Zompist Bboard Again

Over at Liberal Currents, Dennis Lytton argues, in an unfortunately-titled piece, that things in US politics might be better if the USA would have actual political parties: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/make-po ... eat-again/

I'm not completely convinced, and I do have some objections, but it's still an interesting read.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:15 am Over at Liberal Currents, Dennis Lytton argues, in an unfortunately-titled piece, that things in US politics might be better if the USA would have actual political parties: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/make-po ... eat-again/

I completely agree with his arguments. When I learnt how the primary system works I thought it was crazy.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:15 am Over at Liberal Currents, Dennis Lytton argues, in an unfortunately-titled piece, that things in US politics might be better if the USA would have actual political parties: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/make-po ... eat-again/

I'm not completely convinced, and I do have some objections, but it's still an interesting read.

I'd say the same. Not sure if I have all the details right, but it seems he wants

1. proportional representation
2. parties with more discipline, esp. being able to kick out members
3. no primaries
4. OMIGOD DON'T BE LIKE CALIFORNIA

Overall I think PR is better. Its main advantage is that people would get representation that they actually agree with: centrists would get centrist parties, progressives would get progressive parties, MAGA would get its own AfD. When people don't get representatives they like, it erodes trust in the system.

Still, in the US, it's not hard to predict what we'd get: at least four parties-- far right, center-right, center-left, left. Probably more as both far left and far right are known for fractiousness. This in turn would lead to one of two outcomes:

A. The right-wing parties form a coalition resembling the Republicans; the left-wing parties form one resembling the Democrats. Most likely the far right controls the first coalition, the center-left controls the other. The result: very little change.
B. The center parties form a coalition. In theory you get government that looks a lot like, say, 1960-80. Which is to say, you get a status quo system, where the centrist coalition doesn't dare to do anything unpopular. If the alternative is fascism, great. But I think this system would be far less stable than it might appear. It leaves a lot of people unhappy that their concerns are ignored, and a big crisis could lead to the centrists suddenly becoming a minority.

I'd also note that a good deal of the article is worried about things specific to California, such as its no-party primaries. That's certainly not common elsewhere.

He also points out that in many states or cities, the present system doesn't offer a lot of alternatives. If you live in Nebraska, there's little respite from the sea of red; if in Massachusetts, from the blue. Would PR suddenly make these states multi-party? Put it this way: why would the currently winning party divide?

Finally I think he's forgetting what 2016 actually looked like. Trump is an extremist now, yes. But he was running against people like Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio, who were more extremist; and the Speaker was Paul Ryan, who was also more extremist. It'd also be instructive to look at the British Conservative Party, which has far more party discipline and can expel members or prime ministers. It basically threw out the more moderate Cameron and May in favor of the clown Johnson and firebrand Truss.

This is interesting, zompist: You start out saying you think PR is better, but after reading the rest of your post, I'm a lot more sceptical about PR in the US than I was before.

Based on what I've seen on the internet over the years, I've got the impression that in basically every country with the one or other kind of elected government, you end up with lots of people saying that the electoral system of this or that other country is better than their owns. One IMO especially grimly funny example of this is that the British Liberal Democrats want to change the UK FPTP system into something with some kind of proportional representation, while the otherwise ideologically very similar D66 in the Netherlands want to change the Dutch proportional system into something with electoral districts.

I am a bit sceptical of parties having near-complete control over their officeholders, to be honest. For one thing, it makes many legislators basically superfluous - why not go all the way and replace legislatures with conferences of leaders of those parties which met the electoral threshold in the most recent election and give the party leaders numbers of multiple votes proportional to their parties' election results?

And, it makes opportunism in politics even more important for people who want to get somewhere. How do you avoid being ruled by people who thought so little that they were rewarded by being made rulers of the Queen's Navy?

Finally, what if the party I'm closest to, the one with which I agree on the most points, keeps putting a few people whom I can't stand onto safe spots on their lists?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 6:56 am Based on what I've seen on the internet over the years, I've got the impression that in basically every country with the one or other kind of elected government, you end up with lots of people saying that the electoral system of this or that other country is better than their owns.

Australians seem to be pretty happy with the system there, on the whole…

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 6:56 am Based on what I've seen on the internet over the years, I've got the impression that in basically every country with the one or other kind of elected government, you end up with lots of people saying that the electoral system of this or that other country is better than their owns. One IMO especially grimly funny example of this is that the British Liberal Democrats want to change the UK FPTP system into something with some kind of proportional representation, while the otherwise ideologically very similar D66 in the Netherlands want to change the Dutch proportional system into something with electoral districts.

I really don't think there's an ideal system. Except FPTP is awful. I don't know how the Brits or Americans put up with it.
The two-round system works alright and allows for multiple parties - but not very well; it requires some ugly pre-electoral negotiations to get the smaller parties some representation.

I think your objections to proportional representation are entirely correct, but there are ways to address them. One is the first vote/second vote system you use in Germany; the other is the preferential voting system Australia uses.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 7:31 amI really don't think there's an ideal system. Except FPTP is awful. I don't know how the Brits or Americans put up with it.

Oh, the explanation for Britain is easy: PR is something foreigners do, and we can't have that for the Mother of Parliaments, can we?

