• Zorque@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the real reason is that the people in power keep touting this idea of only two distinct parties. Having only two parties means you have only two directions to go. Which is destined for extremism.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FPTP voting system reinforces that. Any third party is just going to be a spoiler for one of the majors without voting system reform.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is the correct answer. Third parties are rarely viable in first-past-the-post systems. More info on Duverger’s Law here.

        If we had more viable parties it would be much harder to do regulatory capture and corrupt every party, and even if that happened new viable ones could spring up at any time. We might actually get candidates that represent diverse political opinions. With more parties one party would be unlikely to have a majority or supermajority, and our representatives would have to work together and form coalitions to get anything done. Politics wouldn’t be a team sport about defeating the other side, it would be about shared goals and constructive legislation. Candidates would want to appeal to voters who they might be the second or third choice for, meaning scapegoating, vilifying and othering segments of society would be a losing strategy. Ranked choice voting has few downsides for anyone but those who want a corrupt system they can capture and a society they can divide.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          doesn’t “duverger’s law” only exist in the US? I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            doesn’t “duverger’s law” only exist in the US?

            No, Duverger’s law refers to the tendency of places that use first-past-the-post voting to result in a 2-party system. This is not unique to the US. More info is in the above link, it’s worth your time.

            I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.

            My understanding is that the electoral college distorts the voting power of individuals by giving empty states more voting power than they should have (electors are based on number of house and senate members), and also because those state elections are usually first-past the post winner-take-all, 51% wins all the electors, (except for Nebraska and Maine, which have multiple districts with multiple electors that can be split, but are still first-past-the-post.)

            If you mean that replacing first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections with a different voting system that can yield proportional representation will lead to more viable candidates/parties, then that’s exactly the same thing Duverger’s law is saying. You can’t have proportional representation with first-past-the-post elections.

          • sleep_deprived@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it’s only used for presidential elections. If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress - especially the House - given the relatively small constituency of each representative and the large number of representatives.

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it’s only used for presidential elections.

              Said parties literally choose the electors in the electoral college.

              If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress

              If a third party becomes viable and starts winning elections what typically happens is it will replace one of the other 2 parties, like when Whigs were replaced by Republicans.

              • sleep_deprived@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I should have been more clear - I meant that since the electoral college is only used for presidential elections, its existence does not (meaningfully) affect the viability of a third party since the vast majority of elections are not decided by it. 100% agree with what you’re saying.

                • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In theory and over-simplified this would be true, in practice I think the way the electoral college has failed when 4+ candidates get into a tight election has lead to a lot of safeguards being created: The US political parties as institutions became more hostile to third parties and both the states and feds adopted laws more favorable to a two party system.

                  Canada, & UK for instance don’t quite adhere to duverger’s law as strongly and in fact most non-US countries that still have fptp elections seem to have more diverse party systems.

                • DarkGamer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for elaborating. I agree, for a third party to successfully emerge in the US under our current system it would probably have the best odds if they started with local government.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lots of things reinforce it, the parties having a stranglehold on primaries and the media buyouts are also a major factor.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, it’s destined for a centrist corrupt government. The recent “extremism” is a reaction to how upset people are at the corruption, corporate welfare and blatant monopolies that run our country.

      When things get bad people look towards the extremes. That’s what we’re seeing now. Things aren’t good, they haven’t been for a while. Populism and fascism rise during bad times. Look at what happened during the great depression and lead up to WW2. America could of easily slipped into a fascist Nazi style state. Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except the two party system pits two opposing sides against each other, inevitably leading to them pointing fingers at each other to rile their base and get votes. The extremism comes from frustration, yes, but it is stoked by the “us vs them” mentality that politicians abuse to trick their constituents into voting for them instead of “the other guy”.

        • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right wing extremism is a global problem and is manifesting even in parliamentary multi-party systems, though. All they need is a scapegoat to rally around and they’re good to go. Look at anti-immigrant movements in Europe as an example.

          Fighting about things is going to happen in any political system.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just because something exists doesn’t mean it exists in the same way. Yes, there is finger pointing and extremism, but not in the same way as the US. And in many situations they’ve devolved into two parties bickering, while any other parties are just coalition bait. The UK is a prime example of that.

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        America could of easily slipped into a fascist Nazi style state. Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.

        That reads a little funny, doesn’t it…

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.

        I hope not. FDR did a lot of great things, but he was also a racist who didn’t give the same benefits to non-white people as white people and, of course, was responsible for the shameful Japanese-American concentration camps.

        If that’s the greatest president, we have never had any hope.

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Objectively, almost every president is a piece of shit and you need to judge them by the merits of their time. Almost every white dude alive in America was a racist shit bag by today’s standards. FDR accomplished a ton, and it was all for the common man. Please, tell me who you think was a better president?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know, any number of the ones who didn’t commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of… *checks notes* 80 years ago?

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              FDR didn’t commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.

              He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn’t start and couldn’t stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn’t as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.

              I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.

                • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.

                  Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for… Well, anyone. We haven’t really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.

            • hypelightfly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn’t even pick one?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I’ll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don’t want to get into two arguments in the same thread.

                • hypelightfly@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Doubling down I see. It’s an opinion and while I may not agree with whoever you think is the best president you can’t really be wrong.

                  I’m just annoyed at people who rant about other peoples opinions but refuse to offer their own when asked. You aren’t arguing in good faith here.

                  For the record I don’t think FDR was the best president but I also disagree with some of your characterizations.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fine. Jimmy Carter. But I’m not interested in discussing why with you, especially considering your attitude.

            • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So, you think be cause 80 years doesn’t sound like long enough people weren’t that bad? That’s a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There’s plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That. And when he caught fascists scheming in the Republican party. Instead of investigating and rooting them out. He merely threatened to do it if they blocked his legislation. So in the short term he got his legislation through. And in the long term got it gutted and neutered, saddling us with a now fully fascist Republican party. Thanks FDR.

          He did some short sighted good. But that posturing and playing fast and loose screwed us all over.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Go back a few years. Circa 1960, the two parties had both Liberal and Conservative wings. There was no shame in a pol voting with the other party.

    • PaulDevonUK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need a multi party system like a lot of countries round the world. No clear winner = who can quickly form the larges coalition. It usually boils down to two main parties with a lot of also-ran’s.

      Over here we even have The Monster Raving Loony pary!