Post

That's nothing! France has 1600 different types of cheese. And 15 major political parties... And over 100 active registered political parties. The real difference is that the USA is a shithole, but France is not. 😉

Ever hear of the Green Party? The Party for Socialism and Liberation? Really, you embarrass yourself. There are a lot of other parties available.

it's ridiculous ...our system of govt is bonkers ...if you look at many other democratic countries you start to understand that our's is such a bad version.

I don’t believe dorito flavors set the bar. In any case we US Americans do have more than one party, not enough people like them. Probably because they have 💩 candidates.

I mean... technically as doritos have different flavors so do dems. We have darn near right leaning members (fetterman, guh), centrists (shumer), progressive (obama), and more left leaning (aoc). Now a far leftists may be so far out they can't see the differences. But they are there.

We have one party with two sides, which are equivalent to "good cop / bad cop". They come at you very differently, but their goals are roughly the same. If we had popular vote runoff elections, you'd see other parties rise, and that's why we never will.

First-Past-The-Post elections make a two party system a mathematical certainty. We need Ranked Choice voting at all levels to allow third, fourth and fifth parties to succeed.

But you can't have that. The people you elect are Going to be from the two parties And those parties don't support that policy, so unless you're planning on doing a violent revolution not gonna happen.

Same way women got the right to vote. Protest enough and force your state legislature to adopt it. Then when enough states are doing it, force the Fed to do it.

I think rankless multiple choice voting works better. You vote for the candidates you like, regardless of how many, and the candidates with the most votes win. This further allows for having a clear idea of who the favored runner up is.

unfortunately the powers that be also understand this. 19 states have made it essentially impossible to ever establish RCV, even at the municipal level.

And this has now become my default emotion when listening to any democrats or democratic pundits wonking out over electability. RCV is *such* a simple concept, and it's completely unacceptable for it not to be one of *the* biggest talking points in the progress-o-sphere.

It's not just FPTP. We've always had FPTP in the UK, yet now there are more parties than ever. Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Reform are all serious contenders for significant seats nationally, and until recently the SNP dominated in Scotland.

The 37 flavors are all from one of the three major players in the industry - PepsiCo, Mondelēz International, and Nestle. It's the illusion of competition by the oligopolies that run pretty much all the major industries in the US.

You couldnt eliminate the electoral college without a violent revolution. Neither party supports eliminating the electoral college, so it's going to be here for as long as america exists.

1. You don't have time. Your country is already filling death camps. 2. You should know it will take a revolution because you've already admitted that you can't exercise real democratic power over a system with the EC. If that won't change, how can you change it?

We don’t have “two parties” to choose from. We have a self-enabling mafia crime family - and we have a Democratic Party. Until the mafia is completely removed from our government - we have ONE party.

The incumbents alter the system to reinstate themselves & an enemy to run against. The 2 parties assimilate popular 3rd party ideas into themselves. Voting results are shaped to make the 2 parties look more popular than they are. Voters are taught winning's the goal over making a statement.

Were you intending to respond to my reply? bsky.app/profile/kenf...

Ken from Chicago@kenfromchicago.bsky.social

The incumbents alter the system to reinstate themselves & an enemy to run against. The 2 parties assimilate popular 3rd party ideas into themselves. Voting results are shaped to make the 2 parties look more popular than they are. Voters are taught winning's the goal over making a statement.

Yes. Were you implying both parties are the same, and using this as proof, to justify telling the original poster they were ignorant in their comparison? If something has been lost in the feed and caused a misunderstanding on my part, let me know.

I suspect because for the majority that wouldn’t mean they would have to think. And they don’t want to. There are a small percentage who are willing to do the extra work to pick a party, but they are a very small percentage and usually not the ones with the big bucks to start something. 

more than two political parties would bring far more disruption, division and grid-lock than we already have. you really need to find something to focus on that makes sense, simplifies our over-arching problems and lives in the world of reality.

That's because you can make a flavor of Doritos for a minority of people, and still be able to cover your cost of production. We only have one president, so any party needs at least nearly half the population in order to have a chance at the presidency.

And because the president holds all the executive power, a plurality of the legislative power (via the veto), and a plurality of long-term control over the judiciary (via appointing judges), any party that can't make a try for president has trouble really getting any traction.

We do have a *lot* of political parties but most of them are wholly irrelevant. Example: the US Green Party doesn't have a prayer of a chance at a seat in the House of Representatives (oddly we do have independent Senators but they're kind of odd balls) but they might win local seats.

Moneyed interests have latched onto the biggest two parties, in particular bankrolling the Republicans as to get everything they could ever want from them. More generous tax code and write offs for billionaires, the ability to rip off student lenders, and of course feeding the MCI beast.

It is a tyranny of the wealthy. No one in their right mind wants Dr. Pepper flavored Tic Tacs or cares about Elle flavored Ice sodas, but since CEO multi-millionaires and billionaires have no real problems and consider themselves geniuses, this is the stupid culture the rich have given us.

There is one party and that is in desperate need of reform and a loooong look into the mirror. And than there is a cult. It's a suicide cult and nobody knows, if anybody is going to stop it. There is no one right now, capable. It's a faster and faster downward spiral.

The idea that voters only have two choices is complete horseshit. Congressional primary voter turnout is EIGHTEEN PERCENT. Y’all who complain the loudest are skipping the elections when you get to make the most important choice: who will be the party’s nominee? Shut up and vote.

Sums up where the leaders put most of their efforts and energy, providing their people with certain opportunities and choices to deliver their most favored outcomes— or should I say flavored?

Perhaps you should spend a little time studying the history of the Israeli Knesset and the Italian Parliament. The number of governments they've had to cobble together over the years should give you a better appreciation of how parliamentary systems often work.

Your comparison is valid, but "3% versus 5%" doesn't explain the very different histories of governmental stability. Israel was 2%, but going to 3.25% didn't solve the problem. The German electoral system, constituency representation, and party structures also make government change more difficult.