4 ms·

The legislators are corrupt, and being able to override the popular vote gives them more power. The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority

• Cushman 14y ago
  I'm confused how you can argue that a national majority vote leads to a 2-party system when we have a 2-party system and we don't have a national majority vote.
  • nitrogen 14y ago
    The parent comment said, "The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority vote, which is just as flawed as a national majority vote. It leads to a 2-party system which concentrates power and typically results in corruption." Reduced to a pair of logical statements: Local majority vote --> Two-party system National majority vote --> Two-party system The parent poster did not make a statement of either of these forms: National majority vote <--> Two-party system Two-party system --> National majority vote Thus, the previous poster is not arguing that only a national majority vote leads to a two-party system. In other words, a national majority vote is a sufficient but not necessary condition to have a two-party system. At best, we can infer that the parent poster intends to say that a majority vote on any scale leads to a two-party system, whether local, electoral college, or national, but even that was not explicitly stated.
    • Cushman 14y ago
      I understand the logic of my parent's statement. To rephrase my question: We have a two-party system, and we do not have a national majority vote. Therefore, in absence of other evidence, I must assume there is a low upper bound to the importance of a majority vote on our two-party system.