Because the rich have spent 2 centuries entrenching themselves in power, and literally everyone else won’t do a thing about it.
We’re all so apathetic that the impending collapse of our ecosystem is viewed with a shrug. When it should be met with torches and pitchforks in the street, and Madame Guillotine for the rich and powerful.
Nobody gives a shit because they’re all waiting for someone else to do something.
“first past the post” voting always devolves to a two party system. The founding fathers knew this and warned against it. Until we get ranked choice, or something similar, we’re stuck.
FPTP always devolves into local two candidate elections.
There’s no guarantee, though, that those two parties are the same everywhere. Regional third parties can do quite well under FPTP. That particularly works for e.g. the Scottish National Party or the Bloc Quebecois.
To be fair, the American Founding Fathers may not have had heard of the ranked choice voting. The idea was only just forming after the US became independent.
I’ve voted democrat for every election I can remember. And while I like to see my “team” win as much as the next guy, at some point you realize that other countries have better electoral systems in place.
Meanwhile, we’ve all acquiesced to this 2-party winner takes all bullshit.
The most confusing thing to me is how Democrats can have majorities in the House and POTUS and their agenda gets inched along but the second Republicans have that their agenda gets rammed through asap.
Is that a misconception? It certainly seems that Republicans make much more aggressive and active use of their power.
Republicans have forced out anyone who doesn’t walk in lockstep with the party. They have gone as far as to run alternative Republicans in some races, causing the conservative vote to be split and forcing the incumbent Republican to lose to the Democrat. Meanwhile, Democrats will let a far-right nutter like Joe Manchin run as a Democrat because he is slightly to the left of some other even crazier bastard. Even when the Dems win a majority the Republicans do everything they can to keep elected people from being sat for as long as possible. During Obama’s term, Franken was elected, but the Republicans drug out every legal battle they could to contest his win and keep him from being seated. In the end, the Dems had an actual majority for only 4 months, and even then had to get 3 Republican votes to break the Republican filibusters.
If you’re referring to relatively recent events (like the first 2 years of Biden’s term) you need to look no further than Kyrsten Sienema and Joe Manchin. “Democrats” that opposed the agenda (and general Good Things™) for personal greed and lobbying interests. Biden had a majority in the house, and a hostile supreme court, which we’re going to be dealing with for a good long time that’s to McConnell’s fuckery. The defection of Sienema and Manchin made progress very difficult.
It’s also harder to get the wider variety of interests in the big tent of left to go in the same direction. Kinda like herding cats.
Sweden, Germany, Colombia, Australia, etc. Ranked/Alternative/Proportional voting. We should have multiple choices without fear of voting for less popular options being useless. With our current system we basically can’t vote for third parties.
It takes a while for the effects of party decentralization to take hold. The underlying party structure is at the core of two-party systems. RCV is just one incentive (a big one) to restructure parties to be more democratic and diverse, instead of coalescing into monolithic amorphous blobs. Along with Gerrymandering laws, campaign financial regulation and voter civic education. It all has to work in concert to dismantle the social control version of democracy.
Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have ranked choice vote. Slovenia had it previously but regressed to FPTP in 2021.
Give up? More like the Republicans are grasping for straws considering how bad they have done in local and midterm elections. They could be putting propaganda to dissuade Democratic voters, which I don’t see happening anytime soon. Biden (and many Democrats) has surprisingly been more progressive for me as a leftist and many people appreciate that. My theory is that the pandemic and the government response to alleviate the costs after the lockdowns made Americans appreciate more government assistance.
That’sa lie. I’ve voted every election since eligible age but fuck the two majors. I’m happy to write in, but I’m not keen on Cornell anymore either so I’m about to nope, unless someone better than the status quo comes along.
The people we need most to turn out and vote this election season (18-24) are the most susceptible to this kind of campaign. And you very much can get them to vote with the right message.
The Constitution was literally the best a bunch of doped-up, syphilitic slaveholders could come up with to replace the divine right of kings. They even had a first try with the Articles of Confederation and fucked that up.
We really need to stop teaching kids that a system of government written by people who used leeches to cure hysteria is the greatest thing ever created.
