@eletrotupi Its debatable for sure. But there was a time (pre-911) that freedoms were far more of a priority and the law than they have been since.

@eletrotupi @freemo I think it did, once, in the beginning. It was problematic, but I think the ideals were there just implemented with the morality of the time and the usual imperfect humans doing what they do: be imperfect.

@shebang

Agreed

@eletrotupi

@design_RG Yea the thing about revolution, and civil wars, is there needs to be one of two scenarios for it to work...

1) there needs to be a geographic divide between the two sides. In this case left and the right are geographically intermixed so there are no lines that could be drawn

2) The whole of the people need to unite and universally envision the government as the bad guy with some unified sense of a public morality they are fighting for. With the left-right divide in america there is no unification.

As such revolution isnt likely to happen in the current climate.

@freemo I think it might happen, the country can't keep going as it is.

REgional tensions are high, and the Stupid in charge is only trowing gasoline in the fires. Likely it could end up in a bunch of new regional blocks, and this could take a long time to happen, maybe not.

Depends on many things. I love #Dystopic books and film, and have read and seen many; sometimes it feels like it's preparation for what's possibly to come.

Do you know the "World Made by Hand" novels by James Howard Kunstler ? Lovely, he's agreat writer, this series has 4 novels at the moment.

Highly recommend read.

His personal site : https://kunstler.com/books/world-made-by-hand/

@design_RG tensions arent enough... I think you are right that things may blow, but its more likely to look like riots and violence among americans than directed at the government in any real sense.

I mean just look at the people the population is voting for, those politicians dont look like revolution to me, they look like Status Quo with dementia.

We have a democracy, if things stood any chance of changing we would have a half-decent politician up for election right now.

@freemo > We have a democracy

Uhm, can be qualified, maybe "flawed" is a good adjective? I have frequently seen it used.

People are blinded by propaganda and noise, distractions. The political class is crass and corrupted. TWO parties, representing all the people?

Elections turn out, for presidential elections, under 50% ? OMG. And they go around harranging other people's countries and systems. Please.

@design_RG The flaws int he democracy, though, are not any unfairness in how votes are counted or any significant suppression in our ability to vote as we please.

All the flaws you mentioned are flaws inherent int he people, not the government. The people choose to read the huffington posts and the breitbart's of the world and get brainwashed by the propaganda, they choose to vote for the politically corrupt, they choose to buy the lie of a two party system and vote for it.

Every single one of these problems are problems inherent in the people and the choices they make. Every single one would go away if the people actually had any proper vision for a revolution and made changes, but they dont.

@freemo @design_RG Its a problem with system in use not the people. It is not a lie when winner takes all, scenario is applied. Even if some third party wins somehow it would still remain only two party system. Third party would just kick out one of those already in place.

@vnarek

That has no basis in reality. winner take all has nothing to do with a two party system. If anything that would mean its a "one party system" but the meaning there means something very different than what people even mean when they say "two party system".

If for example you saw year after year 3 or 4 parts having rather equal chance of winning then it wouldnt be called a two party system. That can happen simply by people voting as such.

@design_RG

@freemo This is the consensus in the political sciences actually. Look up Duverger's Law.

Yes, it can happen, but the winner takes all situation is going against that. Making additional parties does not make sense, because you can't meaningfully affect the country and people would not vote for third party because it is a waste of votes. Even if somehow a third party wins after some iteration, we are going to end up in two party system again.

@vnarek Hardly consensus that one *garuntees** the other.

It is true that because ofthe fact that people have bought into the lie of a two party system that a plurality vote tends to generate a two party system. This is absolutely true.

Likewise other systems of voting (even with a plurality rule in place) can effectively invalidate this sort of two-party thinking among the people, namely things like ranked-choice voting.

So there is some truth taht effectively, as long as people beleive the fallacy of the two-party system, it will be maintained unless and until counter measures are used to prevent it.

But it still, and always will, rely on the underlying fallacy being consider a truth by the voters and the people.

@vnarek In fact no only is not a scientific consensus that such a law is, in fact, a law, if you just go tot he wikipedia page about the law there are multiple counter examples that disprove the "law" listed.

@freemo Yea it says "tend to favour two-party system". I am just saying that it is hard to go against the system which makes two parties stronger and vote for third party. It is the same as systematic oppression of some race/ethnicity. You can escape poverty, but it is highly unlikely if the system does not want you to.

@vnarek Except it doesnt make the two party stronger. The only thing that makes twh two party system stronger is the fact that people beleive the lie that a two-party system exists in the first place.

