The irony of this interaction is this is the first time I saw a democrat disagree with me and not throw a fit and get toxic and start blocking. It actually had me sitting here second guessing if there might be a few good ones.... then she blocked me... The irony is she would have done more to change my mind otherwise and threw away any positive effect she had in the end.
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@freemo Lol, what? I disagree with you all the time. And I've been a registered member of the party since January 7th 2021.
(Also, she makes good points)
Thats fair, in fact I had suspected when I wrote that you'd fall into the one exception I can actually think of outside of personal friends.
But I was mostly thinking in terms of strangers rather than people i had met and intracted with before discussing politics.
@freemo Yeah, also I think we've had that exact same argument you linked above before 😄
@louis ITs a fairly common argument when people come in with the two-party nonsense
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo @louis believe me, it's a common argument here in germany with more than 5 parties having a substantial vote. if you vote for something else you are "throwing your vote away".
regarding people throwing a fit:
i think what happens is that people identify very strongly with certain parties that criticizing these parties is an attack at their ego. i believe that this happens more for progressive parties, as those often use emotional arguments (like "end of democracy"). at least much more often than conservatives.
@bonifartius @freemo Here in the US, our system is literally built in such a way that there can only really ever be two competitive parties at any given time. Those parties can change, but it usually requires some sort of cataclysm first.
So, voting outside of those two parties really, truly is nothing but performative.
If someone is committed to voting the opposite party as mine: Fine, we disagree, no problem.
If someone is committed to voting third party, my only response is: What the fuck?
@louis @freemo
well, if everyone votes in a two party system because they think others do as well, it likely will stay a two party system :)
i believe voting like this does act against the idea of democracy. the idea was to vote for things people personally want - not making a game theory problem out of it.
@bonifartius @freemo I don't think that's true, here, though. Because power regularly transitions back and forth between the two powers. Neither is the established government or opposition.
The USA has switched which 2 parties are the majority parties 8 times in the history of the USA.. Its been a while, but the democrats and republicans just happen to be the most recent major parties, they werent always the dominate ones.
@bonifartius @freemo Yeah, not here. Here, there's only one round and that round is for two single heavyweights. So, everybody plugged-in picks their sides around primary time and everybody else picks their side just before the actual election.
There are about 40 countries that use FPTP voting in its pure form.. and about 25 more countries that use it in a mixed form with other methods.
Oddly those 40 countries despite using FPTP just like the USA do not tend to have 2-party systems... because its a myth. America is only different because it gives the illusion i described earlier which is only because people buy the myth at all. In these other 40 countries though because that myth isnt really one that is "sold" you dont get the 2-party system you get here.
@freemo @bonifartius Can you cite that claim? My understanding is that these other countries typically have parliamentary systems, which are far more conducive to more parties.
I do not have a source for that.
But regardless of if their parlimentary not sure how that would change the 2-party system effect when voting for the members of parliment. If a FPTP truely created a 2-party system we would see their parliments filled with members of only 2 parties.
@freemo @bonifartius No, because FPTP only applies to the top ticket in America (i.e. the Electoral College). Down-ballot, third parties are vastly more competitive.
In a parliamentary system, the parliament usually chooses the head of state, not the general populace. So, since the population isn't forced into coalitions for the top of the ticket, they're able to vote more locally for their MP who then votes for the HoS. That allows more parties and gradual transitions and power shifts.
> No, because FPTP only applies to the top ticket in America (i.e. the Electoral College). Down-ballot, third parties are vastly more competitive.
That doesnt match with the reality. In the USA our congress is almost entierly two parties.In fact you get third parties becoming president (those 8 examples I mentioned) **more often** then you get a third party in congress. But since congress has more people you will always have one or two in there while that is true.
The claim is that FPTP voting is why congress is a 2 party system just as much logic attempting to explain the presidency. Yet it only actually works that way in the USA.
Except the two party system is still an illusion. When support for the three parties is 34%, 34%, 32% then the actual vote will result in 51%, 48% and 1%.. but the second the "real" support passes that threshold you will see an immediate and shart ~50% flip in votes. In other words, the system appears to be two party but it still ultimately will follow the underlying "real support", thus there is no two party system, not really.
This is why every time the parties have switched the new dominant party had ~1% voting support the previous year despite a sudden shift.. this happened 7 out of the 8 times a party has switched.
@freemo @bonifartius Right, and that's consistent with what I said earlier:
> our system is literally built in such a way that there can only really ever be two competitive parties at any given time. Those parties can change, but it usually requires some sort of cataclysm first.
But the piece you're missing is that there's no path to a smooth transition from 3% to 32%. Those shifts are almost always abrupt, and they are often not bloodless.
The 3% to majority shift has happened virtually overnight "smoothly" in most past elections. In fact, I am unaware of any blood shed... People just eventually say enough and once support passes the threshold it flips. In almost every case though its largely bloodless and organic as far as I know.
@bonifartius @freemo It's not a problem of wishful thinking; it's a problem of constitutional reform.
Our system is built to incentivize coalition building until only two parties remain. Those coalitions regularly shift, but there will only ever be two without a change to the system itself.