What is the problem with American politics?

[Conscentia]

Obama. That is the problem.

Most of the power rests with the Congress, and the American politics had problems long before Obama was ever elected.

[Othelos]

Obama. That is the problem.

Clearly, one person is the cause of the problems with American politics.

[Dellaw]

Every legislature and Parliament has it's detractors, but it seems as though the United States is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to government. The gridlock is so appalling that cloture measures, colloqiually known as the filibuster, have become common even for nominees of government positions. This begs the question what is wrong with American politics. Personally, I feel it's the fact the United States has only two parties: a center right and a center far right party. The policies President Obama supports and campaigned on are consistent with a center right party in the UK or Canada. The House, it would seem, is unwilling to accept compromise in their favour. I want to know: what do you think NSG?

seems you are not American, are you? for one thing, the two parties in power are center-left (Democrats) and far-right (Republicans). the problem is, the republicans are too conservative, and dislike compromise, and use partisanship rather than bipartisanship. as a result, they have divided Congress over their unjust agenda (republicans will not let democrats help the nation, even in times of crisis, such as Hurricane Sandy and the Sandy Hook shooting, and Democrats refuse to pass their unjust agenda). The Democrats are very open to bipartisanship, but the republicans refuse to accept their offer. the Republicans should take an example from Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), who, despite being a republican, beat a Democrat in his election, and his reelection, won by 61%-38% against another democrat, despite New Jersey being a HEAVILY democratic state. he won all the counties but 2:

The rest of the republicans could learn a thing or two from him. he is so bipartisan, even democratic states like him.

[Geadland]

Here's my top 10:

1. The radicalisation of the Republicans
2. Out-of-control campaign spending
3. Long election campaigns
4. Too frequent elections
5. Gerrymandering
6. Partisan media
7. The Democrats
8. Poor voter turnout
9. Lack of viable third parties
10. Lack of swing voters

I'd argue that American politicians are being held too accountable to voters and special interests and are unwilling to take risks. This means they are not willing to compromise with each other, which is an enormous problem because the American political system was designed to require compromise and consensus in order to work. But given how radicalised the Republicans have become, it is quite understandable that the Democrats are becoming less compromising!

[Alystan]

Too interventionist

[Nation of the Genuine Peoples]

Too interventionist

This.

[Seriong]

I would say that really all those problems stem from one, and that's the fact that only about one third of Americans even vote.

[Conscentia]

I would say that really all those problems stem from one, and that's the fact that only about one third of Americans even vote.

IIRC, 54% voted in the most recent election, sir.

[Seriong]

Every legislature and Parliament has it's detractors, but it seems as though the United States is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to government. The gridlock is so appalling that cloture measures, colloqiually known as the filibuster, have become common even for nominees of government positions. This begs the question what is wrong with American politics. Personally, I feel it's the fact the United States has only two parties: a center right and a center far right party. The policies President Obama supports and campaigned on are consistent with a center right party in the UK or Canada. The House, it would seem, is unwilling to accept compromise in their favour. I want to know: what do you think NSG?

seems you are not American, are you? for one thing, the two parties in power are center-left (Democrats) and far-right (Republicans). the problem is, the republicans are too conservative, and dislike compromise, and use partisanship rather than bipartisanship. as a result, they have divided Congress over their unjust agenda (republicans will not let democrats help the nation, even in times of crisis, such as Hurricane Sandy and the Sandy Hook shooting, and Democrats refuse to pass their unjust agenda). The Democrats are very open to bipartisanship, but the republicans refuse to accept their offer. the Republicans should take an example from Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), who, despite being a republican, beat a Democrat in his election, and his reelection, won by 61%-38% against another democrat, despite New Jersey being a HEAVILY democratic state. he won all the counties but 2:

The rest of the republicans could learn a thing or two from him. he is so bipartisan, even democratic states like him.

The Democrats are not open to being bipartisan, it's both sides that are at fault, remember when the Democrats fled the state they were in to avoid a vote? (Similar to Texas Eleven, but it was more recent)

[Seriong]

I would say that really all those problems stem from one, and that's the fact that only about one third of Americans even vote.

IIRC, 54% voted in the most recent election, sir.

Presidential elections maybe, think about however the turn out to votes on Congressmen, Governors, etc. Which are arguably more important.

