• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I do. I also know that it doesn’t reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.

      • @ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        11 year ago

        Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can’t even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don’t actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.

          • @ChonkyOwlbear
            link
            11 year ago

            That people don’t act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner’s Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can’t happen.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.

              the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn’t actually describe a real situation that’s ever happened or will happen. it’s a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.

              • @ChonkyOwlbear
                link
                11 year ago

                In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy

                  choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt

                  we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative

                  the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers

                  we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.

                  both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.

                  • @ChonkyOwlbear
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.