美國政治的根本問題是什么?（一）
What is the root problem in US politics?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友：我以前談到過參議院，但我打算放棄這一點(diǎn)。相反，讓我們談?wù)劻硪粋€(gè)系統(tǒng)性問題——國會(huì)的規(guī)模。
第一屆美國眾議院于1789年就職。其中59個(gè)代表著將近400萬的人口。在1791年的下一次選舉之前，又有六人當(dāng)選,這相當(dāng)于大約每68000名美國人中就有一名代表……
正文翻譯
What is the root problem in US politics?
美國政治的根本問題是什么?
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 4 )
收藏
I’ve spoken about the Senate before, but I’m going to drop that line.
Instead, let’s talk about another systemic problem - the size of Congress.
The first U.S. House of Representatives took office in 1789. There were 59 of them representing a population of just under 4 million. Six more were seated before the next election in 1791. That’s one representative for roughly every 68,000 Americans.
Today, there are 435 members in the House representing over 300 million people. That’s one for every 690,000 Americans. That’s been the trend since the House “filled up” and instead of increasing the number of representatives they just gave them more constituents. The U.S. population has roughly tripled since the number of members was fixed at 435.
Compare this with the UK which has 650 Members of Parliament for a country with a population of 67 million - so that’s about one MP for every 100,000 people or so.
The teeny tiny size of the House compared to the population leads to the problem that the House is unrepresentative of the population as a whole - it tends to be whiter, richer, older and more male. In addition, it’s difficult to serve a constituency that large.
It also skews representation towards the small states. Wyoming gets “One” with a population of 580,000. If the whole House had districts that size, it would have 531 members. It’s also one of the reasons gerrymandering is so effective and so easy.
You could do the same with the Senate and maintain its character. Why only two senators per state? Why not three)? Or six ?
The other nice thing about small constituencies is that it makes it much, much cheaper to run. Canadian “ridings” also have about 100,000 people and rarely is more than $200,000 spent by all the parties in a race. Larger constituencies, which are “winner take all”, are more susceptible to big spending, but that’s harder with a lot of little races.
我以前談到過參議院，但我打算放棄這一點(diǎn)。
相反，讓我們談?wù)劻硪粋€(gè)系統(tǒng)性問題——國會(huì)的規(guī)模。
第一屆美國眾議院于1789年就職。其中59個(gè)代表著將近400萬的人口。在1791年的下一次選舉之前，又有六人當(dāng)選,這相當(dāng)于大約每68000名美國人中就有一名代表。
今天，眾議院有435名議員，代表著3億多人口,這相當(dāng)于每69萬美國人出一名代表。這是自眾議院“爆滿”以來的趨勢(shì)，他們沒有增加代表人數(shù)，只是讓他們代表了更多的選民。自國會(huì)議員人數(shù)固定在435人以來，美國人口大約增加了兩倍。
與之相比，英國有650名議員，人口規(guī)模為6700萬，大約每10萬人中就有一名議員。
與人口相比，眾議院的規(guī)模微不足道，這導(dǎo)致了眾議院不能代表整個(gè)人口的問題——它往往是白人、富人、老年人和更多男性。此外，也很難為這么大的選區(qū)服務(wù)。
它還使代表權(quán)向小州傾斜。懷俄明以58萬人口獲得“1”名代表。如果整個(gè)眾議院都參照此比例的話，那么將有531名議員。這也是不公正劃分選區(qū)如此有效和容易的原因之一。
你可以對(duì)參議院采取同樣的做法，并保持其性質(zhì)。為什么每個(gè)州只有兩名參議員？為什么不選三人或者選六人？
小選區(qū)的另一個(gè)好處是，它使競(jìng)選成本大大降低。加拿大的“騎馬運(yùn)動(dòng)”也有大約10萬人，在一場(chǎng)比賽中，各方的花費(fèi)很少超過20萬美元。更大的選區(qū)是“贏者通吃”，更容易受到大額支出的影響，但在很多小競(jìng)選中，就更難搞鬼了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I’d go with a lack of unifying cultural norms, morals, or expectations from individuals and governments, as well as a lack of any real external threat that may unite such a diverse group of people.
Cultural diversity is great for a lot of things, but it’s not very conducive to “getting things done” if “getting things done” requires agreements among the masses about things that have a moral aspect to them.
