@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 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.
> 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 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.
@cobratbq
And no, you arent stealing my time. I can always not answer :) All good.