In the past few days of the events happening in US politics I noticed one thing:
- People are sad, hopeless and angry at their candidate. Because they don't like him.
- Candidate steps down, other candidate is probably going to step in.
- Cheerful events. Spontaneous fundraising. Young people registering to vote for the first time. Immediate (albeit still small) jump in preferences. Hope.
And I have to note: This doom&gloom phase is virtually non existent in systems that allow more than two political parties. It's not a rocket science and has been tested in many cases.
@MichalBryxi I think it's important to keep in mind that the US system absolutely allows more than two political parties. It has more than two political parties today.
It's just that voters tend to choose to organize themselves into two parties for very practical reasons. It empowers their voting and avoids wasted votes.
We may be able to improve the voting system, and recognizing this is a huge step to identifying improvements that can be made.
@volkris Yup, I'm aware that nothing _in principle_ forbids more than two political parties in US, but in reality it does.
Thanks for your mid paragraph, it encompasses most of the things that I hate on US "democracy".
I called out the #1 reason I believe is the cause am happy to say it again: First Past The Post is as close to healthy democracy as McDoncalds is to food. Sure, you won't perish, but ...
@MichalBryxi yep, so in my opinion we need to move to ranked choice voting. Sounds like you probably agree.
But the point is, The two major party system emerges as a way to mitigate problems with first past the post voting. It's a solution, not a problem. A better solution would be some sort of ranked choice voting, but until we get there, we will naturally have two parties because that's the next best outcome that voters will choose.
We can use displeasure with the outcomes of two-party results as a rallying cry for better voting system. But we can't attack it directly without losing that mitigating factor.
