
Why competition in the politics industry is failing America [pdf] - gpvos
http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf
======
clarkevans
This paper outlines the problem (capture of our democratic process by a
business/political elite) quite well. Most of the solutions (fixing
gerrymandering, money in politics, primary access) presume a reasonable amount
political leverage in order to enact. The paper proposes
[http://www.centristproject.org/2018plan/](http://www.centristproject.org/2018plan/)
as a fulcrum.

 _The Centrist Project’s plan includes strategically identifying a small
number of states with a political climate favorable to candidates from “the
sensible center,” recruiting promising candidates, and supporting them with a
campaign infrastructure, as we discuss further on. The genius of this plan is
that, while challenging, it is eminently doable because the number of seats
required to deny either party a majority is small._

~~~
humanrebar
I'm not sure "centrist" is really a thing because I'm not sure voters fall on
a simple left/right spectrum. I thought this was especially clear in 2016 with
strong populist sentiments giving strong showings in both the Republican
(Trump) and Democratic (Sanders) parties.

In other words, many forms of populism are neither Republican nor Democrat,
does that make them part of the "sensible center"?

EDIT: Do downvoters care to explain their objections?

~~~
pchristensen
I think of "Centrists" the non-negotiable principle is cooperation and
successful operation of government for the dignity of the most people, and
other policy principles have to compete within that framework. As opposed to
the Republican and Democratic parties, which have identified no-compromise
principles that divide people as effectively as sporting alliances or
religions.

Example (of my own, not from any Centrist literature): charging a commensurate
fee to pollute a river rather than strictly allowing or outlawing it. The
business would prefer to be allowed to pollute for free (Republican Party
principle) while the environmentalists would prefer that the pollution not be
emitted under any circumstances (Democratic Party principle). But a structure
that accurately prices the impacts and externalities of the pollution respects
the environmental and health values, and the business can choose the most
beneficial option for them: prevention, change of product or process, or just
paying the fee.

~~~
gpvos
But it adds bureaucracy, instead of either nothing or some policemen.

~~~
bradknowles
There is a cost, regardless.

If you do nothing and allow anyone to pollute anywhere they want, then you get
a public health crisis and many people die and many more get sick.

If you prohibit the pollution and heavily police the people who try to pollute
anyway, then you have to pay for all the efforts to enforce the prohibition
plus you have the possibility of job loss as those companies go somewhere else
that does allow them to pollute freely.

If you allow the pollution but charge a cleanup fee, then you have the
increased beauracracy, etc....

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

------
lend000
More like the lack of competition. See the recent lawsuit by Gary Johnson that
was dismissed against the CPD, which is essentially a monopoly on voter
information.

Even with the Internet making alternative views increasingly accessible to
younger generations, the real flaw lies in our voting system, the biggest
oversight of the founding fathers. First Past the Post inevitably leads to a
duopoly / 'team' mentality, whereas approval voting could possibly solve many
of our nation's woes.

------
ivoras
More generally speaking, it seems that the faster society in general changes,
the shorter its institutions last - it's like too much baggage and cruft
accumulate up to the point of breaking. The new generations demand a different
way of life, and they want it faster than the old ones.

The Roman empire lasted a couple of thousand years, the medieval empires up to
a half a century, the British empire a bit more than a a quarter, the
American, well, almost a quarter (with a violent change about right about the
middle of the period, so...). Interesting times, and all that.

I've sometimes thought that the rigidity of the US Constitution (i.e. it's not
revised completely ever 50 years) is both its biggest benefit and its weakest
side. If only the founding fathers made a clause like "and thou shall revise
whatever we've written every 50 years in the light of new facts, because we
are just men, and fallible."

------
squozzer
The common failing of these reforms, as admirable as they may be, is their
reliance on the very same people who depend on the current rules for their
position.

IOW, politicians don't change the rules because they suddenly grow a
conscience. It has to be presented as an existential choice.

