• Syndic@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 年前

    There’s more than two parties to choose from.

    Technically true, but there is no real choice. The US doesn’t have a proportional voting system but uses first past the post voting. This by default will result in a two party system. If one party splits up or loses voter to a third party, the remaining party will utterly dominate the politics until one of the other party comes up on top again.

    Sane countries do have a proportional voting system which allows several parties to flourish.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      That’s the point I (and the simpsons) is making though. If people didn’t vote for one of the two parties because “anything else is a wasted vote”. Even with FPTP you’d get a more varies result, at the very least in the upper/lower houses.

      But that doesn’t happen, and that’s how they have us all by the balls.

      • Syndic@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 年前

        But that doesn’t happen, and that’s how they have us all by the balls.

        Well that’s very easy when one party openly is working to destroy the whole democratic system.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 年前

          Very specifically, in the upcoming US election. Going to say, yes you need to stop a certain tyrant from getting another term. But as a general comment this happens regardless.

          Even all the years, at least in the UK, for quite some time a decade or so ago we had two parties, one that was 1mm left of centre and the other 1mm right of centre. If people didn’t like the fact they had a choice of Kang or Kodos, they did. But, everyone voted that way anyway.