• Signtist@bookwyr.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    That’s the thing people never seem to understand. The 2 established parties benefit immensely from having a 2 party system - they have every incentive to prevent a third party from ever being a viable choice, and they make sure that it never is. Insofar as we’re still trying to fix the system using the system, we’re going to have to play by the rules of that system, which is determined by the 2 established parties. Long past are the days where politicians had an incentive to do what we want, they just do what’s best for themselves now.

    • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Our predominant voting system guarantees a 2 party system. And said 2 parties are needed to change it. They just have to not do anything to keep it. No discouraging of 3rd parties is needed.

      In fact parties in narrow elections will promote the 3rd party option to their opposition voters to try and spoil it to win.

      • Signtist@bookwyr.me
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s true. I more meant that a politician’s duty is to work in the best interests of their voters, which I believe is why a lot of people seem to be confused as to why politicians aren’t implementing ranked choice voting or something similarly beneficial, because they don’t understand that politicians haven’t been working in the best interests of their voters for a long time.