A 2 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which US political party would perform better

[anotherneil]

This is a variation of this thread:

A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to...

www.religiousforums.com

It's essentially the same, except instead of 3 islands for anarchists, libertarians, and socialists, it's the 2 main US political parties.

One island would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Democrats, and the other would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Republicans.

Which island would a randomly selected individual from the outside (not from either island) be better off living on after each island had an opportunity to establish infrastructure, trade, access to resources, etc?

Another way to contextualize the question is this: which one would such a random individual choose to have a better standard of living and quality of life?

Let's suppose that by the time 5 years have passed by, each island has had enough time to establish themselves, and the random individual has a good enough idea to make a choice.


Originally when I came up with the 3 island experiment, I wanted to avoid using Democrat and Republican as options, because only US citizens or long-term US residents would be familiar enough with them to answer the question.

By long-term US residents, I mean immigrants who have lived in the US for more than 12 years (to cover at least part of 3 POTUS terms).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We don't need a thought experiment, we can just look to real world examples. The Dem Island would fair tremendously better from a humanitarian perspective.

 

[Altfish]

I needed two votes

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You would have been better off leaving it as a 3-island thought experiment, one inhabited by only Democrats, one by Republicans, and one by a mixture of both. That way, people who actually tried the experiment might have the opportunity to examine the strengths and weaknesses of either side, along with examining what happens when those strengths and weaknesses have the chance to both enhance and to curtail each other.

Just for example it would give experimenters the chance to see liberalism can result in too much risk-taking which conservatism might help to mitigate, or if conservatism led to boredom through lack of innovation that could be mitigated by liberal artsy-fartsiness.

 

[anotherneil]

We don't need a thought experiment, we can just look to real world examples.

I'm not aware of a single real-world experiment of this. If such examples do exist, that would be great! I'd love to learn about them; can you please cite such examples?

The Dem Island would fair tremendously better from a humanitarian perspective.

Why do you think the Dem Island would fare better based on this?

Is the "humanitarian perspective" sufficient for this experiment?

The way I interpret this is one of having good intentions; is it your belief that good intentions lead to good outcomes?

 

[anotherneil]

I needed two votes

Your profile location says "Near Manchester, UK" - why did you vote in the section for US citizens or long-term US residents?

 

[anotherneil]

You would have been better off leaving it as a 3-island thought experiment, one inhabited by only Democrats, one by Republicans, and one by a mixture of both. That way, people who actually tried the experiment might have the opportunity to examine the strengths and weaknesses of either side, along with examining what happens when those strengths and weaknesses have the chance to both enhance and to curtail each other.

Perhaps; I personally wouldn't oppose such an arrangement in a real-life experiment. However, there are basically 2 reasons I set up the poll this way.

First, I'm assuming that the way the US is already gives us the data for the mixture of both, since it already possesses this.

Second, I wish to isolate the two in order to eliminate either one from taking credit from the other for positive results and placing blame on the other for negative results.

Perhaps your 3rd island for mixture of both might be a good idea - it would show them taking such credit from the other & placing such blame on the other, and that could be compared to the other 2 islands to contrast such an aspect.

Just for example it would give experimenters the chance to see liberalism can result in too much risk-taking which conservatism might help to mitigate, or if conservatism led to boredom through lack of innovation that could be mitigated by liberal artsy-fartsiness.

I'm dividing it between Democrats and Republicans rather than liberal or conservative, because we have political parties designated as such, as opposed to "Conservative Party" and "Liberal Party" & there are some Democrats who identify as liberal and others as conservative; same goes with Republicans.

Anyhow, sure, the 3rd mixture island in a real-world experiment might help add some perspective to things, since it would be "normalized" & what not by having an equal number of total inhabitants as the other 2 islands, rather than trying to figure out how to figure out and scale down the existing US data, which might be challenging if it doesn't scale down linearly, uniformly, or consistently; I suppose it could be like a scientific control group.

 

[Stevicus]

This is a variation of this thread:

A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to...

www.religiousforums.com

It's essentially the same, except instead of 3 islands for anarchists, libertarians, and socialists, it's the 2 main US political parties.

One island would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Democrats, and the other would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Republicans.

Which island would a randomly selected individual from the outside (not from either island) be better off living on after each island had an opportunity to establish infrastructure, trade, access to resources, etc?

