@wjmaggos

Im a huge supporter of RCV since it is simply a superior method. However the evidemce overwhelming ahows that FPTP voting (what we currently have) doesnt cause two party systems despite the myth. This is evidenced by the thousanda of elections aroubd the world that uae it without ahpwing a tendency for a two party system. Likewise we see in states with RCV it still maintains a twonparty dominance.

So as much as id love to see RCV sadly i dont think that ia the main problem. The problem ia just that americans are super gullible and actually are easily.manipulated i to beleiving there is a twonparty system ahen there isnt.

@freemo

but are those parliamentary systems? I haven't looked deeply but my view is that adding RCV should really help elevate presidential systems out of the much of party politics. however you vote in a parliamentary system, you're stuck with parties holding the power over who runs the govt. in presidential systems, the party can only really dominate through primaries. remove that with RCV and we can much better elect true independents. IMO.

@wjmaggos

Some are parlimentary, but not all of them no.

RCV would alleviate the party control, if they really had control. They dont. It is completely a lie they established that people bought and accept. Nothing more. Youbcant fix a purely cultural thing like being gullible to a lie putaide of fixing society sadly.

@freemo

definitely a cultural element now but that's not the driver imo. people think of themselves as party members and it's ridiculous but it's dealing with the structure and its externalities that got us there. and can change with RCV :)

@wjmaggos if those structures are the cause then why is the twonparty system ubiquely ametican and not something wr see in any other election, even ones that have the same or similar structure?

you're probably right that the voting system doesn't cause a two-party system, but it clearly entrenches the two-party system, preventing others parties from standing a chance because every (non-proportional) election is a polar choice between the two dominant parties

@lxo

Then why do we see tons of examples of seemingly two party systems constantly switching their two primary parties in similar systems? Even in the usa the two main parties have been replacr with mew mainnparties 8 times.

"seemingly" is quite a give away that the polarization isn't perceived as permanent (god-given?) as it is in the usa. anyhow, entrenched doesn't mean impossible to replace, just harder. I wonder how much change replacing one two party system with another actually brought.