I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
Pretend you’re a politician. You have two groups of people that want opposite things. One of them is reliable, donates and volunteers to help your campaign. The other is feckless and seems to always find new reasons to oppose you. Which would you try to please?
Both institutional Democrat and Conservative parties are towards the right side of the spectrum, yes.
The Democrats doing this is entirely their fault though. There are a number of issues where people actually skew left if the framing is set up in a certain way. The fact that they’re chasing the GOP will likely blow up in their face when they lose support from their supposed “own” base because the party fails to represent them. The establishment Dems don’t represent the views of Bernie or AOC, for instance, and those candidates best align with my current views.
If Dems end up losing, it’s because they didn’t recognize the potential to seize their own destiny. The same’s been true since 2016.
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
It absolutely is set up that way. This may or may not have been the intent of our election system, but it is the outcome.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Washington himself warned of the dangers of a 2 party system…
He warned about parties themselves.
Fair distinction.
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
The system itself needs to change.
Pretend you’re a politician. You have two groups of people that want opposite things. One of them is reliable, donates and volunteers to help your campaign. The other is feckless and seems to always find new reasons to oppose you. Which would you try to please?
What exact issue do you disagree with from the feckless ones? What made it so hard?
You’re not doing a very good job of pretending to be a politician if that’s your answer.
so you can’t point a single instance. got it. sounds like your hypothetical politician was an asshole not worthy of the job.
Both institutional Democrat and Conservative parties are towards the right side of the spectrum, yes.
The Democrats doing this is entirely their fault though. There are a number of issues where people actually skew left if the framing is set up in a certain way. The fact that they’re chasing the GOP will likely blow up in their face when they lose support from their supposed “own” base because the party fails to represent them. The establishment Dems don’t represent the views of Bernie or AOC, for instance, and those candidates best align with my current views.
If Dems end up losing, it’s because they didn’t recognize the potential to seize their own destiny. The same’s been true since 2016.
Are you American?
Removed by mod
You’re correct. NY didn’t even let Jill Stein on the ballot.
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.