6 ms·

> It's amazing these people keep getting voted back in too. It's a two-party system, you have to vote for one of them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYsZUM

> It's amazing these people keep getting voted back in too. It's a two-party system, you have to vote for one of them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYsZUMuj0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYsZUMuj0M, The Simpsons S8E1 - Treehouse of Horror VII - Kang and Kodos Or more accurately, they've gotten really good at getting people to focus on hating the other guy or getting wrapped up in partisan BS.

gorwell 5y ago
How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. > Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries. Those sound like a technical solutions to a social problem.
  - lawrenceyan 5y ago
    Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief. They can be part of a more holistic solution, but here they were presented as the solution. And if you only have half a solution, it may turn out to be half of the wrong one.
bobthepanda 5y ago
The problem is that we do not have effective third parties, because * elections in the US require a fuckton of spending. AOC raised millions for a House district that wasn't even competitive, meanwhile the British Parliament has a 30,000GBP spending limit. It is a lot easier for upstart parties to raise tens of thousands of dollars rather than millions. * third parties in the US have a habit of mostly trying to go for broke and failing. The general track record of successful ones elsewhere is that they usually cut their teeth in lower levels of government before they start competing well in national elections, and on top of that the lower level elections are generally easier to win (much lower voter count = much lower spending, thinner electoral margins, etc.) * the US lacks regional parties, which is another source of third-partyism, but depending on your views this might be a good thing.
- pitaj 5y ago
  No mention of FPTP voting system?
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    You can have third parties under FPTP. The UK, Canada, India to name a few have them.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      So does the US, they even occasional win elections, even to Congress (historically, there is at least one case where one displaced a major national party in the state-level duopoly), that doesn't mean FPTP doesn't tend toward duopoly. (FPTP plus a strong Presidential system tends more strongly toward duopoly; FPTP plus a strong Presidential system plus an indirectly-elected President where Presidential electors are mostly elected by multimember FPTP tends even more strongly to duopoly.)
  - bialpio 5y ago
    Isn't it more of a property of single-member districts rather than voting system?
PeterisP 5y ago
You can vote for someone else in the primaries though, can't you?
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  How would that help?
  - RhysU 5y ago
    Open primaries would permit centrist voters to 'shave off' what they see as fringe positions prior to the general election.
NoGravitas 5y ago
If you didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in!
CPLX 5y ago
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
It's actually a one party system with two divisions, as their voting record shows. [1]. [1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

gorwell 5y ago

How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. > Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries. Those sound like a technical solutions to a social problem.
- lawrenceyan 5y ago
  Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief. They can be part of a more holistic solution, but here they were presented as the solution. And if you only have half a solution, it may turn out to be half of the wrong one.

bobthepanda 5y ago

The problem is that we do not have effective third parties, because * elections in the US require a fuckton of spending. AOC raised millions for a House district that wasn't even competitive, meanwhile the British Parliament has a 30,000GBP spending limit. It is a lot easier for upstart parties to raise tens of thousands of dollars rather than millions. * third parties in the US have a habit of mostly trying to go for broke and failing. The general track record of successful ones elsewhere is that they usually cut their teeth in lower levels of government before they start competing well in national elections, and on top of that the lower level elections are generally easier to win (much lower voter count = much lower spending, thinner electoral margins, etc.) * the US lacks regional parties, which is another source of third-partyism, but depending on your views this might be a good thing.

pitaj 5y ago
No mention of FPTP voting system?
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  You can have third parties under FPTP. The UK, Canada, India to name a few have them.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    So does the US, they even occasional win elections, even to Congress (historically, there is at least one case where one displaced a major national party in the state-level duopoly), that doesn't mean FPTP doesn't tend toward duopoly. (FPTP plus a strong Presidential system tends more strongly toward duopoly; FPTP plus a strong Presidential system plus an indirectly-elected President where Presidential electors are mostly elected by multimember FPTP tends even more strongly to duopoly.)
- bialpio 5y ago
  Isn't it more of a property of single-member districts rather than voting system?

PeterisP 5y ago

You can vote for someone else in the primaries though, can't you?

kwhitefoot 5y ago
How would that help?
- RhysU 5y ago
  Open primaries would permit centrist voters to 'shave off' what they see as fringe positions prior to the general election.

NoGravitas 5y ago

If you didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in!

CPLX 5y ago

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

It's actually a one party system with two divisions, as their voting record shows. [1]. [1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...