3 ms·
The irony? Nowhere, that I'm aware of, is there anything in the founding documents about limiting choice to two parties. We can't keep filtering everything thro
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
The irony? Nowhere, that I'm aware of, is there anything in the founding documents about limiting choice to two parties. We can't keep filtering everything through a binary lens and expect to get anything but binary opposing views.
The tool (i.e. The Constitution) is fine. The problem is at this point it's being used as a hammer and it's a screwdriver. Ya can't blame the tool for those who insist on misusing it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- funcDropShadow 4y agoDemocracies that elect powerful presidents directly are usually two party systems. Only the indirect vote of the government through a parliament makes multi party systems more stable.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoNonetheless, there is nothing that stipulates two parties and certainly not the two parties we have currently. We're too top heavy and we're governed by a cartel. That's not The Constitution's fault.