Having 2 dominant political parties is a reflection of how our political systems have been designed at almost every level (federal, state, local). American politics is very much based on first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all elections. These kinds of election systems are terrible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the very real problem of vote splitting and the spoiler effect--leading to "third parties" which are almost all unserious, nonviable, and potentially backed by people with ulterior motives. The vast majority of the time, voting for a third party candidate in America is simply throwing your vote away and is effectively the same as not voting. (Even as a "protest", it's not a very good one, because it's never clear what can be interpreted from why people vote the way they do.)
The solution to this problem is changing how we run elections so that the most popular candidates are more likely to win, and so that people's individual votes are less likely to become nullified in various ways (like by voting for a statistically nonviable candidate, for one). I like Ranked Choice Voting and STAR voting, but just about anything is better than the way that most American elections currently work.
Even in a hypothetical future where we have 10 viable parties (and more democratic voting systems), no political party is going to "give a fuck about you" as an individual. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Vegetarians, Librarians, and whatever other parties spring up. The truth is, they all only give a fuck about getting your vote, so that they can get in a position of political power to do the things that they and their influential backers want (all the while reaping the benefits of doing so). There is no political party on Earth that is in it for the benefit of all of mankind--they all have some kind of agenda and ideology that they want to put in place.
In that way American politics is like a tug of war, we current have 2 viable parties, one pulling the rope to the left and another pulling the rope to the right. You can spend as much time as you want lamenting where the rope currently is compared to where you would like it to be. But if you want the rope to move left, it makes sense to join the left side. And if you want the rope to move right, it makes sense to join the right side. Sitting out just makes it easier for the "other side" to make "progress". Having more parties doesn't really change that, it just turns a 1-dimensional battle into an n-dimensional battle.
The biggest benefit that comes from having multiple (viable) political parties is increased competition of ideas. But again, America truly require huge systemic changes to how we run elections to make that a reality.
I'm going to be voting for the party that more closely aligns with the direction that I want the country to move in. It's the only smart move in the game of American politics.
In multy-party system, you often end up voting for a party that then on your behalf makes deals with other parties to form coalition, deals you did not agree upon. It is like delegation of duty, or rather usurpation of your vote. And you still end up with fucked up government that does not reflect your values. In two party system you are the one who are forced to make those compromises.
In multiparty system, often one coalition (or even party) dominates for many years and election cycles. The two party system nearly guarantees strong opposition.
Power balances inside those coalitions (which can vary wildly depending on the votes outcome, compared to two party system) affect a lot. If the stricter left-wing party wins over the center-left party and gets to be the PM party then obviously the coalition is going to be more left-wing. And so on.
And it offers much better options for people to shop for a party they actually agree with. Having to vote either this or that is a sucky system because it offers basically two avenues for you if you are not happy with the party you voted for. Either you switch to the other side totally (which is often not at all what you want) or you don’t vote and you’ll just end up helping the other party anyway. Great options.
Multiparty system offers much better option to vote for, but then there is only one coalition. So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions” that you mention, but here, they are talking directly to voters, as opposed to each other. Again, I see advantage of two party system here.
I believe that bad perception of two party system is because now, we truly have two camps in our culture - the society is broken in two, cohesiveness is lost. But it is not because of the two party system, it is the opposite: because of this cultural break it propagated, “mirrored” into our politics. But it is exactly how it supposed to work in representative democracy. It would be strange if we had this cultural problem and our politicians would not.
Two party system is just a bad idea if you want to have options. It’s basically left or right and if you’re not pleased by their politics, what can you do, not vote or vote the other side even further from you?
then there is only one coalition
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions. All depends on who can make the 50%, if they’re going for a majority government.
So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party, since they have to please most of the voter base anyway and try to fish for new voters from the other side.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions”
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again, and reacting fairly little to that sort of stuff. It’s nowhere near the difference from voters switching to a different party altogether.
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions.
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party...
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
Of course you (and other voters) contribute. The biggest party typically is one that forms the coalition and the vote share and recent performance at the poll among other things affects that.
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Are you arguing that US parties are too similar?
