Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[hollodero]

(06-23-2022, 03:24 PM)Dill Wrote: "Severe mistakes"????

Looks like someone's hatred for our freedom has led him to forget that our Constitution was divinely inspired.   

Yeah maybe God isn't such a fan of democracy. I mean, historically he is not, and he's quite the authoritarian himself.

I haven't even mentioned that electors from many states are not required to vote according to the election result. That even happened in 2016, seven electors did not vote as they were supposed to. What a system!

(06-23-2022, 03:24 PM)Dill Wrote: But before I can endorse the "two party system=EVIL" thesis, I'd need some closer reasoning and evidence to convince me that what looks accidental to me is really essential, structurally unavoidable. 

Well, I feel the current climate supports my thesis. But sure, you might call that accidental. But when you blame FOX instead, then there's the first issue where I'd say, FOX is a result of the two-party system. They picked their half and are 100% loyal and half of the voting country are more or less with them. And something at least similar is also happening on the left with their media outlets (Iknow, more subtle, less blunt at somewhat less extreme). As soon as the media plays such an instrumental part in opinionbuilding, you will create this divide. This divide through the middle that also is a result of the two-party system, for it would not happen if there were three or four of them.

A somewhat larger point would be this. By design, every party regains power from time to time in a two-party system. Given that, it seems pretty clear that if one party goes fascist or some other form of illiberate, it will automatically gain power at some point. All they need is patience to wait for the inevitable.

Then there's voter participation, which is critically low in the US. Many people don't find anything for them in a never-changing choice between blue and red. To some extent you have primaries to have some nuance, which isn't always a good thing though, see Donald Trump. But overall, it's blue or red, red or blue, a restriction to two certain mindsets that should provide a fit for everyone in a country of 330 million people. It's an idea-killer, it creates fanatics and disinterested people. Imho it would be much healthier if other movements could form and actually thrive, and gain a certain small number of seats in Congress if say at least 5% of people like their ideas at the voting booth.
But now, impossible. As soon as a third party gains momentum, the one of the two parties that has to lose more will throw all their ressources behind destroying said movement before they could ever gain one single seat. You can at best have a superrich person that can afford to fight back a bit, but in the end, the two parties win, and that's where they align, no third party. Keep the power structures intact.

Which, of course, has to lead me to coruption. Your political system is openly corrupt, at least in my eyes, two parties that have all the power, all the influence. One can simply pay both and never worry again about losing influence, like Wall street certainly does, and who knows who else. And you have so very many congresspeople that only have to worry about a loss in the primaries maybe (but usually have already created all the connections and friends and sources of money to fight all opponents off easily), but never in a general election. Miss Marjorie will win her district, and so would an Orangutan if it only had an R to its name. That is not healthy.

And this is of course also because of demonization of the other side. People just can not possibly vote for the other side, the side they were taught to oppose at every turn for their entire life. Imho the strongest of Trump's assets, how the other side just hates him so much that people on his side like him even more for that. That's the climate, so much is just based on hatred and disapproval of the one everlasting opponent. Your debates are so bi-polar, so nuance-free, each side creates their talking points and rolls with them, these talking points are not meant to create bridges or find common understanding, they are battlecries. They hate America! They hate women! They hate gay people! They hate families! It is unpleasant to watch really. And it creates fanatism, that in times of media and social media has way more fodder than maybe in the better old days.

So that would be my case for declaring the two party system evil. That and that it gave you Donald Trump. Who is a product of said system and said climate.


--- oh and of course I'm not saying multiple party systems are inherently prone to any of such developments. Your example Hungary has totally different issues (eg having structural problems that allowed one man to control the whole media world), Romania nad Bulgaria are corrupt democracies (they are young democracies still), Poland is full of hardcore Christians that often are detrimental to democracy in their values and beliefs, for sure it's not only about two parties or more parties. My own country? Has a history of a two-party system creating a quasi civil war and resulting in fascism, and a current history of multiple parties in which such tendencies do not thrive. But that's also to be seen in historical context and hence not just a result of the system, or course.