Looks like Graham Platner (and any hope of Democrats retaking the senate) is decisively toast. Granted he undoubtedly deserves this defeat given the severity of these allegations and his already documented missteps.

Since last night, I learned that, while pretty much everyone else who mattered in the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party had endorsed Platner at some point, apparently AOC herself of all people never did. I've seen people on the internet speculate that this might have been a result of her still having the instincts about various types of men (and presumably people in general) that she developed during her bartending days.

If you don't have a general principled opposition to reading anything on Substack - and I can understand it if you do - read this: https://open.substack.com/pub/jfassler/ ... medium=web

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2026 4:46 am If you don't have a general principled opposition to reading anything on Substack - and I can understand it if you do - read this: https://open.substack.com/pub/jfassler/ ... medium=web

Yes, it's about exactly what I thought. What I don't understand is why people kept finding excuses for the Nazi tattoo. A candidate with a Nazi tattoo is already unacceptable and you can be almost certain you'll find other skeletons in the closet.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 2:12 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2026 4:46 am If you don't have a general principled opposition to reading anything on Substack - and I can understand it if you do - read this: https://open.substack.com/pub/jfassler/ ... medium=web

Yes, it's about exactly what I thought. What I don't understand is why people kept finding excuses for the Nazi tattoo. A candidate with a Nazi tattoo is already unacceptable and you can be almost certain you'll find other skeletons in the closet.

Going into my "alien observing the humans of Planet Earth" mode:

"One thing you need to understand about human beings is that with many of them, if you tell them something they like to hear, their brains stop working."

But that's just the general rule. In this specific case - well, as much as I've criticized political theory in general in the past, on matters like this, the feminist theorists do have important things to say. It is largely plain old hatred of women, and hatred of people who object to hatred of women.

And it's a fascination - often among men who are not exactly all that macho themselves - with a certain type of "look how manly I am" image. Especially given that for generations now, the Democrats in the USA have done worse among white men without higher education than among any other comparable group.

Addendum: On the whole Nazi tattoo thing, see this pessimistic take: https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2026/02/t ... ppeal.html

And Trump has said the MOU is over.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:11 am And Trump has said the MOU is over.

Belated congratulations to the USA on 250 years of broken treaties.

Does it still make sense to say that Trump lost the war with Iran now that the ceasefire has collapsed with no end to the war in sight? Granted, he still seems more likely to lose than win in the longterm.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 11:46 am Does it still make sense to say that Trump lost the war with Iran now that the ceasefire has collapsed with no end to the war in sight? Granted, he still seems more likely to lose than win in the longterm.

I guess technically, you can't lose a war if you're willing and able to keep it going for now. But he's not able to make Iran do what he wants them to do, and they are able to cause him all kinds of problems, without him being able to do much about it.


Oh, and here's a quote from one of his recent statements:

Their electric manufacturing facilities, their electric plants, where they make new electricity.

(https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... 5kvrwdgs2v)

Yeah, brilliant evil genius mastermind who's constantly playing 7-dimensional chess and winning.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 12:06 pm

Their electric manufacturing facilities, their electric plants, where they make new electricity.

(https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... 5kvrwdgs2v)

Yeah, brilliant evil genius mastermind who's constantly playing 7-dimensional chess and winning.

See also: that well-known archenemy of the US, the Islamic Republic of Japan.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 11:46 am Does it still make sense to say that Trump lost the war with Iran now that the ceasefire has collapsed with no end to the war in sight? Granted, he still seems more likely to lose than win in the longterm.

His objective was probably a quick victory.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2026 3:22 am Addendum: On the whole Nazi tattoo thing, see this pessimistic take: https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2026/02/t ... ppeal.html

The problem with the offense framework is that when people are being killed, some people will be offended if they can't say things which the other side will be offended if they do say. There is no neutral ground that leaves both sides un-offended.

How do you judge when to take complaints seriously? Pro-Israel propaganda says complaining about capitalism or nationalism is Antisemitism. Do we all have to be right-wing nationalists to counter Nazi talking points? Should we support every country that wants to kill Muslims so that Nazis in the West don't find more talking points?

This is not to say there aren't really Nazis and Antisemites playing into the anti-Israel trope. They are bad actors and they must be defeated. All I'm saying is that this blog post is making things seem simpler than they are. E.g. There really are exploitative elites (or at least devotees of Leviathan*). We have to talk about reality while separating it from any Antisemitic associations it might have in popular imagination.

I'm also skeptical of how long not allowing people to say things actually works. If we allow the right to dominate populist discourse, will that actually help the left? The problem with this post is that it seems to assume total social control as the default position. We can't stop Trump-like figures from talking. If the way they talk works, we can only emulate them or not. We can't determine the total state of society from the top and make everyone behave to begin with. This seems to be a problem with the way many smart people think. They think you can tell humans to do the right thing, and they will listen. The reality is that they won't.

*Really? Elon Musk didn't choose to buy Twitter? Or is Leviathan transcendent Profitability? Did Elon Musk buy Twitter to protect Profitability? But Profitability is not a social institution the way markets are.

PS. Interesting that you understand the idea of the "hustlers" being right in this blog post. Don't you think that's a logical contradiction? Aren't hustlers wrong by definition?