politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is not a normal result...
You're falling for the propaganda from the same two groups who colluded to ensure there would never be a third.
And it took them generations to keep people to believe that. I understand you're trying to argue we should change it, and we should.
But just like capitalism doesn't have to be this bad, neither does a first past the post system, or even a two party system.
They've convinced you the only way to fix things is a complete overhaul, knowing that a significant amount of a human population would never support that no matter how bad shit gets.
Fuck man, we essentially fixed the two party system a year ago. And no one even noticed.
They want to set the bus on fire after we finally put it in reverse and started backing away from the cliff. The bus was never the problem, letting Liverne and Shirley set the course was.
I'm falling for the mathematical truth.
We've known that Ordinal voting was bad since the 1780s, The Mathematician, philosopher and Girondian, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, wrote the seminal work on it; Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix). Found here in the original French
We haven't fixed anything, because the voting method itself is broken. In any First Past the Post election, you have the Spoiler Effect, where just a few votes for a third party can guarantee that the person furthest from that candidate on the political spectrum wins. Look at Ross Perot securing Clinton's win in 1992 and Ralph Nader securing Bush's win in 2000.
None of that shit is fixed because we're still using the broken system, a system that wasn't actually ever really designed as such, it was just the default easiest way to do things and enables minority rule.
No, that's only after two parties have normalized and aren't running primaries representative of their voters desires in a candidate...
It doesn't matter what someone said 250 years ago.
Like, what kind of ancestor worship does it take to think that could have been the end all discussion, and what kind of nativity does to think to not realize society has changed drastically since?
People didn't stop discussing this, and shit didn't stop changing.
Stop ready classical literature and at least get to the 20th century if not the 21st.
Oh, you want 20th century again? You didn't like it in my original comment, but back to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, proven definitively in 1950.
Then a bit later, this important part;
The Spoiler Effect is when a voting system fails independence of irrelevant alternatives. This is what drives two party dominance, after all, if you're punished for voting third party, third parties become actively harmful. This is why the major support for most third parties comes from their ideological opponents. Jill Stein being super cozy with Russia and Republican donors being the key recent example.