It takes only very simple logic to realize as a voter there is no incentive to vote for the two parties. But enough propaganda has spread to convince people that they must vote two parties anyway.

Its little more than people being idiotic and letting that effect their vote. Ideally the system shouldnt need to correct for their idiocy, the people should be thoughtful enough not to let themselves fall into that line of thinking in the first place.

@freemo We can empirically see that it does. Most of the time this happens so we should adjust to the fact that it happens right?

@vnarek The reason that makes no sense is just because two parties tends to win in your area has nothing to do with if you should vote for one of two parties or not.

Its unrelated. The mentality is "voting for a third party throws away your vote". that statement is untrue whether a two parties are dominant or not. So arguing that two parties is dominant is not an argument for supporting one of two parties.

@freemo @vnarek the point is that the math is RIGGED unless we eliminate first past the post. We can be held hostage to by the two party voter without something that isn't rigged statistically like ranked voting

@penny

The math isnt rigged, feel free to show whatever equation you think disproves this however. There is no statistical rigging.

People can and should vote for whoever is best. The idea of anything being "rigged" is little more than propaganda people bought into and as such change their choices.

the only thing rigged is the stupidity of the common voter that causes them to believe it is rigged and thus must vote for two parties int he first place. If they didnt believe that lie and actually bothered to vote for the best candidate, then we wouldnt have two dominant parties to begin with.

@vnarek

@freemo This argument is not about whether you should vote for one of two parties, but that the actual system implemented in U.S favours two parties.

@vnarek the two are unrelated. the **only** reason a two party system emerges is specifically because people buy into the lie that that they need to vote for one of two parties.

If we could remove that lie from the minds of the populace than there would be nothing inherent in the system that would favor two parties and there would not be a two party system.

@freemo I understood what you meant. So your argument is that it tends to favour two-party system because people think that it favours two party system right?

So shouldn't the system change to break this understanding?

@vnarek more or less thats the jist of it. People incorrectly think if two parties are dominant that voting for a third party is a less significant vote. Thus they feel erroneously compelled to vote for one of two parties. The cycle would be broken if people didnt beleive (or spread) this false logic in the first place.

I have no problem with using ranked choice voting. It has no downsides and will cause the original false assumption, if otherwise bought into, to become invalid. Thus could potentially move us away from a two party system. Since I see no harm in ranked chocie voting I have no object to switching to it in the hope it might create this effect.

The the truth is, when you try to fix people not thinking for themselves by correcting the system according to their false expectations, you likely wont get very far. If we adopted ranked-choice voting across the USA you are likely to see the exact same result. a two party system, because people will just come up with some new failure of logic to justify it to replace the old.. people will start saying nonsense like "If your first choice when you vote isnt one of the two parties its throwing away your vote".. yea its just as much nonsense as with the system of voting we have now, but that wont stop them from believing it and executing on it either.

There is no shortage of evidence to back this up either... 1) In countries where voting systems are in place that resembles america's current system in several ways we often see exceptions where we simply dont see a two-party system and thus debunks the fundemental logic... 2) in states in the USA where ranked choice voting has been implemented we continue to see a dominance of a two-party system suggesting what I said, that you basically cant fix stupid.

@penny

@freemo @vnarek Read about first past the post, it's mathematically impossible for what you're suggesting to work; enough people BENEFIT from this system that they can hold us hostage to the two party system by complying with it. They WANT to force us to use it and their numbers allow this. You can't outvote the rich in first past the post.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

@penny

while it is certainly true that many people benefit from and want a two party system. Specifically those who are loyal to one of those two parties, in truth they have absolutely no power to force us to follow along.

The best they can do is spew advertisements at us (the rich).. but if we listen to those advertisements or not, or whether we actually bother to think for ourselves is entierly on us.

When the rich try to manipulate the public into a two party system, or a vote in general, and it happens to work, it isnt the rich who are to blame, it is the masses who were weak and gullible enough to turn on the TV in the first place, let alone listen to whatever nonsense it spewed at them without bothering to think for themselves.

@vnarek

@freemo @vnarek we can seize power by force, that's true, I'm into that. But it is mathematically impossible to vote our way out without achieving a better voting system

@penny

Incorrect for aforementioned reasons.

If a majority of people voted for a decent candidate, the decent candidate would win... There is no math diminishing their vote so long as people stop believing the lie that they are forced into two parties in the first place.

