Interesting piece. One thing that stands out is that this looks less like a messaging failure and more like a mapping failure. If left/right no longer reliably cues meaning or identity for voters, that suggests those axes no longer align with how political competition is actually organized. The language is breaking because the structure underneath has shifted.
That's a really good point. It really does feel to me that politics is structuring more on stability/disruptor than left/right. Frank Graves has talked about this with ordered/open.
Agreed. Left–right is doing less explanatory work than stability vs disruption, or ordered vs open as Graves frames it. When you zoom out, the volatility people point to is mostly surface movement within stable blocks. I’m deep in research on this right now, and that pattern keeps asserting itself.
This data makes my point even stronger that representative electoral democracy in its current form has long outlived its usefulness and is in desperate need of major reform or replacement, perhaps with a model where citizens are selected to govern by lot (as is done for jury duty).
Civic education mist play a much greater role in the school system and should be a core subject beginning in elementary school. How people live together can be explained and do described even in simple terms. Then everyone will have the chance to learn the difference between governance and manipulation.
Back when I was in university debate, I used to trot out "Lottery Senate" as a case. Basically, you'd pick 100 Canadians at random to be senators and would give them the resources via staffing/briefings/etc to do the job. Would ensure more representation from different walks of life.
It would probably be a complete failure in practice, but we have seen this work moderately well for Citizens Assemblies on electoral reform. Maybe there would be roles for it in smaller doses than the Senate as a whole.
Yes indeed, it is at the local level where the most can be done. Representatives who are more likely to know the constituents can work with a pragmatism that is not beholden to powerful interests, whoever they may be. The way I envision civics as taught would start with social studies on how people live together, including independence and direction, communication studies and political history for completely different types of governance models.
In (West) Germany, when I was in school, Politics was a mandatory course starting in grade 9. Among many other things, the German Basic Law and it's intended functions was discussed at length, a long with a step by step study of rights and their limits. Given Geemany's history, you can imagine why.
Interesting piece. One thing that stands out is that this looks less like a messaging failure and more like a mapping failure. If left/right no longer reliably cues meaning or identity for voters, that suggests those axes no longer align with how political competition is actually organized. The language is breaking because the structure underneath has shifted.
That's a really good point. It really does feel to me that politics is structuring more on stability/disruptor than left/right. Frank Graves has talked about this with ordered/open.
Agreed. Left–right is doing less explanatory work than stability vs disruption, or ordered vs open as Graves frames it. When you zoom out, the volatility people point to is mostly surface movement within stable blocks. I’m deep in research on this right now, and that pattern keeps asserting itself.
Observation: only those in upper income brackets have rhe luxury of voting for the party closest to their political perspective.
The rest vote with their wallet, based on political spin they believe based on advertising.
This data makes my point even stronger that representative electoral democracy in its current form has long outlived its usefulness and is in desperate need of major reform or replacement, perhaps with a model where citizens are selected to govern by lot (as is done for jury duty).
Civic education mist play a much greater role in the school system and should be a core subject beginning in elementary school. How people live together can be explained and do described even in simple terms. Then everyone will have the chance to learn the difference between governance and manipulation.
Back when I was in university debate, I used to trot out "Lottery Senate" as a case. Basically, you'd pick 100 Canadians at random to be senators and would give them the resources via staffing/briefings/etc to do the job. Would ensure more representation from different walks of life.
It would probably be a complete failure in practice, but we have seen this work moderately well for Citizens Assemblies on electoral reform. Maybe there would be roles for it in smaller doses than the Senate as a whole.
Yes indeed, it is at the local level where the most can be done. Representatives who are more likely to know the constituents can work with a pragmatism that is not beholden to powerful interests, whoever they may be. The way I envision civics as taught would start with social studies on how people live together, including independence and direction, communication studies and political history for completely different types of governance models.
In (West) Germany, when I was in school, Politics was a mandatory course starting in grade 9. Among many other things, the German Basic Law and it's intended functions was discussed at length, a long with a step by step study of rights and their limits. Given Geemany's history, you can imagine why.