No?? I’m saying the parties do similar sort of politics as they’ve been doing for decades. Voters swinging to the left has little effect when it’s the same Democrat party in rule. Or same for right wing. You need something dramatic for the position to actually move.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Yes, exactly! But the difference is WHO is making the compromise. You, as a voter, or not. Maybe I like pro-business party but would never, ever vote for party that want to push religion into high school. In US, I will just not vote republican, because I can not make this compromise. But, in other countries, I may vote for pro-business party which then enters into coalition with religious party, and I can not take my vote back. And even in the next election I would not know if pro-business party will end up in coalition with religious party.
Or same for right wing.
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
That’s what I had in mind too. But Democratic party is still very much the same. It takes a lot to change those parties, otherwise it’s same old same old.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
They are making compromises (that you have not approved) as result of forming coalition. Democrats do not have to do those compromises - if they are in power - they are in power. The compromises were done at voting booth by you.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off, what to do if they don’t have senate, house, presidency… You don’t get to decide those compromises. They might not even know they’ll have to make them or it would just look bad so they don’t mention them.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too. Could have “best of both”, if you are worried about parties having to fit into a coalition.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off...
I am not saying they do not do any compromises. I am saying they do not have to do EXTRA compromises to form coalition. And those compromises could be particularly great.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power "more honest". This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power “more honest”. This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system. It doesn’t mean there’s no strong opposition when there’s more than one opposition party…
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates. Strong opposition is not a guarantee or unique to two party system at all.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
For the purpose of our discussion, it nearly does not matter how they come up with the platform before you vote. What matters is what happens after your choice. Whether your choice can be overwritten by necessity to create coalition. The voter becomes more removed from the policy of the ruling coalition than from the party in two party system.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system.
What is good and bad is not 51% seats, but the 49% of opposition. In situation when you have multi-party system and 51% are in hands of one party, it does not mean that you have 49% of strong opposition! Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed. Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing. It is weak. Not so for two party system. 51% is barely majority.
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
Your vote can be overridden no matter what. There’s nothing saving you from that. Party platforms in any kind of system aren’t very good promises on what will happen.
I’m not sure if it was just a poor choice of words but there’s no necessity to compromise to form a coalition. A party can decide not to participate or come to the conclusion that they aren’t able to form an effective coalition (if the biggest party).
Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing
And what, you think in two party system the opposition party can just take down the government from minority position? Of course the opposition can rally against the government and hope their lines break. Which is something that can be more likely when it’s a coalition. But it being a single or multi party doesn’t matter. If government lines hold, there’s nothing to be done other than rallying against them and waiting for the next elections.
Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed
In my experience that is not at all the case, rather parties supporting the standing government outside of it is a rarity. Such party will most likely suffer from unpopular decisions of the government and not benefit from the possibility of being in opposition. It’s rarely a smart position to be in.
Not to mention in multi-party system, it’s not just sitting government vs opposition that are fighting, but the parties within the coalition and parties in the opposition are competing. And after elections, some government parties might end up joining the new government formed by opposition parties and so on. The whole point is that it’s not just two opposing sides, this or that, but multitude of ideologies and platforms that are competing.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
I’m surprised. I thought the idea that two party system meant a strong opposition was one of your main points.
Imho the two party system is just a way to manipulate people and then put them against each other. Treating life like it’s black or white like you either are an ally or a lifelong enemy that must be vanquished.
As far as I’m concerned the only point of modern politics is to keep people under control by giving them a false choice and a common enemy in their neighbor
Yeah this meme is ass. If it makes anyone feel better, in Canada we have five parties that fail us instead of just two. The advantage there is we get to complain with more granularity. It’s the uncommon lose-lose-lose-lose-lose!
While I completely agree the issue is one party is completely playing in bad faith. I’m not says the Democrats are perfect and there is a fair amount of bad apples but Republican are complete taken over by bad actors that have no one interests but themselves and those that in rich them. At this time voting 3rd party wouldn’t help, it would just make sure the Republican most likely trump will win.
America’s Overton window so far to the right that the Republican Party is not as seen far-right fascist party but just “right” (no word play intended).
Add comment