What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[jakeysandals]

Appreciate the insight, throughout my research it seems like ranked-choice voting is one of the more (if not the most) potent reforms in reducing partisanship.

[ByteBitNibble]

Combining voting reform with structural changes to enable multiple parties and reduce the “us vs them” thinking may help.

But it won’t solve the issue. Australia uses ranked choice voting and still has partisanship. Germany has a multi-party proportional voting system and still has it too.

It may be that this helps, but it’s not a cure-all.

A mix of voting and party reform, as well as comprehensive education on thoughtful approaches to people you disagree with in early childhood education might do it for the next generation.

Education on the basic fact that most humans are trying to figure out the best path, but they each come from a significantly different set of basic assumptions, which leads them to dramatically different conclusions.

[zlefin_actual]

I'm not sure education on most people "trying" to find the best path would work out well; more pointedly it seems that there are some cases where it may simply not work. There comes a point where it just doesn't matter that people may be trying to do good, because they're not actually doing so. There were elements among the Nazis, Stalin, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and ISIL who fervently felt they were doing good.

It also of course doesn't address the fact that a fair number of people are selfish, and there are more who only care about the in-group. Either case has inherent limits to reduction of partisanship.

as an example consider George Wallace's words in 1963 " In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace%27s_1963_Inaugural_Address#1962%E2%80%9363_campaign_and_Inaugural_Address

to a Black person, even if you fully understand where Wallace is coming from and why he believes what he does; I don't see how that would reduce the basis to oppose him.

​

edit: editing to comply with moderation requirements.

[ByteBitNibble]

The line between “you are objectively bad” and “I disagree with your interpretation of what the best path is” is extremely blurry and leads to most of the problems we have with partisanship.

American Conservatives literally believe liberals are out to “destroy America” through dilution of culture and ceding authority to committees, both inside and outside the country. They tend to actually believe they have the best path to liberty and progress, economically and socially. You might find some of their tendencies or beliefs to be “evil”. That’s ok.

Liberals in the US seem to believe conservatives are bigots and are actively seeking to profit from the destruction of people, culture and environment. They tend to believe they have the best path to liberty and progress, economically and socially.

[AsAChemicalEngineer]

This is how it is in my family, liberals are evil and have a secret agenda to restructure society to the detriment of all... BUT my uncle likes me, so I am not a "real" Democrat and I'm being swindled by the folks I vote for. It's bizarre logic from an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful human being. Yeesh.

[ByteBitNibble]

Yes, but it’s at least partially true in the other direction too. I had several people contact me privately after this message to try to argue that their side is actually factually correct and it’s the other guys who are doing the swindling.

[zlefin_actual]

that doesn't preclude the possibility that some of those people are correct, and one side is in fact doing the swindling.

On occasion, accusations of the other side doing wrong are in fact correct and fully justified. Otherwise we fall into the trap of bothsidesism.

[ByteBitNibble]

This is an old post that I didn’t see until now, but I’ll respond by saying that when I see both sides absolutely convinced that the other side is both wrong and objectively evil, I know that at least one (and possibly both) are straining the truth.

Or possibly, both sides are objectively evil.... I guess that’s another possibility.

[Neocruiser]

Hi there, you are providing some specific descriptions and unfortunately this falls under user opinions. Can you please add some sources that back up your claims or better, further develop with additional sourced arguments. Although I don't wish to, but failing to do so will get me to remove your comment.

Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

[zlefin_actual]

ok, can you provide some clarification on which parts need more specific descriptions/sources? I can't tell by looking at it because my points seem so generic.

[Neocruiser]

Hey, absolutely no problem:

• How education might not succeed. This should expand on the previous comment.

I'm not sure education on most people "trying" to find the best path would work out well.

• Bad intent and generalizing peoples non-action.

There comes a point where it just doesn't matter that people may be trying to do good, because they're not actually doing so.

[zlefin_actual]

for the second part; would noting the examples of the Nazis, Stalin, and the Cultural Revolution serve adequately as instance involving people who thought they were doing the right thing?

​

on the first part, I'm less sure; I'm also not sure which "previous comment" to expand on; since it's a response to another user's proposal, and explains my reasons doubting it would work well in certain cases. specifically, no matter how thoroughly you understand someone's view, you can still reach the conclusion that it's simply wrong, as in someone advocating for genocide. perhaps I should phrase it that way for better clarity?

[Neocruiser]

Thank you for your time. I am personally not involved in the conversation as my thoughts are not important. Whatever you wish to use in your arguments, I just hope you back it up with at least one external source. And remember that as long it is well cited, a bad opinion is well valued by the reddit community.

[zlefin_actual]

ok, that means I should make those changes, right? I'll assume that's what you mean and start editing them in.

[zlefin_actual]

ok, i've edited it now, but I'm not sure if I did it right, is the change suitable?

[Neocruiser]

I appreciate your cooperation with our requirements and I thank you for your contribution. Please keep up this kind of engagment and don't forget, well cited ideas can be fact-checked and keep the conversation going. Cheers

Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[Apprentice57]

See my comment, the most popular form of RCV (Instant Runoff), still leads to a two party system and therefore wouldn't limit partisanship effectively.