or parties that are stooges of the ruling party. Both Singapore and Russia do this. This would be illiberal democracy, however, so it depends on whether you believe liberalism is a positive aspect of a society.

lol for some reason I thought Singapore was fairly liberal

does this look liberal, in any sense of the word, to you?

straight outta spore, the new hit single by dj fuller and the tankettes

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Political association is inherent to liberal democracy. You can have a democratic society which does not have effective opposition political parties, or parties that are stooges of the ruling party. Both Singapore and Russia do this. This would be illiberal democracy, however, so it depends on whether you believe liberalism is a positive aspect of a society.

It helps too that the political opposition in Singapore is laughably fractured and woefully incompetent. Plus, there really isn't any viable platform that they could choose to run on that would be politically acceptable to a majority of Singaporean voters.

lol for some reason I thought Singapore was fairly liberal

It is mainly 'liberal' in the sense that prostitution and gambling are legal, and you can easily get an abortion without hordes of angry religious fundies firebombing abortion clinics.

[Gallia-]

That has nothing to do with it.

The absence of opposition is the entire point, regardless of the reason. Singapore is generally described as an "illiberal democracy" or an "autocratic democracy". Democracy isn't the end in itself, it is a means to an end, the end being stability and continued single-party rule. It is highly useful to the autocrats to reduce electoral fraud and ensure a high voter turnout. It increases legitimacy for what is an inherently non-competitive system. It is also highly useful to have policies that work for the betterment of its citizens, rather than pilfering the state coffers, because this ensures that the PAP (or any other illiberal party) stays in power by huge margins.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

That has nothing to do with it.

The absence of opposition is the entire point, regardless of the reason.

That has quite a lot to do with it. It is entirely possible for the country to still vote out the PAP in the next general election and bring in a random hodgepodge of non-PAP political parties if they wanted to. But the citizens have chosen not to, for whatsoever reason. And why should they? The opposition are fractious and have failed to prove themselves as credible alternatives to the PAP. People are not going to vote out the incumbent if they see that the alternative is worse, or if they're benefiting from the incumbent's governance.

Singapore is generally described as an "illiberal democracy" or an "autocratic democracy". Democracy isn't the end in itself, it is a means to an end, the end being stability and continued single-party rule. It is highly useful to the autocrats to reduce electoral fraud and ensure a high voter turnout. It increases legitimacy for what is an inherently non-competitive system. It is also highly useful to have policies that work for the betterment of its citizens, rather than pilfering the state coffers, because this ensures that the PAP (or any other illiberal party) stays in power by huge margins.

*shrugs* You may be right but really, no one's put a gun to the heads of the citizens and forced them to vote PAP. They've done it on their own accord.

[The Soodean Imperium]

And then there's Japan, where the LDP held power for more than five straight decades even though numerous opposition parties made it into the legislature.

[Bears Armed]

And then there's Japan, where the LDP held power for more than five straight decades even though numerous opposition parties made it into the legislature.

And post-WW2 Italy, with the Christian Democrats dominating a lengthy series of coalitions in which the minor partners involved changed from time to time, similarly...

[Gallia-]

That has nothing to do with it.

The absence of opposition is the entire point, regardless of the reason.

That has quite a lot to do with it. It is entirely possible for the country to still vote out the PAP in the next general election and bring in a random hodgepodge of non-PAP political parties if they wanted to. But the citizens have chosen not to, for whatsoever reason. And why should they? The opposition are fractious and have failed to prove themselves as credible alternatives to the PAP. People are not going to vote out the incumbent if they see that the alternative is worse, or if they're benefiting from the incumbent's governance.

Singapore is generally described as an "illiberal democracy" or an "autocratic democracy". Democracy isn't the end in itself, it is a means to an end, the end being stability and continued single-party rule. It is highly useful to the autocrats to reduce electoral fraud and ensure a high voter turnout. It increases legitimacy for what is an inherently non-competitive system. It is also highly useful to have policies that work for the betterment of its citizens, rather than pilfering the state coffers, because this ensures that the PAP (or any other illiberal party) stays in power by huge margins.

*shrugs* You may be right but really, no one's put a gun to the heads of the citizens and forced them to vote PAP. They've done it on their own accord.

It's difficult to have a good campaign when the government owns all the media and controls your messages, arrests your leaders for tenuous claims based on a law written in the 1950s, and can arbitrarily silence anything you say. Hmm, I wonder why they seem so incompetent? Perhaps that's the entire point. Singapore has tremendous institutional and social barriers that stifle political competition.

One interesting solution I saw was that Western countries could use trade penalties to counter states that control information distribution and content through legal punishment of the creators or de facto censorship.

The point isn't that "the people have chosen". The point is that there is no real alternative to not voting PAP, which undermines the democratic rule, because the entire purpose of democracy as seen in the West is to promote competition, not smother it. Singapore is not liberal and not Western. It is deeply rooted in Oriental despotism, which views politics and democracy as a zero-sum game. Without any real threat to the PAP, Singapore isn't a liberal democracy. It is an illiberal one, or a competitive authoritarian state. It provides no real outlet for the opposition to voice concern. Attempts to do so are often met with rather substantial violence through the Internal Security Act, or simply drowned out.

If you want to say that the purpose of democracy is to vote parties into power, rather than provide a channel of discourse to voice disagreement, concern, and promote competition of ideas, that is fine. That is the same moral ground that Russia occupies, too, and pre-Maidan (post?) Ukraine, and Uzbekistan in the '90s, etc.

The point of Singapore's elections is mostly to provide a veneer of legitimacy for the PAP through the electoral ritual. Otherwise it would simply be a single-party dynasty state ruled by LKY's descendants in perpetuity, without any democratic trappings at all.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Do you guys have something like FEMA in your nation?