Gun control is a good example of this. For some American subcultures, gun ownership is a rite of passage. It’s a past time. It’s a way of life. It’s a symbol of freedom. For some, the threat of a slippery slope towards government oppression beginning with even small gun control measures doesn’t sound crazy. For some, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own any gun they want is immoral.
But, for other American subcultures, guns are evil. They are tools that are only used to commit crimes or kill people. They think that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly understood what innovations there would be in guns in the future. They see no problem with what they term “sensible gun laws.” They don’t worry about a slippery slope into government oppression. Gun ownership isn’t a rite of passage for them.
我認(rèn)為缺乏統(tǒng)一的文化規(guī)范、道德或個(gè)人和政府的期望，也缺乏任何真正的外部威脅來團(tuán)結(jié)這樣一個(gè)多元化的群體。
文化多樣性對(duì)很多事情都有好處，但如果“把事情做好”需要大眾對(duì)道德方面的事情達(dá)成一致，那么文化多樣性就不利于“把事情做好”。
對(duì)一些美國亞文化群體來說，擁有槍支是一種成人儀式。那是過去的事了，這是一種生活方式。這是自由的象征。對(duì)一些人來說，從很小的槍支管制開始，反對(duì)“政府壓迫”的滑坡就開始存在了，這聽起來并不瘋狂。對(duì)一些人來說，限制守法公民擁有他們想要的任何槍支的權(quán)利是不道德的。
但是，對(duì)于其他美國亞文化來說，槍支是邪惡的。它們只是用來犯罪或殺人的工具。他們認(rèn)為開國元?jiǎng)讉儾豢赡芾斫狻拔磥順屩?huì)有哪些創(chuàng)新”。他們認(rèn)為他們所謂的“合理的槍支法”沒有問題。他們從不擔(dān)心反對(duì)“政府壓迫”的滑坡。對(duì)他們來說，擁有槍支對(duì)他們來說并不是一種儀式。
You really have to look at the U.S. more like the E.U. now: an association of different cultures that can agree on some things for their mutual benefit, but where respect for subcultural norms and local laws and customs is paramount.
Abortion and animal rights are good issues to see the different subcultural morals in the United States. There are strict laws in place for protecting animals from abuse and suffering… even animals whose sole purpose in life is to be slaughtered and fed to humans… while some American subcultures push back against any attempt to restrict abortions, although the unborn can feel suffering, too. Both of these issues rely on some sort of shared morality among the masses to be “settled,” and there is no shared morality across the whole or even the majority of the American populace. So these issues… particularly the abortion issue… will never be “settled,” until there isn’t as much moral diversity in the United States.
When was the government less divided and more able to “get things done?” When there was one dominant subculture among the populace, at the same time there was an existential threat to the country. A diverse populace + safety from any existential threat = political gridlock.
除非其中一種美國亞文化成為主導(dǎo)文化，否則在槍支管制方面什么都做不了。
你現(xiàn)在真的應(yīng)該把美國看得更像歐盟:一個(gè)不同文化的協(xié)會(huì)，可以在一些事情上達(dá)成共識(shí)，以實(shí)現(xiàn)共同利益，但尊重亞文化規(guī)范和當(dāng)?shù)胤珊土?xí)俗是至關(guān)重要的。
墮胎和動(dòng)物權(quán)利是很好的問題，可以看到美國不同的亞文化道德。有嚴(yán)格的法律保護(hù)動(dòng)物（甚至是那些生命中唯一目的是被屠殺和喂養(yǎng)給人類的動(dòng)物）免受虐待和痛苦；而一些美國亞文化反對(duì)任何限制墮胎的企圖，盡管未出生的人也會(huì)感到痛苦。這兩個(gè)問題都依賴于大眾之間某種共同的道德來“解決”，而在整個(gè)美國民眾中，甚至在大多數(shù)美國民眾中，都沒有共同的道德。所以這些問題，尤其是墮胎問題，永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)“解決”，直到美國沒有那么多道德多樣性。
什么時(shí)候政府的分歧更小，更能“把事情辦好”？當(dāng)民眾中有一種占主導(dǎo)地位的亞文化時(shí)，同時(shí)國家也面臨生存威脅。多樣化的民眾+免受任何生存威脅的安全=政治僵局。
In front of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. there are two statues; one donkey and one elephant.
