Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

glass_superman t1_j0vqdqp wrote

Reply to comment by AnAppariti0n in Our stated political beliefs are irrational when taken as a package – the don’t appear to form coherent wholes. But we should be skeptical about whether these irrational political beliefs are really beliefs by IAI_Admin

> many people don’t feel well-represented by either of the two major political parties.

Maybe that was no accident?

If you look at the elections in the USA, in every race there is exactly one winner. President obviously but even, say, house representatives. Though your state may have many, there is a different election for each one. Same for senators, governors, etc.

Opposed to this would be, say, a parliament where you can only vote for one person/party but the top 100 most popular would win. Or like a running race where the top 5 advance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20Duverger's%20law,of%20seats%20in%20a%20constituency.

> This is because Duverger's law says that the number of viable parties is one plus the number of seats in a constituency.

So that's why we have only two parties in America.

I ask: Was the country intentionally designed this way in order to provide the illusion of choice without actually providing any choice?

The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.

5

iiioiia t1_j0ya6df wrote

> The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.

Isn't it surreal that this is pretty much not even on anyone's radar? I mean sure, people complain about this shit endlessly, but things like you mention could be addressed, but never are.

Personally, I think there are unwritten rules in the journalist class, that these sorts of questions are never asked in a way other than so they can be addressed with a prepared sound byte.

1