🇳🇱
As expected I'm both proud of america for seeing Harris for who she is and not voting for her but likewise disapointed to see Trump get support. Still gullible buying the two party myth.
Well 4 years of trump,back to riots I guess.
@freemo why do you call it a myth? From what I understand, the mechanics are such that there are practical risks involved, concerning votes cast to "lesser"/"minor" parties concerning wasted/lost votes when the minor party loses.
Its a myth because it is only the beleif in it that creates the effect at all. If no one thought there was a two party system there wouldnt be one.
Few points of evidence:
* Before people in the USA thought there was a two party system, there wasnt. Despite the voting system not having significiantly changed prior to the last 100 years the primary parties changed all the time. Throughout US history the 2 dominate parties have been replaced 8 times
* Other countries with a first-past-the-post voting system do not show a tendency to a 2-party system. There are countless elections around the world using this approach that dont consistently have the same 2 parties win
* Even if you model out the debunked theory claiming FPTP results in 2 party it doesnt make sense. Under that model it would only produce an illusion of a two party system (where the real support concentrates in the top 2 in votes). Nothing about the model would keep the same 2 parties in power, it would just cause the switching between parties to be abrupt (third parties with little votes in previous years suddenly jumping to 51% support over a single election). So even in pure theory if we accept the myth in that context it is still not real in any meaningful way.
@freemo Veritasium video that goes into this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk
I've seen the video before. It, and ones like it, are what i mean when I say even the theory effectively admits that it is only an illusion anyway and doesnt represent a true 2-party system (that the support will flip in large movements rather than small).
> I think it is a bit of a sinkhole that if you get stuck with two major parties it's hard to get away from that.
If that is true then why dont any other elections get "stuck" like we did? Also why is it the states that moved to RCV, which should have eliminated the 2 party system, yet they still vote according to the 2-party myth, showing it is simply the gullibility in believing in the 2-party system, nothing physical making it real.
The truth is really much simpler than that, everyone likes to think so highly of the people because it sounds inspirising, and everyone wants to blame the system and the leaders and some corruption and while all those are issues they arent really our problems they are our symptoms. Really america has one problem.. the people, they are vile, and they are gullible and **very** easily manipulated. One of those manipulations is to convince them that the 2-party system is real. We will always have a 2-party system because it isnt real, its in their head, but their dumb enough that once they beleive something it never changes because all the evidence in the world never changes an american mind. I mean already the evidence is overwhelming that that 2-party system is purely a myth that exists only because it is believed, and yet, look how hard everyone believes it, all because they refuse to accept americans are just broken people who do stupid things.
@freemo hmm.. there is some truth to your points. The belief pushes the situation towards a two-party system. My intuition is telling me that pushing towards one top guy with one backing party is more of a problem, so a wider problem. As opposed to, for example, filling up a room of politician by ratio of votes.
I don't want to make this a long discussion for lack of my own competence on this and I feel like I'm stealing your time given your extensive answers. 😅
Obviously a dictatorship of a single party is worse than a looser dictatorship run by two parties..
One of the reasons to oppose a 2 party system is because its the step right before full dictatorship.
And no, you arent stealing my time. I can always not answer :) All good.
@freemo ah, sure, no I meant a construction where the head person has a more limited power and the room (I don't know if it's called a senate or something else) is made up out of exact ratios, and no matter how many parties there are, it's filled to ratio of votes per party. Your majority is less likely to be completely one party with very distinct position. Like .. it removes "the winning chief with his whole entourage" notion. (I'm freestyling now and working off impressions)
@freemo i know there are other parts of your government that still have this composition, so my comment maybe doesn't even make sense.
@freemo @cobratbq "the 2 dominate parties have been replaced 8 times" – sure, but it was pretty much always 2 parties.
Is anyone arguing that it always and forever must be the two parties we have currently?
I think the claim usually made is that structurally the only stable thing is 2 main parties, and they'll morph as needed to always be ~half the country. There can be (*very* temporary) disruptions like a third party that e.g. replaces one of the others, or a party can change wildly (like Dems mid-1900s) etc.
Yes the "there were always 2 parties" is the illusion I spoke of.
In a FPTP system if the underlying real support for parties is red: 40% blue: 39% lib: 21% then the vote will come out as something like red 51%, blue 49%. However in the next election if the real preference shifts than the vote will immediately and drastically change as well to reflect the new party.
In other words, while the votes themselves will give the illusion of a two party system by converting true support to a 2-party vote outcome not reflecting true support. The real underlying support will not reflect a 2-party system and there will be **no** preference for the same 2 parties to win from one election to the next.
We see this with the historic changes in parties, in every election where a new third party becomes dominate within a single election a previously near 50% party shoots completely down to less than 2% and the third party immediately shoots up to near 50%. In other words the numbers move rapidly and shifts in primary parties easily change.
So again this doesnt reflect a 2-party system, just an illusion that reinforces the myth and thus is self fullfilling.
@freemo hmmm.. you're making good points. I think it is a bit of a sinkhole that if you get stuck with two major parties it's hard to get away from that.
The math argument bothers me, where: if A is the least attractive but major, B is moderately attractive and major, C is most attractive bit minor. If you vote for B, you have reasonable chance, but if you vote for C and lose, then your vote that otherwise would've gone to B is now lost, therefore directly benefiting A.