The only other bone I have to pick is with the term "centrist." Meaning what,
exactly? Predisposed towards compromise? Absolute neutral in the D&D sense?
Unabashedly quantitative utilitarianist?

The way HBR defines it, to be a centrist, one would have to know the extreme
positions on a topic and programmatically move towards a middle or compromise
position.

------
velodrome
_> The duopoly controlling today’s political competition has no accountability
for results._

Sums it up perfectly...

~~~
SkyMarshal
Not really, it's that the country as a whole can't decide on the results it
wants. Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more
extreme wings, so even within each party they can't agree, and then when the
two parties are pitted against each other in campaigns or in the practice of
governing, they again can't agree. Double whammy. It shouldn't be any surprise
that under these conditions not much gets done.

Also, controversial opinion here I'm sure, but imho that gridlock is mostly
good thing. The less the government is able to do, the more of a stable and
predictable state the country is in, making forecasting and planning more
reliable. The one exception is the government's inability to reign in deficit
spending, and perhaps their longer term inability to ensure solvency of social
programs.

~~~
Sangermaine
>Both parties are roughly equally split between moderate and more extreme
wings

This is simply untrue and false equivalence.

~~~
OtterCoder
What? You have the Bernie socialists vs the Clinton centrists on one side, and
the Trump MAGA warbirds vs the McCain moderates on the other. It sure looks
fractured to me.

~~~
curiousess
This is a "both sides are the same" fallacy. Just because it looks fractured
doesn't mean it is equally so:

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-
the-r...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-
republican-party/)

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-
po...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-
congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/)

[https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592](https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592)

~~~
richardthered
Agree. Also, see the DW Nominate scores for congress.
[https://voteview.com/parties/all](https://voteview.com/parties/all)

Liberals are at 0.38, and the most extreme they've ever been was 0.39. They
have been somewhat more liberal than they were in the 40s, but they've
generally been within the same band of scores for the last 100+ years.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are at 0.49, which is the most conservative
they've been in the last 200 years. They've basically doubled since the 1970s.

So, objectively, conservatives are more extreme (0.49) than liberals (0.38)
today. Also, the most extreme conservatives are more extreme than the most
extreme liberals.

~~~
schoen
This method is explained a little bit at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_\(scaling_method\))

I think this may be the first time I've seen this, but I'm quite confused
about the claim to be able to make comparisons across time by simple
statistical methods. The model has a clear statistical meaning about the
similarity of different members of the same Congress, who have all voted on
the same set of questions. But surely the issues that the Congress is actually
voting on are radically different from decade to decade? Slavery, the Federal
income tax, alcohol prohibition, the New Deal?

------
transverse
The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a third
party from winning. Range voting does not have this problem.

~~~
velodrome
_> The problem is our obsolete voting system which effectively prohibits a
third party from winning._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates)

 _Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the
CPD 's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls
to be included in presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the
requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates Federal
Election Commission (FEC) rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of
the lawsuits has been successful._

~~~
cvsh
No, it's definitely our electoral system. FPTP fundamentally shifts a system
toward two major parties, and no amount of tinkering with debates or other
reforms at the margins will make third parties competitive.

Further reading:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

~~~
philipov
Why is it a competition for a singular explanation? Why can't both be
necessary but not independently sufficient conditions? I sense a middle being
excluded somewhere.

------
netsec_burn
Paper: DISCLAIMER The views expressed in the paper are the sole responsibility
of the authors and are not meant to represent views of Harvard Business School
or Harvard University.

Title: Harvard Business School: The U.S. Political System Has Been 'Hijacked'

Thanks for fixing the misattributed title, it comes across as sensationalist.

~~~
gpvos
I just copied the title of the original article at themaven.net that I
submitted ( [https://www.themaven.net/theintellectualist/news/harvard-
bus...](https://www.themaven.net/theintellectualist/news/harvard-business-
school-the-u-s-political-system-has-been-hijacked-
mj-X8WUfskapGULM6GEKVg?full=1&full=1) ). I see the URL has been changed to the
paper, which is probably better indeed.

