Americans are tought from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.
Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
I’ve noticed that the loudest the politicians in a country rant about how great a Democracy that country has, the less of a Democracy it is.
In Europe, for example, you get British Politicians going on an one about how the country has the “Oldest Democracy in The World” (this in a country with a King who a few years ago - well, his mother - was found to actually have some power over what legislation gets passed, an unlected second chamber with members who inherit their seat from their parents and First Past The Post for Parliament) all the while in The Netherlands (who, IMHO, have probably the most Democratic system in the World, including Proportional Vote, though with a powerless King) politians pretty much never rant about the quality of their Democracy.
At least in the West, the most loud and relentless proclaimers of how great their Democracy is by a large margin are American politicians.
As an American, I would also say the most loud and relentless proclaimers about our democracy are also our right wing voters. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s only our politicians. I went to school with people who unironically would start USA chants.
Though I’m not saying we don’t have the same thing on the left. I think more of America’s left recognizes how shitty our county actually is for regular people.
I know I rambled a bit there… Anyway, I agree with your point entirely about the loudest they rant about democracy, the less there actually is.
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general.
If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.
But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn’t there a third party in these chambers?
There are a few independents, most notably Bernie Sanders.
Americans are tought from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.
Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
this is sad
You are correct sir.
I’ve noticed that the loudest the politicians in a country rant about how great a Democracy that country has, the less of a Democracy it is.
In Europe, for example, you get British Politicians going on an one about how the country has the “Oldest Democracy in The World” (this in a country with a King who a few years ago - well, his mother - was found to actually have some power over what legislation gets passed, an unlected second chamber with members who inherit their seat from their parents and First Past The Post for Parliament) all the while in The Netherlands (who, IMHO, have probably the most Democratic system in the World, including Proportional Vote, though with a powerless King) politians pretty much never rant about the quality of their Democracy.
At least in the West, the most loud and relentless proclaimers of how great their Democracy is by a large margin are American politicians.
As an American, I would also say the most loud and relentless proclaimers about our democracy are also our right wing voters. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s only our politicians. I went to school with people who unironically would start USA chants.
Though I’m not saying we don’t have the same thing on the left. I think more of America’s left recognizes how shitty our county actually is for regular people.
I know I rambled a bit there… Anyway, I agree with your point entirely about the loudest they rant about democracy, the less there actually is.
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
Exactly. It’s very much structural. And fixable, but we won’t fix it :/
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.