[Mushet]

I doubt the two party system is to blame for the problems in American politics. At least in theory having a two party system should make parties drift towards the center so that they can capture those moderate voters that play a crucial role in deciding the outcome of elections. In America it doesn't seem to work exactly like that but I doubt that a multiparty system would accomplish much.

A great problem with the US political system is that there is an enormous amount of checks and balances. Two chambers of the legislature can block one another, a president can block or be blocked by either, strong judiciary etc. If politicians are compromising such a system can work well but if they aren't gridlock ensues.

Another issue I think is that America is very politically divided. Some districts have extremely far right populations other far left (gerrymandering is exacerbating this) and as a result people with very different values and beliefs are elected. Naturally that doesn't make them more inclined to compromise with their political adversaries.

Checks and Balances isn't a problem in and of itself, it's the irresponsible politicians.

[Conscentia]

IIRC, 54% voted in the most recent election, sir.

Presidential elections maybe, think about however the turn out to votes on Congressmen, Governors, etc. Which are arguably more important.

Indeed, voter apathy is a problem for the US.

[Alien Space Bats]

This thread has become a complete joke.

"The lack of third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. Parties is what's causing the American political system to fail!"

Say fucking WHAT?!? The problem is not that there are just two Parties; the problem is that there is no cooperation between the Parties that we have. If we had three, four, five, or twenty-seven political Parties, how in the Hell would that make cooperation EASIER?!? Looking across the Atlantic to parliamentary democracies with lots and lots of active parties, all I see is political instability. Look at Israel back in the 90's, when neither of the two major Parties of the day could put together a majority; look at Italy in the 60's and 70's, when governments came and went every few months.

Some of you seem to act as though parliamentary systems are the only ones that foster and/or require coalition-building; well, the American system fosters and/or requires it, too. In America, it just happens before and not after the election process; the result is that instead of voters choosing an ideology and then relying on the leaders of the existing Parties to negotiate the form of a ruling coalition among themselves, the Party leaders do that before the election, and then we pick the coalition that we want to see in power.

Which begs the question: Why should coalition building after the election be more effective than coalition building in advance of it?? And — more importantly, if the current Party leadership on all sides (and throughout) the two Parties can't work out some kind of effective governing agreement to make the Nation governable, why should we expect that they'd do a better job of it if some of them were from different Parties than they're associated with now (i.e., if the GOP was broken up into the [anti-government] Tea Party and [pro-business] Republicans, while the Democratic Party was broken up into the [reformist] Progressives and [centrist] Democrats)?

"The system of checks and balances is what's wrecking America. The U.S. needs to reconstitute itself as a parliamentary democracy!"

The first part of this statement is correct: It is precisely the system of checks and balances that has the U.S. government deadlocked. So yes, technically a parliamentary democracy would free up the works.

But what would happen then?

Democrats (or a "Left Democrat" coalition of Progressives, Labor Democrats, Pro-Business Democrats, and Blue Dogs) and Republicans (or a "Right Republican" coalition of Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Christian Evangelicals, Anti-Immigration Nativists, and Chamber of Commerce Republicans) would alternate in power, each immediately repealing or undoing the others work in sweeping "100-day" legislative blitzes. Thus we'd see Republicans repeal every labor law, consumer protection law, environmental safeguard, or social entitlement enacted since 1890 in the course of three months, followed by a huge wave of angry protests, a coalition reversal, and the Democratic power; Democrats would then reenact everything that was repealed (and then some), followed by a counter-wave of protests and the foundering of the Democratic coalition.

Then lather, rinse, and repeat.

The state of Federal law would be totally chaotic as 125 years of legislation would be repealed, reenacted, repealed, reenacted, repealed, reenacted, and repealed (and reenacted and...) again and again and again every 3-12 months. Nobody would know if labor unions were protected or outlawed, if guns were mandatory for all citizens or banned, if gays could marry or were subject to the death penalty, or much of anything else. The wrenching tidal bore of repeal and replace would devastate the economy and rend the social fabric, and the people would be agitated, angry, and at each others throats.

Parliamentary systems work only when there's a basic agreement over the outlines of government. Imagine the chaos in Britain if Thatcher's Conservatives had elected to dismantle the NHS; unless the major players more or less agree that the system only needs incremental reform or some tuning up at the edges, leaving the entire social contract be relitigated with each election is simply not acceptable.

Which brings us to the real heart of the problem.

