The US is 2 parties by convention, not by design. They’ve worked together to entrench themselves to make it exceedingly difficult for a 3rd party to rise, last thing they want is for another farmer-labor party to form.
If a simple majority is required to rule, then logically two parties will form somewhere near 50% support. The fact that other parties have existed in the past is an exception to the logical conclusion of two party rule inherent in the design itself.
Don’t forget that you’re a Russian bot if you dare imagine outside the 2 party system think or say anything critical of the dems within 1.5yrs of an election anytime or place.
Don’t forget that you’re a Russian bot if you dare imagine outside the 2 party system within 1.5yrs of an election.
Or the “trust me bro, it’ll all get fixed with RCV”.
Or the “3rd party is literally impossible, the US is my only sample”.
Or the “you’re complicit for every bad thing if you don’t vote”.
The US is a two parties system. You need to change your rules if you want anything different, not abstain from primaries.
Instead, the best place to talk about rule-changes is on your primaries.
I caught one!
The US is 2 parties by convention, not by design. They’ve worked together to entrench themselves to make it exceedingly difficult for a 3rd party to rise, last thing they want is for another farmer-labor party to form.
If a simple majority is required to rule, then logically two parties will form somewhere near 50% support. The fact that other parties have existed in the past is an exception to the logical conclusion of two party rule inherent in the design itself.
2 counterexamples off the top of my head: UK and Canada.
Those are parliamentary systems of government…
Yes, I’m aware. How does that materially change the outcome on the number of parties?