The donkey represents our Democratic party and the elephant represents our Republican party. Both are weird choices for mascots, but thats America for you.
Anyway, you will always see groups taking pictures with them and its always interesting to see where a family, or school group, or couple, or whoever chooses to stand in regards to the statues and thats our problem.
Consciously or subconsciously the people are choosing which one of the two statues they want to stand closer to and its weird how much angst that causes.
Theres so much division in that moment and, “oh, so you’re on that side?” going on and it stings. It hurts us all and sets us back as a country.
With that in mind, I’d say that the root problem in American politics is that a system where there is only two major parties divides us more than it unites us.
How do we change that? How do we actually achieve bipartisanship and not just say that we are? How do we un-polarize ourselves?
To be honest, I have no idea, but its in all of our best interest to try. Thanks for reading and have a nice day everyone.
在華盛頓特區(qū)的威拉德酒店前面有兩座雕像：一頭驢和一頭大象。
驢代表我們的民主黨，大象代表我們的共和黨。這兩種吉祥物都是很奇怪的選擇，但對(duì)你來說，這就是美國。
不管怎樣，你總是會(huì)看到一群人和他們合影，看看一個(gè)家庭、學(xué)校團(tuán)體、夫婦，或者任何選擇站在雕像前的人，這總是很有趣的，這就是我們的問題。
人們有意識(shí)或潛意識(shí)地選擇他們想要站得更近的兩個(gè)雕像中的哪一個(gè)，這引起了多么奇怪的焦慮。
在那一刻有很多分歧，“哦，所以你在那邊?”這句話很傷人。它傷害了我們所有人，使我們作為一個(gè)國家倒退。
考慮到這一點(diǎn)，我想說，美國政治的根本問題是，一個(gè)只有兩個(gè)主要政黨的制度將我們分開，而不是將我們團(tuán)結(jié)在一起。
我們?nèi)绾胃淖冞@一點(diǎn)？我們?nèi)绾握嬲龑?shí)現(xiàn)兩黨合作，而不僅僅是說說而已?我們?nèi)绾蜗约旱膬蓸O化?
老實(shí)說，我也不知道，但試一試對(duì)我們所有人都有好處。謝謝你的閱讀，祝大家有美好的一天。
The Two-Party System.
With a population of 328 million and steadily increasing,[1] the US has plenty of room for diversity, new ideas, and a wide range of opinions.
In 2017, there were about 44.4 million immigrants living here. The population is made up of millions of white people, black people, Asians, Latinos, and Hispanics—as well as around 2 million Native Americans.
There are people of many different religions—such as Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, etc, as well as people who don’t worship a religion.[2]
The demographics of the US are obviously very diverse.
However, despite this utter diversity, when the election comes, we only get two choices.
Or, two choices that have a chance on election day—many people that would vote third party don’t end up doing so because they know that there’s no way that their choice of candidate would end up on top.
兩黨制。
美國有3.28億人口，而且人口還在穩(wěn)步增長，美國有足夠的空間容納多樣性、新思想和廣泛的觀點(diǎn)。
2017年，大約有4440萬移民居住在這里。人口由無數(shù)白人、黑人、亞洲人、拉丁美洲人和西班牙人組成，還有大約200萬印第安人。
這里有信仰不同宗教的人，比如基督教新教、天主教、猶太教、摩門教、伊斯蘭教等，也有不信仰任何宗教的人
美國的人口結(jié)構(gòu)顯然非常多樣化。
然而，盡管存在這種完全的多樣性，當(dāng)選舉到來時(shí)，我們只有兩種選擇。
或者說在選舉日，只提供兩個(gè)選擇——許多本來會(huì)投票給第三黨的人最終沒有這樣做，因?yàn)樗麄冎浪麄冞x擇的候選人不可能最終獲勝。
It’s rare to agree with absolutely everything that one box has in it, but regardless, you have to pick.
Election Day comes, and you have to think to yourself, “I may absolutely despise both candidates. But which candidate to I despise a little bit less?”
Then you write somebody’s name down that you don’t like to have the greatest amount of power in your country for four years.
Such a high position is chosen by making a choice between the lesser of two evils.
And the one with the highest number of votes might not even end up winning—don’t even get me started on the electoral college.
