It amazes me that one of the largest countries in the world, with the most diverse demographics, can only chose between two candidates. This is not democracy. It’s a shit show that has been going on for far too long.
It is kind of amazing how even those disenfranchised voters will rally to support the hegemony of the “two party” corporatist rule. I suggested recently we could consider rallying behind a single issue 3rd party candidate who would end the legalized bribes and replace FPTP with a more democratic alternative, and was immediately downvoted and told it’s not possible due to FPTP.
It is theoreticaly possible, but praticaly speaking it would be near impossible.
To acomplish this, you need to get 51% of the population (who actually vote) to all vote for one person. However, with FPTP, you get one choice on the ballot. Is the average voter going to risk their vote on a 3rd party, or vote for who they belive to be the “lesser evil” of the two that have a shot at winning?
Even if you do manage to get 51%, there’s the electoral collage. Never forget, our democracy has built in the ability to overwrite the presidential vote.
Your first hurdle is getting any one to name an independent candidate.
I agree with this. But also, this time is the closest to “end of the world” stakes we’ve had in recent memory. We have a literal criminal, rapist, and fraudster who already tried to overthrow the government once leading the polls.
That’s not how it works. As long as FPTP exists, it will lock us into two parties. We have had multiple party systems that all demonstrated this principle. Some places are experimenting with alternatives on the state and local level, but it will take time.
You’ve already got one response to this which is correct. I want to add to it to help explain how FPTP voting systems result in a 2 party system and simply voting for another party does not solve the issue.
But first you’re either aware of the problem and want to encourage people to vote third party while pretending not to know how the system works or you’re actually just ignorant to the issue.
I don’t normally like video links in discussions like this but this one is especially good and is only 6.5 mins.
The USA is proud to have the oldest and longest-standing written constitution. The fact it hasn’t been rewriteen in a long time help explain why there’s still an electoral college, slavery for prisoners (13th amendements), and weak regulation of campaign finance.
Which is honestly meaningless but very convenient for US narrations. There were also older de facto constitutions, which are usually forgotten like the Henrician Articles of P-L Commonwealth. US constitution is famous because it was the one which was loudly proclaimed and imitated later.
It amazes me that one of the largest countries in the world, with the most diverse demographics, can only chose between two candidates. This is not democracy. It’s a shit show that has been going on for far too long.
America is a one party dictatorship, and in typical American extravagence, it has two of them.
Just mention an alternative and you’ll will quickly understand why.
The parties have done the most amazing job in pretending the world will end at every election if they are not chosen.
It is kind of amazing how even those disenfranchised voters will rally to support the hegemony of the “two party” corporatist rule. I suggested recently we could consider rallying behind a single issue 3rd party candidate who would end the legalized bribes and replace FPTP with a more democratic alternative, and was immediately downvoted and told it’s not possible due to FPTP.
facepalm
It is theoreticaly possible, but praticaly speaking it would be near impossible.
To acomplish this, you need to get 51% of the population (who actually vote) to all vote for one person. However, with FPTP, you get one choice on the ballot. Is the average voter going to risk their vote on a 3rd party, or vote for who they belive to be the “lesser evil” of the two that have a shot at winning?
Even if you do manage to get 51%, there’s the electoral collage. Never forget, our democracy has built in the ability to overwrite the presidential vote.
Your first hurdle is getting any one to name an independent candidate.
Edit: adjusted some wording to be better.
In order for a 3rd option to be viable, the entire system must change. I’m not holding my breath.
Between now and then, all we can do is vote for the less bad of two evils.
I agree with this. But also, this time is the closest to “end of the world” stakes we’ve had in recent memory. We have a literal criminal, rapist, and fraudster who already tried to overthrow the government once leading the polls.
2016 called they want their gaslighting back. Trump isn’t the final form of Fascism. He’s getting close but he ain’t it.
Is that a 3rd option in a first past the post system?
Hmmmm… what could be the issue there I wonder.
The people are the issue not the system
There is absolutely an issue with first past the post voting systems. And frankly I think you know what the problems are.
That people are so desperate to keep it in place.
FTFP is never going go away if you keep voting for it lol.
How surprising. A comment meant to discourage voting.
Vote for something different than the ftfp parties.
That’s not how it works. As long as FPTP exists, it will lock us into two parties. We have had multiple party systems that all demonstrated this principle. Some places are experimenting with alternatives on the state and local level, but it will take time.
You’ve already got one response to this which is correct. I want to add to it to help explain how FPTP voting systems result in a 2 party system and simply voting for another party does not solve the issue.
But first you’re either aware of the problem and want to encourage people to vote third party while pretending not to know how the system works or you’re actually just ignorant to the issue.
I don’t normally like video links in discussions like this but this one is especially good and is only 6.5 mins.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Tradition and inertia.
The USA is proud to have the oldest and longest-standing written constitution. The fact it hasn’t been rewriteen in a long time help explain why there’s still an electoral college, slavery for prisoners (13th amendements), and weak regulation of campaign finance.
Oldest active constitution is San Marino.
That’s interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
My point is having a very old constitution isn’t much of a boast if keeping it as-is causes political issues.
Presumably what the other commenter was referring to is the US having the oldest codified constitution
Which is honestly meaningless but very convenient for US narrations. There were also older de facto constitutions, which are usually forgotten like the Henrician Articles of P-L Commonwealth. US constitution is famous because it was the one which was loudly proclaimed and imitated later.
Ok 👍