Another way to contextualize the question is this: which one would such a random individual choose to have a better standard of living and quality of life?

Let's suppose that by the time 5 years have passed by, each island has had enough time to establish themselves, and the random individual has a good enough idea to make a choice.


Originally when I came up with the 3 island experiment, I wanted to avoid using Democrat and Republican as options, because only US citizens or long-term US residents would be familiar enough with them to answer the question.

By long-term US residents, I mean immigrants who have lived in the US for more than 12 years (to cover at least part of 3 POTUS terms).

At least in terms of each party's historical track record, the Republicans were the creators of the greatest economic disaster in US history (Great Depression), while the Democrats created the greatest economic boom in US history (1945 to the late 1960s).

The Nixon-Ford years showed noticeable decline, as the energy crisis and inflation grew worse. Carter tried to turn it around but didn't get enough support from his own party. Under Reagan, the US economy continued to stagnate and decline, which is ostensibly what they wanted. The Republicans wanted to cut social programs and education, and as a consequence, the US has sunk woefully behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of math and science education. Plus, our healthcare system is a disaster compared to other nations.

Of course, Clinton was nothing more than a Reagan Republican in sheep's clothing, and other Democrats began to follow suit, thus leading to further decline and economic malaise. (The Democrat apologists of today contend that the Democrats were too weak to stand up to Republicans and thus had no other choice but to give in to them on so many issues, such as on healthcare, free trade, and interventionist foreign policies, among others.)

Republicans would probably be more religiously and socially intolerant, demanding conformity to their values. As a result, they may be more unified and cohesive than the Democrats, who tend to be argumentative and somewhat divided on various issues.

 

[Altfish]

Your profile location says "Near Manchester, UK" - why did you vote in the section for US citizens or long-term US residents?

I thought it was asking for opinions. And where you live is irrelevant. There were no "only US citizens may answer" riders

 

[HonestJoe]

Let's suppose that by the time 5 years have passed by, each island has had enough time to establish themselves, and the random individual has a good enough idea to make a choice.

I very much doubt there would be a massive difference, certainly not based on the nominal party affiliation of the people on each island.

People have both a lot of individual characteristics and also a lot more in common with other people, even when they're identified as being part of two vast different or even opposing groupings. When put in the same extreme situation, I would expect pretty much a random subset of any given grouping would behave in broadly the same manner, reaching the same basic conclusions and compromises.

That is why, regardless of which party (not individuals) may dominate a particular government, what they actual end up doing in practice ends up being very similar.

 

[Heyo]

This is a variation of this thread:

A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to...

www.religiousforums.com

It's essentially the same, except instead of 3 islands for anarchists, libertarians, and socialists, it's the 2 main US political parties.

One island would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Democrats, and the other would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Republicans.

Which island would a randomly selected individual from the outside (not from either island) be better off living on after each island had an opportunity to establish infrastructure, trade, access to resources, etc?

Another way to contextualize the question is this: which one would such a random individual choose to have a better standard of living and quality of life?

Let's suppose that by the time 5 years have passed by, each island has had enough time to establish themselves, and the random individual has a good enough idea to make a choice.


Originally when I came up with the 3 island experiment, I wanted to avoid using Democrat and Republican as options, because only US citizens or long-term US residents would be familiar enough with them to answer the question.

By long-term US residents, I mean immigrants who have lived in the US for more than 12 years (to cover at least part of 3 POTUS terms).

At the time being, it would be better for US citizens and all others to have a Democrat island.

The Republicans are just Trump followers now, and that means they are totally delusional or lying. Both are not good ways to manage a country.

 

[anotherneil]

At least in terms of each party's historical track record, the Republicans were the creators of the greatest economic disaster in US history (Great Depression), while the Democrats created the greatest economic boom in US history (1945 to the late 1960s).

The Nixon-Ford years showed noticeable decline, as the energy crisis and inflation grew worse. Carter tried to turn it around but didn't get enough support from his own party. Under Reagan, the US economy continued to stagnate and decline, which is ostensibly what they wanted. The Republicans wanted to cut social programs and education, and as a consequence, the US has sunk woefully behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of math and science education. Plus, our healthcare system is a disaster compared to other nations.