ME: The differences between the two great political coalitions (i.e., Parties) are both too vast and too fundamental to be readily resolved, and the voting populace is too deeply divided to choose between them.

More to come, but now I have to try to get errands run before the outflow from the Michigan-Ohio State game floods the local road net.

[Me-lek]

1. Canada has multiple parties (As in more than 2 major ones) and we seem to be getting on by pretty well.
2. how is a temporarily destroyed America bad? so long as the world can pick up the slack for a bit and you guys come back on a clean slate, it might end up being better. "through the gates of hell, as we make our way to heaven!"

[Divair]

Presidential elections maybe, think about however the turn out to votes on Congressmen, Governors, etc. Which are arguably more important.

Indeed, voter apathy is a problem for the US.

It's a problem everywhere, really.

[Pope Joan]

Class warfare, rich against poor, with the cooperation of state governments and the Supreme Court.

And the not too subtle help of the media, including public broadcasting and especially including those bogus watchdogsm the NYT and Washington Post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias ... ative_bias

[Olivaero]

This thread has become a complete joke.

"The lack of third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. Parties is what's causing the American political system to fail!"

Say fucking WHAT?!? The problem is not that there are just two Parties; the problem is that there is no cooperation between the Parties that we have. If we had three, four, five, or twenty-seven political Parties, how in the Hell would that make cooperation EASIER?!? Looking across the Atlantic to parliamentary democracies with lots and lots of active parties, all I see is political instability. Look at Israel back in the 90's, when neither of the two major Parties of the day could put together a majority; look at Italy in the 60's and 70's, when governments came and went every few months.

Some of you seem to act as though parliamentary systems are the only ones that foster and/or require coalition-building; well, the American system fosters and/or requires it, too. In America, it just happens before and not after the election process; the result is that instead of voters choosing an ideology and then relying on the leaders of the existing Parties to negotiate the form of a ruling coalition among themselves, the Party leaders do that before the election, and then we pick the coalition that we want to see in power.

Which begs the question: Why should coalition building after the election be more effective than coalition building in advance of it?? And — more importantly, if the current Party leadership on all sides (and throughout) the two Parties can't work out some kind of effective governing agreement to make the Nation governable, why should we expect that they'd do a better job of it if some of them were from different Parties than they're associated with now (i.e., if the GOP was broken up into the [anti-government] Tea Party and [pro-business] Republicans, while the Democratic Party was broken up into the [reformist] Progressives and [centrist] Democrats)?

Whilst you are correct the coalitions in america are in the form of Democrats and Republicans (I would never challenge the legendary ASB on his take on american politics any way) I will challenge the notion that there is not a distinct difference between there being two candidates who have a chance come election time and 5. Even if those two candidates represent coalitions. Without say the (moderate) Greens being absorbed into the Democrats and instead having their own party, that puts them in a stronger position to fund candidates in elections rather than there only being green democrats in some districts and say pro business ones in the others. Because if your a green democrat in a district with a pro business democratic candidates your views aren't being properly represented so you are forced to vote against your interests because you couldn't stand to see a Republican win. And all this gets magnified when you realize not everyone is part of the democratic party so doesn't vote in the primaries (i understand some primaries are open to all but that's besides the issue if even some aren't) so you have your pro green independent who can't vote pro green because they know they have absolutely no chance. Perhaps their secondary values are traditional values so they vote a republican even though they are so incredibly against their interests regarding the environment at least they properly represent them some where. With say 5 parties instead of two with the option to list your preference instead of a straight hard or fast vote you allow for everyone's views to be properly represented because they will vote along their interests with no worry of their vote being lost.

"The system of checks and balances is what's wrecking America. The U.S. needs to reconstitute itself as a parliamentary democracy!"

The first part of this statement is correct: It is precisely the system of checks and balances that has the U.S. government deadlocked. So yes, technically a parliamentary democracy would free up the works.

But what would happen then?

Democrats (or a "Left Democrat" coalition of Progressives, Labor Democrats, Pro-Business Democrats, and Blue Dogs) and Republicans (or a "Right Republican" coalition of Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Christian Evangelicals, Anti-Immigration Nativists, and Chamber of Commerce Republicans) would alternate in power, each immediately repealing or undoing the others work in sweeping "100-day" legislative blitzes. Thus we'd see Republicans repeal every labor law, consumer protection law, environmental safeguard, or social entitlement enacted since 1890 in the course of three months, followed by a huge wave of angry protests, a coalition reversal, and the Democratic power; Democrats would then reenact everything that was repealed (and then some), followed by a counter-wave of protests and the foundering of the Democratic coalition.

