5 ms·
That will never happen in our lifetime. Democrats can't do it, because Republicans will never cooperate with a Democratic Party president. Republicans can't d
by gorbachev 3y ago
That will never happen in our lifetime.
Democrats can't do it, because Republicans will never cooperate with a Democratic Party president.
Republicans can't do it, because they will continue to nominate a culture warrior whose only job is to fight wokeness, so they aren't even interested in it.
This thing will keep escalating, relatively slowly, until it finally crosses the line and even the Republicans will figure out that maybe they ought to have some accountability.
My guess it will take minimum of two generations.
- newswasboring 3y agoI agree, if this was to happen it will have to happen with a third party. But America seems to be allergic to any third parties. For the longest time I used to think that the two party system is like a law in America or something. Like China has a one party system. When I learned that it isn't, i spent a considerable amount of time confused as to why then in all political discourse is the two party system so... enshrined. Some say if you listen to me closely, I'm still confused about this. I come from a country which routinely has 20 parties in different levels of government each with significantly different agendas (or at least we used to, sigh...). Why is this not the case in America? It seems to me that everyone is dissatisfied with their party, yet they don't want to support anything else. For a country which prides itself in its entrepreneurship and startup culture, the reluctance in supporting innovation in politics is so surprising. Edit: btw, i disagree with you that Republicans will "start" to hold their leaders accountable. From an outsider perspective, the Republican party seems to be achieving their targets and GoP members are more active than Democratic party members. I may disagree with most of their social and financial goals, but I will acknowledge they are effective and there are severe consequences on failure.
- nicoburns 3y agoIt's the First Past The Post voting system that leads to two parties.
- newswasboring 3y agoMy country also has a first past the post system. We still had several parties. In fact till about 15 years ago all states had their major parties which had significant presence in the federal parliament too. I don't think this is a valid explanation
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoAnd what's the situation now? Your country could gradually he heading towards a two party system.
- newswasboring 3y agoNo we are heading to a one party system. But that has nothing to do with first past the post. There are several historical and social reasons for that.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoI'm sorry to hear that. No one wants to live under a one-party system.
- digging 3y ago> But that has nothing to do with first past the post. You could be right, but how do we know the polarizing effect of FPTP isn't contributing to this change?
- newswasboring 3y agoEverything is contributing to it. Our dietary preference contribute to this more than the FPTP system. My country is going through a dark period, and the way our elections are held has very little to do with it.
- int_19h 3y agoThat FPTP results in a long-term two-party equilibrium (that may be occasionally disrupted) is not exactly a secret: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law And in some cases, at least, FPTP itself is deliberately introduced by large parties to reduce the viability of their competitors. Northern Ireland was one particularly nasty case of that.
- owenmarshall 3y ago> For the longest time I used to think that the two party system is like a law in America or something. Not a law of the state, but a law nonetheless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- gorbachev 3y ago[flagged]
- mensetmanusman 3y agoEvery empire inevitably drowns in its wealth.
- piva00 3y agoMy guess is that it will take a lot more than that, the USA needs to have a political system less reliant on boatloads of cash. Campaigns are spectacles, not political debate, spectacles are great entertainment but are very poor to foster any discussion around hard topics and solutions. America's love of a good show made even politics like a big sport, team red and team blue against each other, fighting tooth and nail for turf (aka districts, electoral votes by States, etc.) and the team that is better funded usually will have a leg up. Just like sports. The cultural change required to move politics away from this culture of spectacle and entertainment is way harder than what can be achieved in two generations.
- 20after4 3y agoAnd we aren't even moving away from this, we're moving farther and farther into it.