Of course, Clinton was nothing more than a Reagan Republican in sheep's clothing, and other Democrats began to follow suit, thus leading to further decline and economic malaise. (The Democrat apologists of today contend that the Democrats were too weak to stand up to Republicans and thus had no other choice but to give in to them on so many issues, such as on healthcare, free trade, and interventionist foreign policies, among others.)

This is quite a collection of examples of one political party blaming the other political party which I would like to see get settled by revealing the truth with a real-life experiment.

Republicans would probably be more religiously and socially intolerant, demanding conformity to their values.

A few religious Republicans can be a bit adamant about their religious beliefs, and generally I don't come across any religious intolerance from Republicans, but it does occur to me that there is an example of this - bigotry against Muslims by some Republicans. I'm not aware of how Republicans are socially intolerant, though; Republicans are the ones with an affinity for things like a free market & peace, but the Democrats are the ones with things like cancel culture and Antifa.

As a result, they may be more unified and cohesive than the Democrats, who tend to be argumentative and somewhat divided on various issues.

I don't know about this; it seems to me that both Republicans and Democrats are far less like this than libertarians; it's really bad with libertarians - like trying to herd cats. Democrats seem to be slightly better than Republicans with having solidarity & the "never Trumpers" is a good example of how Republicans can be totally divided, and so much so that they'll get behind & endorse a rather Marxist candidate like Kamala Harris for POTUS!

 

[anotherneil]

I thought it was asking for opinions.

It is; who ever said it wasn't?

And where you live is irrelevant.

Wrong; where you live is the most relevant and most important factor involved.

If you haven't spent many years living in the US, whether as a US citizen or long-term resident, then you don't have an internal perspective to formulate such an opinion.

For all others (those who are neither US citizens nor long-term residents), they - including you - only have what they and you hear about US politics, which is generally and predominantly spin & propaganda from the media, so opinion about Democrats and Republicans is going to be based primarily and exclusively on that.

There were no "only US citizens may answer" riders

The poll consisted of four choices.

The first is "(For US citizens or long-term US residents) Democrat island would be better."
The second is "(For US citizens or long-term US residents) Republican island would be better."
The third is "(For all others) Democrat island would be better."
The fourth is "(For all others) Republican island would be better."

So if you're not a US citizen and you aren't a long-term US resident, then you ought to be voting for the third or fourth option, otherwise you're being dishonest by choosing the first or second - and in this case it seems you got caught red-handed being dishonest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which island would a randomly selected individual from the outside ... ?

You mean if this randomly selected person was

a female desiring equal agency and respect , or​

a person of color desiring equal agency and respect, or​

a non-Christian desiring equal agency and respect, or​

someone else?​

 

[anotherneil]

I very much doubt there would be a massive difference, certainly not based on the nominal party affiliation of the people on each island.

People have both a lot of individual characteristics and also a lot more in common with other people, even when they're identified as being part of two vast different or even opposing groupings. When put in the same extreme situation, I would expect pretty much a random subset of any given grouping would behave in broadly the same manner, reaching the same basic conclusions and compromises.

That is why, regardless of which party (not individuals) may dominate a particular government, what they actual end up doing in practice ends up being very similar.

Yes, but that's why I distinguish between solidly Republican and solidly Democrat & the idea is to flush out which political party has a sound or better platform. If the results did turn out to be fairly similar, then I think that in itself would be very interesting!

I think (yes - my opinion, here) that the Republican island has a good change of doing very well and an excellent chances of at least doing ok, and the Democrat island is going to run into so many problems and difficulties that it's likely to end in a disaster.

Here's part of the reason for why I hold such a position:

When the US was founded, it did quite well while there was plenty of freedom & liberty. When the US was founded, the political parties weren't Democrat or Republican; what the US has today formed because it had a problem before the Civil War began (I'd say it was an albatross around the neck of the US that was inherited from Europe), which was slavery. The abolitionists became the Republican party, won the Civil War, and got rid of slavery. Although the Republican party has been compromised and infiltrated (by neocons, for instance), it's still the go-to party for freedom and liberty, despite not doing a good job of delivering on this.

