• squid_slime
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    25 days ago

    As another European it is difficult to see the Americans constantly fight over voting. The two party system is definitely the issue here.

    Either way well said.

    • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a “them” got elected President, and the “useful idiot” they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing.

        Nothing in the Constitution empowers them.

        This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. It’s like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints don’t explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.

        While the rest of what you said is true though.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system.

          this is not causal

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          24 days ago

          first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system

          This is a myth. L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 days ago

            This is a myth.

            No it isn’t. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.

            L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats

            The data you’ve just quoted doesn’t support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.

            Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. You’ve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isn’t a myth.

            Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isn’t enough, because they still get sidelined.

            The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              your fiction, helpfully pointed out by the star wars characters, is based on a non-falsifiable theory. it’s not science, it’s storytelling.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              also, biden isn’t depicted in your analogy at all. he’s more like the emporer: more experienced as a statesman, older, but even more evil.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                That’s kind of unavoidable when comparing politicians to what ultimately equate to super heroes and super villans.

                The point of that graphic is to show how the spoiler effect works, not to say that Biden is good.

                Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  24 days ago

                  Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.

                  that’s not a reason to vote for him if there are candidates i don’t think are evil.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.

              Fair. I had to put a cut-off somewhere.

              Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only.

              In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.

              And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting.

              And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.

              The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.

              Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                24 days ago

                In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.

                I am aware. But that doesn’t really change what I’ve said. You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.

                Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win.

                You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.

                • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president.

                  You are right. There is a difference between parliamentary and presidential systems. Parliamentary systems reward parties that are locally strong. Presidential systems require a party to have a national base. So then, the problem is not with FPTP per se, but with Presidential forms of government.

                  You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.

                  I have already shown multiple examples of third parties under FPTP systems. I don’t know what other evidence you expect.

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    23 days ago

                    So then, the problem is not with FPTP per se, but with Presidential forms of government.

                    It’s a combination problem. There is only one seat available, and the race is done with FPTP, meaning the spoiler effect is especially strong.

                    If we switched to approval or star, no such effect would take place. Of course there is other election reform needed to make third parties viable, but there is no such thing as a simple solution for this problem.

                    I have already shown multiple examples of third parties under FPTP systems.

                    And those parties wield very little power. There are still parties that dominate the elections. No one party should have anything even remotely close to 50% of the seats.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces.

        It’s also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:

        The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President

        That last part being the main reason there’s an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.

        • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isn’t the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.