無論成長背景、宗教、種族、收入如何，我們的觀點(diǎn)都分為兩個(gè)框架。
很少有人完全贊同一個(gè)框架里的所有東西，但無論如何，你必須做出選擇。
選舉日到了，你必須想，“我可能完全鄙視兩位候選人。但是哪位候選人我更不鄙視呢？”
然后你寫下一個(gè)你不喜歡的人的名字讓他在四年里在你的國家擁有最大的權(quán)力。
如此高的職位是依靠“兩害相權(quán)取其輕”來做出選擇。
而擁有最高票數(shù)的那個(gè)人甚至可能最終都不會(huì)獲勝——?jiǎng)e讓我提選舉團(tuán)的事了。
This might sound a little weird, but … I firmly believe that US politics has a loyalty problem. People are too loyal which is leading to a partisan riddled nightmare where people continue to support awful representatives (who don’t do or achieve anything for anyone) just because they’re a member of a certain political party.
The fight has become Right versus Left and not ‘Which party/candidate/representative can do the best job and deliver the best outcomes for me or for all Americans?’.
Imagine you were hiring tradesperson to build a new garden in your yard. You get some quotes from different options, and then you choose the best option that you believe can do the best job at the best price. Now imagine that the tradesman you chose wasn’t prepared, didn't invest the money you gave them in needed materials, didn’t have plan and achieved nothing and you're left with no garden…
What if you needed a garden built but instead of promising to build one, all they promised was that they’d stop any other tradesman from building you a garden because (in the tradesmen’s opinion) thegarden they’d build would be crappy?
這聽起來可能有點(diǎn)奇怪，但我堅(jiān)信美國政治存在忠誠度問題。人們過于忠誠，這導(dǎo)致一場(chǎng)黨派林立的噩夢(mèng)，人們僅僅因?yàn)樗麄兪悄硞€(gè)政黨的成員就繼續(xù)支持糟糕的代表（他們不會(huì)為任何人做任何事情或取得任何成就）。
這場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)已經(jīng)變成了右翼對(duì)左翼，而不是“哪個(gè)政黨/候選人/代表能做得最好，能為我或所有美國人帶來最好的結(jié)果？”。
想象一下，你正在雇一個(gè)工匠在你的院子里建一個(gè)新的花園。你從不同的選項(xiàng)中得到一些報(bào)價(jià)，然后你選擇了你認(rèn)為可以以最佳價(jià)格完成最佳工作的最佳選項(xiàng)?，F(xiàn)在想象一下，你選擇的工匠沒有做好準(zhǔn)備，沒有把你給他們的錢投資于所需的材料，沒有計(jì)劃，一無所獲，你沒有花園。
如果你需要建造一個(gè)花園，但他們沒有給予承諾，而是承諾阻止任何其他工匠為你建造花園。因?yàn)樵诠そ晨磥?，那些人建造的花園會(huì)很糟糕？
You still don't have a garden.
Would you hire them again next time?! Would you recommend them to others? Would you defined them vociferously when others point out that they never built you a garden?
他們沒有建造任何東西……他們所做的只是阻止別人做某事，但是是你付錢給他們阻止別人給你建造花園，不知何故，他們讓你相信這對(duì)你來說是件好事。
你仍然沒有花園。
下次你會(huì)再雇傭他們嗎？你會(huì)把它們推薦給別人嗎？當(dāng)別人指出他們從來沒有給你建過花園時(shí)，你會(huì)大聲地給他們下定義嗎?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The two-party system.
With this two-party system, nothing ever gets done— at least that’s what it seems in this day and age. You’re either for one side, or you’re for the other. You can’t be for both. You have to pick a side.
The cultural norms of each party (the Democrats and Republicans) are all too polarising for them to compromise on serious issues such as gun control, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion.
In terms of gun control, to some, gun ownership is a rite of passage. It’s a symbol. It’s a way of life, and it’s something they believe they need to protect themselves and their family. To them, the slight requirement of background checks would signal the beginning of government oppression. To them, restricting the right they have to own a gun under the Second Amendment in the slightest would be immoral.
As for the other side, they believe guns are pure evil. All they’re useful for is committing crimes and killing people. Owning a gun is not at all a rite of passage. They see no problem with their so-called “sensible gun laws”.
Nothing will ever be accomplished in terms of gun control until each side agrees.
