Seems when both parties in a 2 party-dominated system have unpopular candidates, the horse race ends up being purely about who turns off their base the least. Not who they impress or win over, but just how many votes one doesn't lose and the other does.
As a European I always felt the US doesn't have enough choices on their ballots. However, now is not the time to change it. First, the US democracy must be defended. Only after that it can be optimized.
However, now is not the time to change it. First, the US democracy must be defended.
You're not wrong, but that's only become more and more true in every election since I started voting. Of course it's the Republicans' fault for going off the fascist deep end, but I'm also starting to think the neoliberal Democrats like it that way because it gives them an excuse to demand fealty from progressives while giving fuck-all concessions in return. When does it end?
This is the issue. I really don't think that politics "accidentally" got to the point that it has. Politicians love power, and some of the best ways to stay in power are to rile your supporters up to near-fanatical levels, as the republicans did, or to have people in a situation where they feel forced to support you, as the democrats are currently enjoying. Regardless of who orchestrated it, I'm sure both parties are ecstatic about the state of the US political climate.
This is why we need to get past First Past the Post election systems.
It only supports two main parties because votes for other parties are spoiler votes that actually take away from the big party they are most aligned with. The two parties become big tent parties that don't need to align that closely with the people in it.
Canadians still feeling scorned after eliminating FPTP was a big election point, only to have it fizzle away when third parties clearly started garnering too much support (not that I think it was ever really in the cards regardless) and concerns about proportional representation being too supported by the other parties.
Those honestly sound like better problems to have. I think that being locked into a two party system means that every issue is conflated to be good for one side and bad for the other. It builds a very us-vs-them mentality and boils politics down into a team sport.
The two large parties in power are actually coalitions of smaller groups and I think third parties having more support would actually be more reflective of how coalitions are divided internally. There is a lack of transparency in a 2-party system with what is happening just under the surface.
Politics is still a struggle for power, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Revolution and Evolution are more or less the same in terms of their gross outcomes: disruptive change. It's just the timescale that's different.
Bush became president after losing the popular vote and then started a war that killed over a million people.
What fucking democracy?
Lol you're right, but its never the time, it will never be the time.
The time is in down ballot elections and primaries... unfortunately this year we effectively didn't have primaries.
Sure
Edit: lol did we have a primary 4 years ago when biden dropped into the race at the end and all the moderate candidates coalesed around biden? Or what about 4 years before that when debbie and the dnc handed the ball to hilary?
Shucks maybe next time haha
Honestly, stfu. "Nows not the time to change it" has been an excuse for far too many elections now. If we don't start changing it now we never will. Pacifism and apathy is just as bad. It will never be a great time for change because by it's very nature, change is hard. If it were easy, we'd be doing it already.
The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The next best time is today.
How, exactly, do you think voting for a third party for president will change things?
Seems when both parties in a 2 party-dominated system have unpopular candidates, the horse race ends up being purely about who turns off their base the least. Not who they impress or win over, but just how many votes one doesn't lose and the other does.
As a European I always felt the US doesn't have enough choices on their ballots. However, now is not the time to change it. First, the US democracy must be defended. Only after that it can be optimized.
You're not wrong, but that's only become more and more true in every election since I started voting. Of course it's the Republicans' fault for going off the fascist deep end, but I'm also starting to think the neoliberal Democrats like it that way because it gives them an excuse to demand fealty from progressives while giving fuck-all concessions in return. When does it end?
This is the issue. I really don't think that politics "accidentally" got to the point that it has. Politicians love power, and some of the best ways to stay in power are to rile your supporters up to near-fanatical levels, as the republicans did, or to have people in a situation where they feel forced to support you, as the democrats are currently enjoying. Regardless of who orchestrated it, I'm sure both parties are ecstatic about the state of the US political climate.
This is why we need to get past First Past the Post election systems.
It only supports two main parties because votes for other parties are spoiler votes that actually take away from the big party they are most aligned with. The two parties become big tent parties that don't need to align that closely with the people in it.
Canadians still feeling scorned after eliminating FPTP was a big election point, only to have it fizzle away when third parties clearly started garnering too much support (not that I think it was ever really in the cards regardless) and concerns about proportional representation being too supported by the other parties.
Those honestly sound like better problems to have. I think that being locked into a two party system means that every issue is conflated to be good for one side and bad for the other. It builds a very us-vs-them mentality and boils politics down into a team sport.
The two large parties in power are actually coalitions of smaller groups and I think third parties having more support would actually be more reflective of how coalitions are divided internally. There is a lack of transparency in a 2-party system with what is happening just under the surface.
Politics is still a struggle for power, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Revolution and Evolution are more or less the same in terms of their gross outcomes: disruptive change. It's just the timescale that's different.
Bush became president after losing the popular vote and then started a war that killed over a million people.
What fucking democracy?
Lol you're right, but its never the time, it will never be the time.
The time is in down ballot elections and primaries... unfortunately this year we effectively didn't have primaries.
Sure Edit: lol did we have a primary 4 years ago when biden dropped into the race at the end and all the moderate candidates coalesed around biden? Or what about 4 years before that when debbie and the dnc handed the ball to hilary? Shucks maybe next time haha
Honestly, stfu. "Nows not the time to change it" has been an excuse for far too many elections now. If we don't start changing it now we never will. Pacifism and apathy is just as bad. It will never be a great time for change because by it's very nature, change is hard. If it were easy, we'd be doing it already.
The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The next best time is today.
How, exactly, do you think voting for a third party for president will change things?
There is no comparison between the two except the MSM wants you to believe there is.
A battle of brainwashing and propaganda.