Why does America only have 2 political parties?
>>544100541that's communist thinking
>>544100541Because when Ross Perot was leading in the presidential polls in 1992 and was finally going to end the Republican/Democrat duopoly, they threatened to kill his family and forced him out for 2.5 months (mid-July to October), which killed his campaign.
>>544100541Many parties and independents.
>>544100541it is the natural equilibrium for a one-person-one-vote systemopov appeals to people instinctively for its simplicity and seeming fairness, but is seriously flawed because of how much people strategize on how to vote based on their perceptions of how others are likely to vote lest they cast a ballot that is likely to be wastedin other words, people vote on who they think will win, not on who they want in office
>>544100541Because why the fuck do you need more? You have a right wing party, and left wing party. What more do you need?>grrrr both candidates are le badWhat the fuck do you want? Le imaginary super moderate who "takes the best from both sides"? Lmao doesn't fucking exist and if they did no one will support them because there are no fucking moderates.You either think like a leftist or like a rightist and naturally all the policy positions will fall in place. >but they le aren't far left/right enough Then you make the party more left/right over time. You still don't need more than 2 parties And every country that does have multiple parties, they still naturally consolidate around 2 big ones, right and left, and the rest are just fringe memers
>>544100616Hasn’t every communist system ever advocated for a 1 party system? The 2 party system is better than having just 1, but not by much. If anything, having 3+ parties is *further* from Communist doctrine than a 2 party state.I really don’t get how everything vaguely disliked somehow turns into “communism” in the minds of reactionaries.
>>544100541Why don’t you know how to use an AI chatbot to ask these questions?The answer is Duverger’s Law, btw.
>>544100541because of the exorbitant amount of private money in politics /thread
>>544100541FPTP (the spoiler effect)No cap on campaign spending + no cap on donations so you need an insane amount of cash to have a chance of winningThe seniors of both parties work together to stabilise their parties and keep them at the top until they die. This means they will both team up on a third party.It seems that there are also tons of political seats. If a third party wins a local seat, they'll get cockblocked by the state attorney or smth.
>>544101102Modern day commies like the DSA want a multi party system so long as they control a majority of seats and relegate all other parties as controlled opposition.
>>544101303the second point is made less important with the advent of social media thoI really hope Tucker Carlson does push for a third party. An alt-right party could inspire an alt-left party and begin to dismantle the uniparty. At the very least, it could influence the republicans to do a better job.
>>544100973>why the fuck do you need more?Because believe it or not, there are more than 2 possible ways to address a political problem. Also yeah, maybe I do want to vote for a candidate who aligns more closely with my actual values like somebody with Republican views on gun rights and democratic views on welfare.>if they did no one will support them because there are no fucking moderates.Half the reason there are no moderates is because we’ve been forced to factionalize ourselves into 2 groups because of the 2 party system. And yes people *would* support them, because if we had a ranked-voting system there would literally be no downside to voting for your favorite candidate with your first vote, then putting the “establishment” candidate as a second vote.Genuinely, what would even be the downside to having a ranked choice vote system instead of single-choice voting as it is now? You can doubt it’s effectively, but why rally against it in the first place if such legislation wouldn’t hurt voters to begin with?
>>544100541>Why does America only have 2 political parties?Because both sides benefit from the forced binary choice, so they work to maintain it. It's that simple. You force everyone who is anywhere left of center (moderate or far left) into the Democrat party, and you force everyone who is anywhere right of center (moderate or far right) into the Republicans. We absolutely need a 3rd party. Hell, I would say we need 20 or more (or none at all) to be quite honest.
>>544101369Ok fair enough, some commies want more parties. Not all or even most of them, but *some* do, therefore we should discard this idea entirely? Do you know what else communists want? The right to breathe air. Should we all hold our breaths until we die of asphyxiation because breathing air is something that communists do?
>>544100541because you're brown
>>544101102A 2 party system is a better control method than a 1 party system because people dont realise there is no choice.
>>544101483The solution to your gripes are called primaries
>>544100541Our shitty political system is designed only for two parties. In an all or nothing style election where only first place gets anything, even subconsciously you realize an A/B choice is the most practical format. Right now the republicans and democrats are both weak from their proximity to Trump's AIDS so a third party could potentially supplant them, but within a decade or so that third party would just totally replace one of the other two parties and we'd again have a two party system, but with a new coat of paint. We need to end first past the post voting, probably more of a coalition system like yurop probably.
>>544100973compare Bolsheviks to the Dems, and the Nazi party to the Republicans. the Dems and Republicans now have a lot more in common, where the other two options are drastically different. there are so many metrics that go into what make up a government https://12axes.net In most European countries where there are several parties, even though 2-3 parties dominate, you at least have a chance to elect other parties to gain seats in government. In the US there are 435 seats in congress and only 2 seats are independent. And of course both parties are a vessel for Zionism, making voting for either painfully difficult
It’s because we have single-winner elections. That’s it. Every country with these types of elections has a two-party system. And every country with some style of multiple winner system has more than two parties.
>>544100541>Why does America only have 2 political parties?AIPAC don't want to pay more than absolutely necessary to buy every politician. But they still need elections with choices or else they can't claim it's democracy.
>>544101928Which help, but are still suboptimal to preferential voting. Sure they work, but you can only vote for the people within your registered party, that vote itself is single-choice and not preferential, and the party itself has the last say on who can and can’t participate. It works but is far from ideal, especially with how few people vote in the primaries.
>>544100541>Why does America only have 2 political parties?Because of first past the post, if you want more parties get rid of this.
>>544100541So two smaller variations of conservative party and one large liberal party that'll be great for dems winning every election
>>544102530…You’d also have dems creating a bunch of parties of their own, you really think that pro-gun liberals like me want to be in the same party as literal communists? Introducing preferential voting would give more voting freedom to everyone while disadvantaging democrats and republicans equally, but both parties suddenly lose interest in preferential voting whenever they gain a majority because that could hurt *their* parties short-term prospects, even if it would be better for voters.
>>544100541Because the system used in Europe is better? "The winner of the election is the Open Borders Weekend Communist Party with 9% of the vote." Wow, that's amazing.
The entirety of jewish rule depends on two opinions, both sides of the same coin, both in their own way advancing the same agenda, the worship of jews.
>>544103063Literally when has this happened, and in what world is having *more* political parties somehow more communist? The majority of communist regimes in the past and present have been 1-party systems so this doesn’t even pass a common sense check. Would it really be so bad for us to have more choices on who to vote for?
>>544100541Extreme gatekeeping by the two parties to prevent a third from forming. It's easier to subvert one of the existing parties from within (Trump, Bernie) than to successfully run as a third party.
>>544100541>whymirage of dissent>alsogo kys meme flag faggot ass shlomo poopjeet shitskin troon kek
