๐ณ๐ฑ
Some things are black and white... the people have the power, and they bare the responsibility as a result.
I mean unless you beleive some conspiracy theory nonsense about the elections being rigged, all of it.
@Hyolobrika @DrALJONES @freemo In a "first past the post" system it is legitimately one or the other.
No it isnt, in first pas tthe post you will get a **tendency** towards 2 choices getting the bulk of the votes. But such a system does **not** maintain the same two choices as dominante in each election.
In fact quite the opposite in FPTP systems minor parties or choices tend to go from <5% suppport to a majority choice in a single election cycle.
In the USA for example we have had a primary party be replaced with a third party in a signle election cycle, after which the old primary party never becomes primary again, 8 times in the history of the USA.
So we have plenty of examples that FPTP voting actually does allow for more than 2 parties, it just gives the illusion that it does.
1796 - Switch from non- partisan to having two seperate parties take majority, the democratic-republic and federalist
Switches so far: 2
1828 - Another double switch with two new parties coming into replace the old two majorities, the National Republican, and the Democratic
Switches so far: 4
1836 - The Whig party replaces the National Republic party
Switches so far: 5
1856 - The Republican party replaces the whig party
Switches so far: 6
1912 - The BullMoose party replaces the Republican party as a majority
Switches so far: 7
1920 - The Republican party replaces the Bull Moose party again.
Total switches: 8
I was mistaken in one point... in one such case the majority party was able to come back, but only once.
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES I don't deny new parties can replace old ones. But besides the very early days in the USA has there been more there 2 dominant political parties?
Int he very early days we had FPTP just as we do now. So the fact that america has had primary parties switch 8 times, and other FPTP elections outside of the usa see switches all the time too, it disproves the fallacy that FPTP prevents third party from winning, we know for a fact it doesnt.
So that means the reason we dont see third parties win in recent history is clearly for a reason OTHER than FPTP voting, namely, the fantasy that it is a 2 party system when it isnt, or the fantasy that FPTP will guarantee a 2 party system when it doesn't. The only thing that keeps a 2 party system alive is the conspiracy theory that FPTP forces a 2 party system.
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES Again, party switch ups doesn't disprove that FPTP pushes towards two parties. Its not a conspiracy.
That wasnt what I claimed, in fact the opposite. I said FPTP **does** cause 2 of the choices to generally get the vast majority of votes. What it doesnt cause is the same 2 choices to be picked every time you have a vote... In other words the only thing FPTP causes is the top two choices for any year will get 95%+ of the vote, but it does not in anyway ensure the same 2 top choices from 4 years ago will be the top 2 choices this year.
Thuis GPTP does **not** cause the same two parties to stay in power, it does cause quick jumps in party favoritism without a gradual transition... In other words A: 48% B: 48% C: 4% may switch the next year to A:48% B: 4% C: 48% in the next year without seeing an incremental shift. But there is nothing about FPTP that would prevent parties from changing.
Thus yes, the idea that FPTP means the same 2 parties will remain in power is completely a conspiracy theory. The idea that it creates skewed voting results is not.
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES What are these 8 times in US history where a third party replaced the primary party?