Then lather, rinse, and repeat.

The state of Federal law would be totally chaotic as 125 years of legislation would be repealed, reenacted, repealed, reenacted, repealed, reenacted, and repealed (and reenacted and...) again and again and again every 3-12 months. Nobody would know if labor unions were protected or outlawed, if guns were mandatory for all citizens or banned, if gays could marry or were subject to the death penalty, or much of anything else. The wrenching tidal bore of repeal and replace would devastate the economy and rend the social fabric, and the people would be agitated, angry, and at each others throats.

Parliamentary systems work only when there's a basic agreement over the outlines of government. Imagine the chaos in Britain if Thatcher's Conservatives had elected to dismantle the NHS; unless the major players more or less agree that the system only needs incremental reform or some tuning up at the edges, leaving the entire social contract be relitigated with each election is simply not acceptable.

Which brings us to the real heart of the problem.

ME: The differences between the two great political coalitions (i.e., Parties) are both too vast and too fundamental to be readily resolved, and the voting populace is too deeply divided to choose between them.

More to come, but now I have to try to get errands run before the outflow from the Michigan-Ohio State game floods the local road net.

If their are more parties with voters voting along their interests more closely you will see this deadlock breakup all on it's own. The current situation seems to be mostly caused by moderate republicans running scared from the mighty tea party. but if the Tea party existed separate from the republican party and republicans could still get voted in? Deadlock pretty much broken. Sensible republicans could be sensible republicans and tea partiers could tea party it up, both groups would still exist but as separate parties This would also solve the whole "we'll destroy everything you ever made" problem. Could the tea party destroy medicaid? yes. Would they be able to get support from their hypothetical moderate republican coalition partners? no chance in hell. medicaid would only get destroyed if 51% of Americans actually wanted it destroyed which is obviously no where near being the case.

The gulf between the republicans and the democrats is a artificial one in my opinion created entirely out of these two coalitions which some people have apparently forgot are coalitions. The answer? Give the American people a choice that better reflect their personal ideology come election day. You don't just have to beat the war drums till conference day and then throw your personal ideology out of the window in favor of beating the other guy we have invented systems where you can always stay true to your ideology all the way to the election then bury the hatchet with your new coalition partners this sees the less informed and non partisan swing voters get their point across better and the factions within the parties draw a line between themselves and people they don't agree with.

[Llamalandia]

aThe problem is government itself. It's way too freaking big and too powerful in the united states, I mean why does basically every single cabinet department in the US need it's own armed law enforemencement component? I mean really does the D of Ed really need shotgun wielding agents to investigate potential fraud and embelzzlement cases, especially when we already have the FBI just calll a field office for some armed back up if youre actually going to be in that much danger. The simple fact is the govt shouldn't even be a consideration for most people and yet, they have managed to enact such a massive pile of regualtions and rules and laws on everything and which are so ridiculous as to be laughable (eg business must retain records of employment offers literally forever even after the prospective employee is dead or face steep fines). I mean the reality is at this point basically everyone in the USA has been made a criminal by some unknown law or regulation. So is the govt in DC dysfunctional and gridlocked all to hell, or course but as far as I see it that's a good thing means they can do any more harm.

[Luveria]

Obama. That is the problem.

Clearly, one person is the cause of the problems with American politics.

I have never seen such a more simplistic worldview of politics, blaming one individual as the sole problem in politics, being the root of all political problems.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Clearly, one person is the cause of the problems with American politics.

I have never seen such a more simplistic worldview of politics, blaming one individual as the sole problem in politics, being the root of all political problems.

Exactly.

Everyone knows it was Bush AND Cheney who are the root cause of all political problems. Obama just inherited those. *nod*

[Geilinor]

Gridlock, biased media and the lack of effective third parties.

[Geilinor]

Clearly, one person is the cause of the problems with American politics.

I have never seen such a more simplistic worldview of politics, blaming one individual as the sole problem in politics, being the root of all political problems.

People need to understand that the president is not an autocrat and can't fix things with one stroke of the pen.

