Barbara, I don’t know how districts are drawn for the UK Parliament, and I have NO idea how they’re drawn anywhere else, but in most states of the US, they’re drawn by the state’s legislature. If there is a single party in charge of both houses of the legislature, the governor’s office, and the state’s highest court, there is NOTHING that prevents that party from drawing those districts however they choose. They’ll draw some crazy districts that *absolutely guarantee* their party will be in the majority of that district. Since districts are re-drawn every 10 years, if your party runs the state government in years ending in “0”, you can theoretically run the state in perpetuity. Because no matter how the population of a district might change, you can redraw the district to guarantee you keep the seat. It’s called “gerrymandering” here.
For these “guaranteed” seats, the party’s candidate doesn’t fear a general election at all. He’s safe. However, the party’s candidate for the general election is usually determined by a primary election, run by the individual parties. Whoever wins that election will win the seat. The problem is, primary elections have notoriously low turnout, in the 20% range. In a large primary between 3 or 4 candidates, the winner could get only 30% of that vote. Effectively, a seat in the legislature can be decided by 6% of the electorate. They’re the ones who turn out to vote in the primary.
And it gets worse. The people who vote in the primary are usually the activists - the ones with an axe to grind, or the ones on the fringe of the party. Since the person in the seat only has to win the primary, they tend to cater to these fringe elements. The extremists win the primary, and the election. Elect enough extremists, and there’s no compromise with the other side - compromise angers extremists, who put up a different candidate in the next primary. The system totally breaks down, until you have extremists on one side arguing with extremists on the other, with nobody in the middle to advance compromise.
In a nutshell, that is the state of US democracy right now. The crazies are in charge. That’s how you get a lunatic narcissist like trump elected, who then cannot accept defeat, and his entire party is willing to go along with that.
I enjoy watching UK debate shows, or listening to pundits. But you’re right - there’s no room for anybody in the middle. So politics gets even more polarized.
“Barbara, the problem is that some of your views are left wing, some are right wing, some are centrist. Whereas I need to pair you with another commentator from the opposite side and I can’t do that if I can’t predict what you’re going to say.”
Wow. Just... wow. That actually says a lot about how these discussion shows work. Someone from ‘the left’, someone from ‘the right’, both picked to start a row. Gotta get that social media buzz, I suppose!
It’s why I have very little patience for these shows - I don’t think they provide any useful insight or analysis. Just a load of people shouting at one another. I wonder also, if that’s why a lot of these commentators are starting to say more extreme things, as a way of building/maintaining engagement? I don’t think it’s particularly healthy for discourse, anyway. (And as for these new opinion channels... PLEASE don’t get me started.)
In reality I don’t think many people are exclusively left wing, right wing or centrist, despite what Twitter would have you believe! Dare I say your rejection was a blessing in disguise? After all you’re now doing real news again!
Barbara, I don’t know how districts are drawn for the UK Parliament, and I have NO idea how they’re drawn anywhere else, but in most states of the US, they’re drawn by the state’s legislature. If there is a single party in charge of both houses of the legislature, the governor’s office, and the state’s highest court, there is NOTHING that prevents that party from drawing those districts however they choose. They’ll draw some crazy districts that *absolutely guarantee* their party will be in the majority of that district. Since districts are re-drawn every 10 years, if your party runs the state government in years ending in “0”, you can theoretically run the state in perpetuity. Because no matter how the population of a district might change, you can redraw the district to guarantee you keep the seat. It’s called “gerrymandering” here.
For these “guaranteed” seats, the party’s candidate doesn’t fear a general election at all. He’s safe. However, the party’s candidate for the general election is usually determined by a primary election, run by the individual parties. Whoever wins that election will win the seat. The problem is, primary elections have notoriously low turnout, in the 20% range. In a large primary between 3 or 4 candidates, the winner could get only 30% of that vote. Effectively, a seat in the legislature can be decided by 6% of the electorate. They’re the ones who turn out to vote in the primary.
And it gets worse. The people who vote in the primary are usually the activists - the ones with an axe to grind, or the ones on the fringe of the party. Since the person in the seat only has to win the primary, they tend to cater to these fringe elements. The extremists win the primary, and the election. Elect enough extremists, and there’s no compromise with the other side - compromise angers extremists, who put up a different candidate in the next primary. The system totally breaks down, until you have extremists on one side arguing with extremists on the other, with nobody in the middle to advance compromise.
In a nutshell, that is the state of US democracy right now. The crazies are in charge. That’s how you get a lunatic narcissist like trump elected, who then cannot accept defeat, and his entire party is willing to go along with that.
I enjoy watching UK debate shows, or listening to pundits. But you’re right - there’s no room for anybody in the middle. So politics gets even more polarized.
“Barbara, the problem is that some of your views are left wing, some are right wing, some are centrist. Whereas I need to pair you with another commentator from the opposite side and I can’t do that if I can’t predict what you’re going to say.”
Wow. Just... wow. That actually says a lot about how these discussion shows work. Someone from ‘the left’, someone from ‘the right’, both picked to start a row. Gotta get that social media buzz, I suppose!
It’s why I have very little patience for these shows - I don’t think they provide any useful insight or analysis. Just a load of people shouting at one another. I wonder also, if that’s why a lot of these commentators are starting to say more extreme things, as a way of building/maintaining engagement? I don’t think it’s particularly healthy for discourse, anyway. (And as for these new opinion channels... PLEASE don’t get me started.)
In reality I don’t think many people are exclusively left wing, right wing or centrist, despite what Twitter would have you believe! Dare I say your rejection was a blessing in disguise? After all you’re now doing real news again!