It is entirely circular logic that such mathematical pressures exist at all, and becomes self fulfilling by ones belief in it.

@vnarek

@freemo @vnarek The math does not work, you are arguing against simple basic logic. A simple majority of people fundamentally can't all vote for the same person, because they would always be a mixture of progressive and conservative people want. I don't want fascism, the other 50% does. I want healthcare, the other 50% wants me to die. I want to exist as a trans woman, the other 50% wants me dead. How can a simple majority like this ever vote together? What would this theoretical canidate support?

As long as no canidate can unify our ideals it's impossible. You can't say it isn't, a simple majority can never be achieved.

@penny I think @freemo ment that it would not be 50% 50%, but more like 30% 20% 10% 40% for example. Not all republicans wants fascism and not all left-leaning people have the same idea for leftist ideology, but we are grouped together into two wide parties that we lean more towards.

@penny

the flaw in your logic is that 50% of people are on one side and 50% on the other.

Most people I talk to vote democrat not because they thought it was the best vote but because they thought it was the lesser of two evils. Similarly most people who voted for trump didnt feel he was the best choice but simply felt it was the lesser of two evils and anything was better than the democrats.

Most people dont want to be polarized, they are forced into it. In all reality maybe 5% of people want fascism, 5% of people want anarchy, and 90% of people want a reasonable balance of each.. In all reality 5% of people want the idea of sex to disapear and for trans to be the accepted norm, 5% of people want trans people to die, and 90% of people want something in between.

It is only because they buy into the lie of there being only two votes and they must pick the lesser of two evils that the divide occurs alone 50/50 lines in the first place. Very few people actually agree wholly with the side they wind up supporting, and feel they made a huge compromise to fight against what they perceive as a greater evil from the other side.

If the fallacy of the two party system was something people stopped ascribing to I think you'd find there is a lot more room for compromise than people think. the issue, especially in america, extreamism and polarization is so high (as a result of these two parties) we dont see much compromise from either side.

@vnarek

@penny

by the way I'm not against ranked choice voting, I do support it.

But my point is, its an attempt at invalidating the thinking behind the inherent myth of two-party system. since beleive beleive the logic, however flawed, by introducing ways of voting that invalidate that logic, the idea is it destroys the myth and as such would dissolve the two party system.

But the truth is we dont **need** other forms of voting to do it. If the populace just werent gullible enough to buy the myth in the first place it would be a non issue.

@vnarek

@penny @freemo @vnarek
(i know im late to the party but i wanted to read the thread, then i ended up going for a walk lol)
first past the post is interesting because i think the idea is that it simplifies the election process in order to try and get more people to go and vote whilst also trying to avoid the paradox of choice
the issue imo is that a lot of people simply arent actually interested in politics and will either just not vote, or vote based on one issue
i have to admit, my voting has been largely single issue, i dispise the conservative party in the UK for the most part because i hate their anti freedom stuff but because labour isnt any different in that regard and brexit has been the big issue ive voted for them
i voted brexit party in the EU thing the year prior and that was the only time ive really seen a seperate party come in and smash it, and that wasnt for a general election.
people largely arent interested in local party politics, just the big country wide stuff.. which im guilty of too, its very rare for me to think 'oh i wonder what my local council are planning'

it was interesting to see the tactical voting stuff in the last election, people not wanting to vote labour voting libdem and greens, getting shouted down because the options are conservative or labour
as for fixing it im not too sure, first past the post is useful for a country because it narrows down the regional differences but it only really works when picking an A or B, i think the issue is that the smaller parties dont actually have any regional options, i cant remember which party but at one of the local elections i remember looking at the ballot and thinking 'wow no X candidate' lol (i think it mightve been ukip or something idr)
i think our current voting system could work if the public was either more interested in the actual policies and not the red vs blue or even if there was a proper third choice, and i mean one people actually voted 33% for, that would allow labour and conservative to actually make their stances clear in order to get votes.... maybe i dont really know
also looking at the wikipedia article I WONDER WHAT THE WRITER THINKS LMAO

anywho thats my rambly post without any concrete solutions, best enjoyed with a bit of bbq sauce

@lumeinshin

I dont have time right now to give this response a full read and a full reply but I want to say one thing.

I dont think getting people out to vote should be the goal. People who arent interest in politics, and especially people who dont bother to research the politicians and their viewpoints should be actively discouraged from voting.

If ranked-choice voting discourages people from voting I'd see that as a step in the right direction honestly.

@penny @vnarek