[Alien Space Bats]

Whilst you are correct the coalitions in america are in the form of Democrats and Republicans (I would never challenge the legendary ASB on his take on american politics any way) I will challenge the notion that there is not a distinct difference between there being two candidates who have a chance come election time and 5. Even if those two candidates represent coalitions. Without say the (moderate) Greens being absorbed into the Democrats and instead having their own party, that puts them in a stronger position to fund candidates in elections rather than there only being green democrats in some districts and say pro business ones in the others. Because if your a green democrat in a district with a pro business democratic candidates your views aren't being properly represented so you are forced to vote against your interests because you couldn't stand to see a Republican win. And all this gets magnified when you realize not everyone is part of the democratic party so doesn't vote in the primaries (i understand some primaries are open to all but that's besides the issue if even some aren't) so you have your pro green independent who can't vote pro green because they know they have absolutely no chance. Perhaps their secondary values are traditional values so they vote a republican even though they are so incredibly against their interests regarding the environment at least they properly represent them some where. With say 5 parties instead of two with the option to list your preference instead of a straight hard or fast vote you allow for everyone's views to be properly represented because they will vote along their interests with no worry of their vote being lost.

All of which, while a legitimate criticism of the American political system, does nothing to explain why the system is non-functional.

What I am saying is this: If America had a political system that allowed for the creation and maintenance of viable <nth> Parties, that change would not make the system any more functional than it is today. We'd simply end up with 4-5 Parties which would then organize themselves as a ruling coalition and an opposition, and the results would be little different than what we have today — namely, a left-center bloc comprised of Traditional Democrats and Progressives, with a few Greens and Independents scattered amongst them and a right-wing bloc comprised of Traditional Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and a smattering of Independents on that side of the aisle. The two blocs would — if they reflected the attitudes of voters properly be as unable to cooperate as the present Republican and Democratic Parties.

In short, we'd be in the exact same place where we are today.

If their are more parties with voters voting along their interests more closely you will see this deadlock breakup all on it's own. The current situation seems to be mostly caused by moderate republicans running scared from the mighty tea party. but if the Tea party existed separate from the republican party and republicans could still get voted in? Deadlock pretty much broken. Sensible republicans could be sensible republicans and tea partiers could tea party it up, both groups would still exist but as separate parties This would also solve the whole "we'll destroy everything you ever made" problem. Could the tea party destroy medicaid? yes. Would they be able to get support from their hypothetical moderate republican coalition partners? no chance in hell. medicaid would only get destroyed if 51% of Americans actually wanted it destroyed which is obviously no where near being the case.

The gulf between the republicans and the democrats is a artificial one in my opinion created entirely out of these two coalitions which some people have apparently forgot are coalitions. The answer? Give the American people a choice that better reflect their personal ideology come election day. You don't just have to beat the war drums till conference day and then throw your personal ideology out of the window in favor of beating the other guy we have invented systems where you can always stay true to your ideology all the way to the election then bury the hatchet with your new coalition partners this sees the less informed and non partisan swing voters get their point across better and the factions within the parties draw a line between themselves and people they don't agree with.

This is not an objection to my critique of parliamentary government; rather, it is a continuation of your argument in favor of multiparty democracy.

My response is that I believe the Tea Party to have greater political strength than the Republican establishment; indeed, in the next few years I expect the Tea Party to wholly consume the GOP. Separation between the two factions would, I believe, quickly result in the destruction of the Traditional Republican Party at the hands of the Tea Party, especially given that the media outlets and talking heads now supporting the GOP would turn on it and condemn it as a bunch on turncoat wimps. In this the present clique of activist billionaires who represent the largest single force in fund-raising would be totally supportive; as a result, Traditional Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

Which brings us back to the original problem: The Tea Party is too big and too intransigent to cooperate in the governance of the country, and has sufficient strength to ensure that nobody else can govern the Nation if they're not able to, either.

[Seriong]

Indeed, voter apathy is a problem for the US.

It's a problem everywhere, really.

In my opinion, it's the root of all political issues we face.
Harsh political divides: Due to only the extremes of either side ever voting
Gridlock: We keep electing shitty politicians, due to the reason above
Oligarchy: It's because we keep giving up power, by not voting
Etc.
I mean, has anyone taken a moment to think about how hard it is to operate a republic where the citizenry doesn't vote?

[Distruzio]

The "American" bit.

/an American.