The Democrats are the more socialist of the two parties (yes, I'm claiming that the Republican party is also socialist & that's because of its vanguards and dominance by wealthy people who want both parties to be socialist in order to lock in their wealth and power). The Democrats are a bit more socialist when it comes to economic policy than the Republicans, meaning they have more in common with extreme economic socialism like the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela & look how well things are going for them; after several decades of extreme socialism and an iron curtain, the USSR collapsed.

 

[anotherneil]

You mean if this randomly selected person was

a female desiring equal agency and respect , or​

a person of color desiring equal agency and respect, or​

a non-Christian desiring equal agency and respect, or​

someone else?​

Yes

,​

of​

course​

!​

 

[Koldo]

This is a variation of this thread:

A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to...

www.religiousforums.com

It's essentially the same, except instead of 3 islands for anarchists, libertarians, and socialists, it's the 2 main US political parties.

One island would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Democrats, and the other would consist only of inhabitants who are solidly Republicans.

Which island would a randomly selected individual from the outside (not from either island) be better off living on after each island had an opportunity to establish infrastructure, trade, access to resources, etc?

Another way to contextualize the question is this: which one would such a random individual choose to have a better standard of living and quality of life?

Let's suppose that by the time 5 years have passed by, each island has had enough time to establish themselves, and the random individual has a good enough idea to make a choice.


Originally when I came up with the 3 island experiment, I wanted to avoid using Democrat and Republican as options, because only US citizens or long-term US residents would be familiar enough with them to answer the question.

By long-term US residents, I mean immigrants who have lived in the US for more than 12 years (to cover at least part of 3 POTUS terms).

Easy question. It would be better off living in the Democrats' island if you are an outsider. First of all, republicans are much more likely to be xenophobic (notice how the whole anti-immigration rhetoric is a republican theme only). Second, republicans are much less likely to support welfare nets.

 

[Stevicus]

This is quite a collection of examples of one political party blaming the other political party which I would like to see get settled by revealing the truth with a real-life experiment.

I don't think there can be an actual real-life experiment like this.

A few religious Republicans can be a bit adamant about their religious beliefs, and generally I don't come across any religious intolerance from Republicans, but it does occur to me that there is an example of this - bigotry against Muslims by some Republicans. I'm not aware of how Republicans are socially intolerant, though; Republicans are the ones with an affinity for things like a free market & peace, but the Democrats are the ones with things like cancel culture and Antifa.

Well, Republicans have also demonstrated intolerance towards LGBTQ people, as well as indifference/intolerance towards the poor and lower classes. That's what I meant by socially intolerant.

I would also include intolerance towards immigrants, although that seems to vary by the level of wealth the immigrants might have. Republicans like wealthy immigrants. They even like wealthy Muslims. I still get a chuckle at those pictures of George W. Bush kissing a Saudi prince.

I don't know if one can directly associate the Democrats with cancel culture and Antifa. But both parties have been known to weaponize government agencies and the legal system against people they don't like (or those they might have deemed a threat to US national security, such as MLK).

I don't know about this; it seems to me that both Republicans and Democrats are far less like this than libertarians; it's really bad with libertarians - like trying to herd cats. Democrats seem to be slightly better than Republicans with having solidarity & the "never Trumpers" is a good example of how Republicans can be totally divided, and so much so that they'll get behind & endorse a rather Marxist candidate like Kamala Harris for POTUS!

Trump appears to be a divisive force within the Republicans, although my impression is that most of their grudge against Trump is personal more than ideological.

 

[anotherneil]

Easy question. It would be better off living in the Democrats' island if you are an outsider. First of all, republicans are much more likely to be xenophobic (notice how the whole anti-immigration rhetoric is a republican theme only). Second, republicans are much less likely to support welfare nets.

I don't know how this follows for an outsider, and this thread isn't about republicanism vs monarchism.

BTW monarchies seem to be more xenophobic & anti-immigrant than republics, to me, but I suppose it would be interesting to see the results of this type of island experiment with a republic vs a monarchy.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know how this follows for an outsider, and this thread isn't about republicanism vs monarchism.

BTW monarchies seem to be more xenophobic & anti-immigrant than republics, to me, but I suppose it would be interesting to see the results of this type of island experiment with a republic vs a monarchy.

I wasn't commenting on republicanism nor monachism though. I was talking about republican party vs democrat party.