兩黨制。
在這種兩黨制下，什么都做不了——至少在這個(gè)時(shí)代是這樣。你要么支持一方，要么支持另一方。你不可能兩者兼得，你必須選擇一方。
兩黨（民主黨和共和黨）的文化規(guī)范過于兩極分化，他們無法在槍支管制、LGBTQ+權(quán)利和墮胎等嚴(yán)重問題上妥協(xié)。
就槍支管制而言，對(duì)一些人來說，擁有槍支是一種成年禮。這是一個(gè)象征。這是一種生活方式，也是他們認(rèn)為需要保護(hù)自己和家人的東西。對(duì)他們來說，對(duì)背景調(diào)查的輕微要求將標(biāo)志著要開始?jí)浩日?。?duì)他們來說，根據(jù)第二修正案限制他們擁有槍支的權(quán)利是不道德的。
至于另一方，他們認(rèn)為槍支是純粹，是邪惡的。他們所有用的只是犯罪和殺人。擁有一支槍根本不是一種成人儀式。他們認(rèn)為他們所謂的“合理的槍支法”沒有問題。
除非雙方都同意，否則在槍支管制方面永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)取得任何成就。
Finally, abortion. One side says it is unethical to essentially kill an unborn baby, while the other says it is completely fine.
As for people in the center, their views are unbelievably silenced because centrists are deemed “inexperienced”, third party votes are considered wasted votes, and most centrists are even forced to align with one side because of the polarisation that exists between the parties.
I believe this divide between parties will become essentially non-existent with the growth of Gen Z, as the majority of us are either woke liberal Democrats or neoconservative Republicans who at least have the same opinions on race issues, LGBTQ+ rights, and….
But, in contemporary America, political polarisation is a big problem.
LGBTQ+權(quán)利就是另一個(gè)例子。一方認(rèn)為他們應(yīng)該享有與異性戀者相同的自由，而另一方則認(rèn)為他們應(yīng)該受到壓迫，因?yàn)橥詰佟挥谜f跨性別、雙性戀、泛性別和所有其他性別了——是反基督教的。在我們讓一些年輕人進(jìn)入國會(huì)之前，這場(chǎng)辯論不會(huì)結(jié)束——在某些情況下，它可能會(huì)繼續(xù)。
最后是墮胎問題。一方表示，殺死未出生的嬰兒基本上是不道德的，而另一方則表示這完全沒有問題。
至于中間派，他們的觀點(diǎn)被難以置信地沉默了，因?yàn)橹虚g派被認(rèn)為“缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)”，第三方選票被認(rèn)為是浪費(fèi)的選票，大多數(shù)中間派甚至被迫與一方結(jié)盟，因?yàn)檎h之間存在兩極分化。
我相信，隨著Z世代的成長，黨派之間的這種分歧將基本上不存在，因?yàn)槲覀兇蠖鄶?shù)人要么是覺醒的自由民主黨人，要么是新保守主義的共和黨人，他們至少在種族問題、LGBTQ+權(quán)利和某某問題方面有著相同的意見。
但是，在當(dāng)代美國，政治兩極分化是一個(gè)大問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The American people have allowed its “representatives” in Washington to become corrupt, overly partisan, and self-serving. They have allowed big corporations, big banks and Wall Street, and the super rich to make huge “investments” (political donations)—otherwise known as bribes—to gain political favors. What favors? Laws, regulations, tax breaks, etc, that favor them and disadvantage the rest of us.
The American people have allowed this to happen by being ignorant and gullible. Only the people can save the country from becoming an oligarchy run by self-serving populist politicians who are generously paid off by the super rich. Ask yourself where the $6.5 billion dollars spent by lobbyists every year in Washington DC goes, and why.
美國人民允許其在華盛頓的“代表”變得腐敗、過度黨派化和自私。他們?cè)试S大公司、大銀行、華爾街和超級(jí)富豪進(jìn)行巨額“投資”（政治捐款），也就是所謂的賄賂，以獲得政治利益，有什么好處？法律、法規(guī)、稅收優(yōu)惠等，這些都是對(duì)他們有利的，而對(duì)我們其他人不利。
美國人民由于無知和輕信而允許這種情況發(fā)生。只有人民才能拯救這個(gè)國家，使其免于成為由自私的民粹主義政客統(tǒng)治的寡頭政治，這些政客得到了超級(jí)富豪的慷慨資助。問問自己，游說者每年在華盛頓特區(qū)花費(fèi)的65億美元去了哪里，為什么。