You’re only able to choose two options, how is that democracy? I thought democracy was about being able to choose anyone you think is suitable to be a leader, not one of two pre-selected people. At that point, it’s not much different to a one-party system, just with two people rather than only one person.

84 points

That’s not what democracy is.

Democracy is simply a system of government where leaders are voted on instead of inheriting their title or gaining it through physical force and coercion.

The original form of democracy had slavery, and excluded women and non-land owners, the word simply distinguishes which mechanism brings someone to power, it doesn’t inherently imply fairness or free choice.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

I would say that’s a good definition

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

that’s why in many european states we’ve evolved to variants of multi party, transferable votes systems

it still has inherent flaws and it still seems to have 2 sides (one side kinda sorta has to be the majority “in power”, and the others in opposition) but it feels and maybe is more representative of the vote we cast

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

maybe it’s due to the inherent human“us vs them” mentality. the “us vs them” thing really causes a lot of problems :<

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

It’s not like the two party system is deliberately chosen or enshrined in law. The field naturally winnows down to two parties because that is basically guaranteed to outcompete every other possibility under a first-past-the-post voting system. You want to fix the two party system, you need to fix our voting system.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Derek from Veritasium also made a great video about the various voting systems and which one seems to be the most democratic: https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk

I hope to someday see a Rated Choice ballot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This. This. This.

Everyone should watch this. Even people who know about rank choice voting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ranked choice is fine, but it’s never going to end the two party system on its own. We can already see in some states (Alaska and Maine) and in some smaller municipalities in the US, and in countries outside the US, which have switched to RCV after having a 2-parety system that it doesn’t end the 2-party system. At best, it makes campaigning a little less negative.

People tend to simplify the concept of 3rd parties when thinking about RCV. They get it in their head that everyone who dislikes the 2 major parties would all vote for the same 3rd party as a first choice under RCV. In practice, that’s not how it works. Most people still vote for one of the major parties as their top choice. Among those who don’t, they are extremely divided in which 3rd party they pick. People who traditionally vote Republican but don’t really like them may be willing to vote Libertarian, but their never going to vote Green. Likewise, someone who doesn’t really like the Democrats but typically votes for them might prefer the Green Party or DSA or something, but they’re not voting Libertarian or Freedom Party.

When RCV is implemented in a 2-party system, what almost always happens is that the first choice 3rd party vote gets split among a number of different 3rd parties, giving none of them enough votes to win. When those get dropped in the first round of instant run-offs and those votes switch to the 2nd choice, one of the 2 major parties almost always wins.

If you want to get rid of the 2-party system, you need to get rid of single-member congressional districts. Switch to multi-member districts with proportional representation. Say a state gets 5 Representatives to the House. Each party (including 3rd party) puts forth up to 5 candidates all running in the same race. Everyone votes for either their preferred candidate or preferred party (you can even implement RCV here to rank candidates if you want). Then seats are allocated to each party based on which proportion of the vote they get. If the Green party gets 20% of the vote, they get 1 seat. If Republicans get 40%, they get 2 seats, etc, etc. The specific candidate(s) who wins from each party would be whoever got the most votes within that party.

This almost eliminates strategic voting. You don’t have to worry that your party is small with nowhere close to a majority support because you don’t need a majority to win a seat. Nearly everyone gets the representation they want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think rank choice will result in third party but it will take some time. Our republic system does make it slower though compared to parliamentary systems.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yes for some theory about this, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s… More or less in agreement with what I said, though? The electoral college certainly doesn’t help matters, but the same principle still holds without it, the EC just adds a second hierarchical level of fptp

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

fair enough

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I also love this YouTube video, which covers this extremely well - https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

There is nothing limiting it to two parties. honestly its first past the post that is more of an issue.

permalink
report
reply
31 points
9 points

We somehow have more than 2 parties in Canada even with FPTP. And yeah, it sucks. The left’s vote, in particular, gets carved up into tiny pieces and the conservatives take advantage of that all the time. We desperately need voting reform and it occasionally gets dangled in front of us, only to be shot down. Kind of like high speed rail, which is being dangled again of late.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

If you watch the video you’ll see that there’s an ongoing process that gradually eliminates parties until there’s only two remaining. Canada has been progressing along this path. There’s only one national conservative party of any note now, and on the left only the Liberals have any chance at forming a government. The NDP can only act as a spoiler for the left. Give it some time and the NDP will wither away, leaving only the Liberals and Conservatives.

I consider Trudeau’s betrayal of his electoral reform promise to be one of the worst political stabs in the back that has happened to the Canadian electorate in recent history.

And yet, in the upcoming election I’m going to vote Liberal. Hell, I’m probably going to do volunteer work for their campaign. Because in my particular riding the projections are currently a tossup between Liberal and Conservative, with the NDP having only a 1% chance of winning and no other party having any meaningful chance of winning. So in my riding Liberal and Conservative are the only choices that matter. The two party system has already arrived in the spot where I live.

I hate this. But I recognize the reality of the system I live in. This is basic game theory, voting third party would only harm my own interests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

exactly

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

German is heading this way. Part of the vote is already FPTP and parties also have to have more than 4% of the vote to get a seat. In Brandenburg none of the small parties made it, and despite the SPD being the biggest party, the right wing is in charge, because all the other parties that got seats (BSW, CDU, AFD) are right wing and the SPD doesn’t have a majority.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

What are you talking about? There are now six (6) parties in the Bundestag, that’s a long way from 2. If anything, it might be a bit much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If anything, it might be a bit much.

The Danish Parliament would like a word…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Germany is actually trending the other way. Modern Parlaments have more parties than they did in the past.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Brandenburg only has 4 parties in parliament right now. The only reason the federal parliament has more is that Die Linke miraculously got lots of votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Its formally considered a flawed democracy. I do the same thing with my kids. If i want them to clean their room i’ll just ask them “do you want to clean your room, or you want to do the dishes and take out the trash?” and they’ll always go for cleaning their room because it feels like they are getting something out of the deal, it’s less “nasty” and they have a sense of choice but realistically i win in both scenarios.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

The United States is a one party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Not quite verbatim, but that’s a quote from Julius Nyerere. Just for attribution’s sake if anyone is interested.

permalink
report
parent
reply

No Stupid Questions

!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Create post

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

Community stats

  • 9.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 4K

    Posts

  • 155K

    Comments