Theory: Has the adversarial system of government reached the end of its usefulness?

[yllus]

For a background read, check out this piece that I'll quote partially:

Is adversarial politics damaging our democracy?

While most readers will have their own ideas about the meaning of ‘adversarial politics’, so that we’re all on the same page, let’s use the following definitions: “Adversarial politics exists when the proposals put forward by government are routinely criticised by opposition parties. Any stance taken by government is automatically opposed, whatever its merits.” and “Adversarial politics takes place when one party (usually not in Government) takes the opposite (or at least a different) opinion to that of the other (usually the Government) even when they may personally agree with what the Government is trying to do.”

Because it provides a rich source of sensational copy, the media thrive on adversarial politics, and contribute powerfully to it through the press, TV and radio. Without it, life for journalists would be less lively and the preparation of material that might interest the public more demanding.

...

Language fashions and changes perceptions. In adversarial politics exaggerated language is used to embarrass, put down, demean or diminish. It is designed to give the user a ‘win’ or an advantage over the other. There are many examples: "Back-flip" and its colourful variants, "flip-flop", "back-down", "about-face" are terms used to indicate a change of mind or a different approach. Politicians are entitled to change their minds in the face of new evidence, different thinking or changed circumstances; the opposite, sticking stubbornly to an outdated or untenable position, is foolish. So why not use terms such as "change of mind" or "different approach", or "new tactic’ or "changed attitude" or "revised position"? I expect journalists would see that as too wimpy.

Adversarial columnists enjoy describing ideas, proposals or political structures with which they disagree as being in ‘tatters’, in ‘disarray’, even ‘a shambles’, or in ‘chaos’. Dennis Shanahan often uses such terms to portray Rudd initiatives that he considers faulty or failures. These terms imply a disastrous turn of events, yet usually nothing catastrophic has occurred. So why not use less confronting terms? Parliamentarians making submissions to cabinet are sometimes unsuccessful – the proposal is declined or deferred. The individual is then described by journalists as having been ‘rolled’ or ‘humiliated’, or has ‘rolled over’, and painted as a loser.

...

To summarize, here's the basic problem with the adversarial system as I see it:

- As a citizen, my goal is for government to be effective at passing and refining "good" legislation. The reward for meeting this goal is a better functioning, healthier society.

- As a politician, my goal would be to ravage any legislation proposed by the opposition, and to gloss over the faults of my own proposals, and refuse any proposed modifications (any sign of weakness can be fatal). The reward for meeting this goal is that I gain power and prestige.

That those two goals are fundamentally opposed to each other is a key problem with the adversarial system of politics. There are other issues as well:

- Any failure to pass legislation or get a person appointed is seen as a catastrophic failure, leading to less attempts to try new ideas.

- All ideas and policy have to be dumbed down to be able to be expressed as slogans, instead of the complex, nuanced issues they actually are.

- Naturally, the adversarial nature of the system bleeds into the populace and makes us war with each other, instead of work with each other.

And yet I'm not sure what a better alternative system would be. Theoretically dispensing with a first-past-the-post voting system for a proportional vote - which might engage like-minded coalitions instead of near 51%/49% splits - might help. I can't help feeling like we as a race should be on the cusp of evolving past this system of non-stop bickering, though. Any ideas or examples of things done better?

 

[Cozarkian]

A simple change I would like to try is to take party affiliation off the ballot. Then people that show up to vote without even bothering to look up basic information about the candidates can't simply vote party line.

 

[boomerang]

Humans are still very, very much tribal. Some would like to think we've moved beyond that and some wish we would move beyond it. Some think that forcing the issue will reap the desired result. Winning is of extreme importance to any given tribe. We are many millennia away from learning to love each other. It's our nature.

In the interim, tribes will fight, nations will fall, nations will be conquered. Wishing it wasn't going to be that way won't stop the tribes from doing what tribes do. We need to evolve and that doesn't happen with the snap of a finger.

 

[BoberFett]

A simple change I would like to try is to take party affiliation off the ballot. Then people that show up to vote without even bothering to look up basic information about the candidates can't simply vote party line.

I've been saying that for decades. If people want to form political organizations that's their business. But government printed ballots have no responsibility, and in fact I think unfairly promote private organizations, by having party on the ballot.

That plus instant runoff or some other similar ranked style voting where there is no such thing as a wasted vote would be a start at fixing our problems.

 

[fskimospy]

I've been saying that for decades. If people want to form political organizations that's their business. But government printed ballots have no responsibility, and in fact I think unfairly promote private organizations, by having party on the ballot.

That plus instant runoff or some other similar ranked style voting where there is no such thing as a wasted vote would be a start at fixing our problems.

How do they unfairly promote the organizations? Every individual on the ballot has equal space to put whatever party they want (or no party). One perhaps unintentional side effect of removing party affiliation would be to further increase the power of simple name recognition (which already plays a big part)

I don't think removing information from voters is the right answer. I do think that giving the voters more viable options is a big start though, instant runoff style.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ban party run government.

 

[Anarchist420]

as for virginia, i wish it would secede. but i also want no one to be elected to public office in virginia unless he or she gets the express consent of >1/2 of all eligible voters in virginia. and 2% of all eligible voters would be able to initiate a new election at any time.

getting rid of party affiliation on ballots is a good idea too because parties discourage independent thinking and because the parties only care about themselves. barring that, it would be nice if there were only caucuses because that weeds out votes from low info voters.

 

[drebo]

An overwhelming majority of people in this country agree on an overwhelming majority of issues.

At this point, left vs. right has degenerated into a battle of fringes and single-issue voters. 5% of the issues determine 100% of the election.

This is an apathy and education issue, not a party issue, and it isn't going to be fixed from the top, because it's not in the top's best interests.

When you have two candidates that say the exact same thing except on three issues--gay marriage, gun rights, and the budget deficit (three things the federal government can't do a fucking thing about)--do we really even have two choices? No, we don't.

 

[Zebo]

You dont have to worry about it for long. There will be one party once Obama legalizes 30m illegals.

And no it's money in politics that means end of usefulness to 95% of us. Been proven.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Which make me doubt significant changes under one party state as well. We shall see.