251
that's goofy (quokk.au)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/mop/p/828160/that-s-goofy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

FPTP firmly entrenched the two party system and it would take a herculean reform effort to uproot it.

And yet, Britain's next election will likely be a contest between Reform and the Greens. The center has collapsed and both centrist parties revealed themselves to be incapable of meeting the challenges of the moment.

Yes, you're right that FPTP produces a two party system. But what people who point this out miss is that those two parties can be switched out. And the nature of power structures means that it's usually easier to just let one of the entrenched parties completely die than to try and reform it from within. Remember, the Republican Party started as a third party before becoming one of the two main parties. The abolitionists ultimately found that starting a new party was more practical than trying to work within the existing two party structure.

It was possible to reform the Republican party from within, but that likely isn't possible with the Democrats. The MAGA wing was able to take over the GOP, but ultimately their message is no different than the same crap Republicans have been pushing for generations. They're not fundamentally challenging the core beliefs of the party. Trump still takes his court nomination orders from the Federalist Society. He still gets his social policies from the Heritage foundation. Racism is still the primary party value. Very little has actually changed, aside from more nakedly fascist methods.

In contrast, reforming the Dems would require fundamentally uprooting their core values and power structure. And historically that just isn't very practical. It's easier to just create an entirely new party than to try to completely transform one. At that point, you're basically creating a whole new party anyway, just within the shell of the old one. Even if you succeed in taking over the Democratic party, all their old financial backers and supporters of centrist policies will walk away and abandon the party. So you're not even gaining control of the Party's resources. You'll have to build that from scratch anyway. And at that point, it's easier to just build something entirely new.

And yes, the media is a problem. But that's always been the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Britain's next election...

    The UK electoral system may as well be from Mars when compared to the USA.

    • For one, they have 650 MPs representing a population of 67 million. The US has 535 total reps split across a bicameral legislature. Combining Texas + California, you have 90 house seats and 4 senators representing 70 million people! It's incredibly important for all of those people to be on the same page when such high leverage seats are on the line.
    • The byzantine system of the Senate and the Electoral College similarly fuck with election strategy. It doesn't mean jack shit if your progressive candidates draw 30 million extra votes if those votes come from California and NY.
    • A motion can dissolve the UK government and trigger a new vote at any time, the US can't do shit until the next election cycle.

    Keep running down the list and it becomes more and more obvious that US elections have extremely high stakes, keeping the establishment parties nice and comfy.

    Remember, the Republican Party started as a third party...

    It emerged at a time when both major parties were losing ground with their voter base, not spontaneously from one side of the political spectrum. In 1854, 5 new parties were vying for seats which gave them lots of room to maneuver. [They had even more room than today when you compare 1800s representation against the 435 rep cap we have now.]

    Today there's no MAGA splinter party; the GOP is in a firm lockstep and polls indicate that their core base will never waiver. Unless you can totally supplant the Dems on the left in one fell swoop, you're still stuck at their negotiating table. You might get a new party logo on your name tag but you're as much at the whims of fascist collaborators as before.

    [MAGA did] not fundamentally challenging the core beliefs of the party

    This is incredibly ironic because decades of grooming went into supplanting the old 20th century GOP platform. It feels like nothing changed but that's due to how persistent and focused the campaign was. Look at John McCain. One of the last true, piece of shit, old school Republicans and he ended his long established career blocking MAGA.

    reforming the Dems would require fundamentally uprooting their core values and power structure

    The lack of core values has been a criticism for decades, they're a blank slate in that department. Would it be a more drastic heel turn than shifting the "party of small government and tax cuts" into "record breaking debt, spending and raising taxes"?

    Donors and DNC power structures only matter as tools of suppression. If you can break the seal and get the votes in spite of those roadblocks, you can keep the votes without them.

    old financial backers and supporters of centrist policies will walk away

    If the campaign money shifts away from a newly progressive Democrat party, where will it go to? A new center right party courting R votes? They've shown that strategy doesn't work. A new spineless, controlled "leftist" opposition party? Well then they're stuck building against all the two party roadblocks they put up themselves!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent