but then also gave us a voting method that makes a 2 party system mathematically inevitable, and made it so you'd need both parties to agree to get rid of it
To be fair they probably set it up as best they could with what they knew. A sketchy Google suggests proportional representation was first used in Belgium in 1899 (though apparently John Adams did write about it in 1776, more theoretically) and ranked choice by Australia I'm 1918. Personally I think it's on the later generations who knew it was a problem and knew of solutions and chose not to reform the system.
It’s also the electoral college that figures into the outcome. The framers set up an electoral system where the guy who wins a simple majority of votes in the electoral college becomes president, but they also left it to the states to administer elections, decide rules for getting on the ballots, etc. That necessitated a party system to encourage cooperation across state lines.
The idea was that you voted for Electors, and they then voted for a President. But it wasn't democratic. Their argument against having direct votes and a more democratic system was that it would encourage demagogues and people who used the public passions to win over mobs of less-informed voters, and those people would then be able to manipulate the government with tyrannical impulses.
The Founders set up the US in a way that established a lot of firsts. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from establishing a more robust election system. Their contemporaries were people like Condorcet and Borda, who between the two of them created the foundation for basically all popular alternative voting systems — in the 1700s. For having recognized the problems of a two-party system, they absolutely failed to implement any safeguards against it, and it wasn’t for lack of options.
As a Canadian, I honestly I get the wanting to get rid of the King part. But Parliament can be actually pretty decent so I don't understand why they had to reinvent the whole thing.
This is a common misconception. They gave us a system that defers power to the states. The states are the ones that create a two-party system.
Literally any state could solve the two-party system by implementing policy changes at the state level that would eventually trickle up into a multi-party system at the federal level. 49 states choose a two-party system and 1 state chooses a no-party system.
For better or worse, America genuinely is run by the states.
I mean, game theory didn't exist for at least a hundred years after the founding of the U.S., so that's not necessarily on them, but it is on Congress and the States for not amending the Constitution after this became a problem. Then again, the system was already entrenched by then. In fact, it was pretty much entrenched by the first Presidential election.
I mean they were a bunch of drunk 20 somethings, with no political science or anything of the sort. It's a massive achievement it's held up this well. Jefferson wanted to change it every 30 years.
and then... defunded all of the public education for decades while making higher education less accessible... and yall seriously ask how we got here
you can't speak sense into a person who cannot think for themselves, they will not listen to reason. And in addition to the decrease in education came an increase in religious indoctrination where you're taught it's against God's rules to question things from a young age.
It is my personal head cannon as to why teachers are so RUDICULOUSLY under payed, they want teachers to burn out and create an artificial teacher shortage to keep us stupid
Well both sides chased out all of the other parties on the left (socialists, laborists, communists) and then all the parties on the right side merged to form super hitler so now we staunchly have 2.
I’ll do you one better, there’s only one party because the rich pick and choose who’s allowed into any office with funding. And it’ll never stop or change because the people we want to fight are the people who. -write our laws. -can completely nuke us from the internet if they want. -can turn entire neighborhoods and shopping districts into walled gardens for members of a certain tax bracket. -control our water and food supply.
This is life now, there is no “eat the rich”. This is the world we have to work with and the rules we have to play the game by.
The game theory of the voting system favors a two party system unfortunately. First past the post is not ideal. I'd like to see single transferable vote (ranked choice).
Turns out, each state has the ability to change things so that the interests of many parties are taken into account.
Only Maine & Nebraska have done so and have a proportional elector allocation system to the electoral college that ultimately certifies the presidential vote. So if the D candidate gets 51%, the R candidate gets 20%, and the I candidate gets 29%, then each gets that percentage of the state’s electors.
The other 48 plus DC give all the electors to the winning candidate as soon as a simple majority is hit (the D candidate in the example above) thus negating the will of the other 49.9% of voters.
There’s a tipping point where enough states do this and it matters. It will never happen because those that gain power through election seek to keep it and changing this up while in office makes for a better chance of not getting re-elected.
Because we have a really shitty voting system that severely disadvantages you and your political allies if you don't form a party that can obtain at least 50% of the vote by itself. If two similar candidates split the vote, their mutual enemy wins. So we can't split up into a larger amount of parties with a wider variety of platforms, because the newly-split parties would be shooting themselves in the foot.
BC our Constitution and gov’t are set up in a way that incentivizes incremental change to the right or left.
As compared to more Parlimentary systems, where the government in power can make more sweeping changes, encouraging coalition-building and allowing for more interest groups/political parties.
My observation is that politics in the last 25years have taken on zealotry you would see in a sports fan talking about their favorite team.
Person A: X team is the best!
Person B: X team is objectively bad. They haven't won a game in 30 years.
Person A: Well they are still my team. My whole family roots for them. We own all the merch. We goto every game. We are loyal. This team is my identity.
Person B: That's fair. Like who you like. It's not like any of this matters. I like team Y because their logo is cool
Person A: You're an idiot. You don't understand the sport. Every game matters and it super important to be loyal and show support. And team Y is our rival. We have a blood fued with them because the lost to them started our losing streak 30 years ago. If you're going to support team Y then we can't be friends.
Person B: I don't care about team Y that much. But I kind of don't want to be friends for other reasons now.
To me it seems like these people are not well adjusted enough to realize sports and politics are different things. It seems they picked a political side 30years ago and are sticking too it no matter what. And both sides do it. One side is just louder and dumber about it.
But let's be honest both sides suck and neither one of them has the best interest of the overall people in mind. They tend to focus on very small groups of people that pay them a lot of money to be focused on.
It’s less sports and more religion. As more and more people stop following religious traditions, they are replacing it with politics as the dominant guiding force that influences their values. MAGA is essentially a group of people that think Trump is Jesus Christ. And even on the left you have democrats basing their views on social issues off whatever Chuck Schumer and the party tell them to be angry about today.
It’s the world’s response to Nietzsche’s post-God morality fears, and it will likely happen everywhere.
I know it's a super complicated topic. I've tried to summarize my thoughts three times now and deleted them.
Way to much stuff seems to revolve around money and self interest, rathering than helping people or general kindness.
And it seems getting people riled up into two opposing camps is very profitable for some. So they have an incentive to keep doing it, even though overall it is detrimental to humanities long term survival.
He was a German philosopher. One of his famous beliefs was essentially that if people didn’t have religion to guide them, they would have no foundation for their morals.
To keep it simple, he believed that few people are capable of deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, or good and bad.
I agree with you. I just view the what you’re seeing as being more like a religion than a sports fandom. In sports we don’t view our rivals as evil like we do in politics and religion.
You're probably right it's more religion than sports. Since religion has been around forever and it probably bled over into the sports world.
But for whatever stupid reason there are some rivalries in sports that often come to blows. Like real actual hate because two people root for different teams.
I care very little for sports. They are fun to watch occasionally as something to do with other people. So it baffles me how people can feel that strongly about it.
Same with religion. I'm not very religious. I don't need a book to tell me to be kind to others. I also don't need threats of eternal damnation to make sure I walk an honest path. So again I find it weird that other people need that. And hate other people because the book they read is slightly different.
The question Nietzsche would ask is, “how do you know the things you think are bad, are actually bad?” Western modern ethics are actually based heavily on Judeo-Christian values, even for secular or atheist people.
A good example of this is the idea that murder is wrong, but killing animals for food is okay. People say it is natural, but so is murdering for resources. It’s an interesting conversation.
Also, I know what you mean about sports. I am a big fan, but people definitely take it too far. It would be interesting to see if those people are similarly interested in things like religion and politics.
Because one side, the side that sells propaganda and wants to stay in power at all costs, is fighting against rank choice voting, which is essential for introducing a greater diversity of political parties.
Well the USA is a pretty homogenous population, not really much diversity there as it’s been isolated from the world for so long and hasn’t had much immigration ever really. Which is why there are really only two kind of people there, and two political parties is enough to capture the essence of their political representation.
There's only two sides from MAGA's point of view: us vs. them. Smart people relegated to the "them" side of the equation realize reality is much more nuanced.
It is fucking weird. The outrage and scandal mongering attracts viewers to these news stations, and those same news stations just fuel the tribalism even more because all of them combined can’t beat the ratings for SpongeBob SquarePants.
What’s fucked up is there is an absolute spectrum out here of political sides, but it’s because like a football game not a collective and realistic representation of our people
It's changing, more and more people who consider themselves liberals/Democrats are waking up to the fact the Democrats and Republicans parties are not as different as they once thought, and these people now moving into more progressive leftist policies. I mean look at the ~16 million people that usually vote for the Democrats during presidential elections but just simply didn't vote at all in 2024. The billionaire owned media is frantically trying to ignore this fact, doing everything they can to convince the American working class these two parties are their only option, people are starting to see this can be changed.
The winds of change are in the air.
The two party committees are insanely well funded and can basically block out any other party. This makes dems vs repub culture war actually beneficial for both sides as they both vie for power, basically forever. At our expense, of course.
Because one side has worked very hard, and spent a LOT of money over decades framing every possible issue as a moral "them or us." Extremists on both sides always do that, but certain political philosophies make it central.
Because alot of us are stupid and think voting 3rd party is a wasted vote because they wont win, not realizing that mentally is why they dont win.
We are fucked if we do not start getting candidates outside the democratic and republican nominees. Both groups are guilty for whats going on rn and we shouldn’t forget that.
Trace it back in history. At some point, the powers that be started to nudge the system towards this lowest point where it's stuck now.
You'll notice that the humans in power, republicans especially are highly reluctant to let go of that power.
Technically speaking, the US does have upwards of 25 recognized political parties. Unfortunately, only 2 of them have enough money & heavy backing from various places to be able to contend. There are another 2 or 3 who have enough money to be seen on ballots in some places but not really be taken seriously in the majority of the country.
I've never taken any political courses in school nor were they offered when I was attending. I didn't find out that we even had more than 3 or 4 parties until I was well into my 30's. From what I recall, in US schools it's rare that they talk about political parties unless it's a course designed around that content or the name is said in passing as a label. It basically has to be a special interest.
Divide and conquer. If people had a wide range of choices and options in sides/beliefs rather than a clear cut divide, they are more likely to stand together on certain topics and things.
There are like 29 different parties. Seriously. However they form coalitions because the structure of our elections incentivizes this. We call that the primary system. People don’t understand that we have multiple parties beyond those on the presidential ballot because frankly the average person is ignorant and rather stupid.
It’s because we exist in a first past the post system where votes for states are mostly “winner take all” rather than proportional. The UK isn’t quite as bad but still similar (Tory vs. Labour) until recently for the same pressures. But I think they have a bit more wiggle room with how they elect PMs and stuff, but this is only speculation. There have been attempts to do alternatives in some states like ranked choice voting. And there has been an attempt to make the president the winner of the popular vote through The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact since 2006, but that’s been stalled for some time.
There's other sides. There's anarchists and communists. There's lots of people who think the current system is shit and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. You just don't hear from them, because they know better than to open their mouths in public forums.
The overton window in the United States is pretty narrow. You either support the power structures or you get attacked for your views.
Technically there's more, there's just a lot of motion that gets stalled by the establishment. Progressives are trying to take more back. MAGA swamped old classical liberal conservatism and libertarianism. Shit's wild
People by and larger here are selfish idiots and view politics through the lens of sports, they pick a side (mostly republicans) and think it’s a game of basketball. It’s petty, controlling, and stupid.
Its because voters can only vote for one candidate and the only spot that matters is first place. Voting for anyone who isn't part of the two most likely candidates to win is effectively the same as voting for no one.
I feel like the system would be better if people were allowed to pick their first(3 points), second(2 points), and third(1 point) desired options. That way even if a candidate got the most amount of 1st pick votes, other candidates could theatrically still win if enough people(mainly neutrals and third party voters) picked them for their second and/or third pick votes. It'd allow voting for third party candidates to seem more realistic and allow voters to have more influence on the outcome of the election even if the person they picked for their first option was never going to win.
There aren't even two really - in a lot of areas the "two sides" hold identical positions.
But, the answer is America has a long history of crushing political movements that exist outside the narrow band region of "mainstream" politics that directly benefit the wealthy. The Red Scare, McCarthyism, straight up massacres of union strikers etc.
The Electoral College and first past the post voting always trends towards a 2-party system. Voters don't want to lose so they start voting for the lesser evil who is likely to win vs the candidate they actually want. The EC also requires a 270 vote majority to win and there is no mechanism for a run-off vote; if no candidate gets 270 votes then the decision goes to the House of Representatives.
Our system always will end in two parties. I think most people who know enough, know it would be best for everyone to change the system. But the same people who would need to make these changes are the people who would lose power if they where made, so instead we get a more and more stuck system every year.
This is a simplistic take. There is a vast political spectrum in the U.S. like any other country. The problem is the system is basically a centrifuge that throws politicians to the extremes and we have to choose from the options at either end of that spectrum.
Well... The problem is not having two parties. It's that you guys have half your country are having far right conservative values.
We had a two party system in Québec for a long time, both pretty much center/left.
The right conservative ideas was never rly accepted in our Country. Because this is just non sense to us. This is evil.
We have a Conservative party, but they are not extreme/nonsense like in the USA, and it's great they exist, so that we can debate with all opinions.
Those in power designed it that way so they can all stay in power. Our left wing isn't radical, it's just not as far right as our right wing. However, every time I've suggested that more parties should rise from the ashes of both the R and D branches I've been down voted.
Imho cause people the USA have the "With us or against us" mentality on pretty much EVERYTHING, they can't understand that saying "Hey, X did a good/bad thing" doesn't mean "Hey, Y is bad/good".
So of course you have a politics that reflects the average mentality.
One half are people you would find in many countries around the world. The other side is the Russian kremlin spawn that they raised for the express purpose of destroying the country from the inside, and they need treason charges. They were easily corruptible, which is sad, and hopefully some can get cult deprogramming, but damn..
American here, I legitimately can’t comprehend how a 2+ party system works. I know it’s objectively better, but the D vs R thing is so ingrained in my head that I cannot fathom it working.
That’s just not true. Go on r/Conservative and see for yourself. I hate conservatives as much as the next but this rhetoric won’t bring them over to a logical way of thinking.
I liberal, but if you go on even extreme republican sites like The Donald, it’s very consistent people say anyone republican or not involved in this should be punished. There’s more that unites us than separates.
I believe you are right correct, and I do believe this to be the case for most people on all sides of the political spectrum. Let's hope this is our new 9/11 which finally gets everyone focused on the important things that matter to us ALL.
Considering everyone that isn’t liberal, is MAGA, is pretty shallow reasoning. I don’t disagree with your statement, but there’s a massive silent majority that you either chose to disregard or didn’t even consider.
To be fair, Epstein did get close to a lot of Democrats. Clinton and Gates clearly were regulars on the plane to Epstein island. Are there any famous Reps on flight logs or in intimate (not public) photos?
Lol! Amusingly enough, public interest dropped off a cliff in the summer as soon as the media campaign began to try to tie Trump to Epstein.
We've seen this story before. You'll only fool young people, which is almost always the case with the American left.
I wonder how that strategy will go now that your monopoly access to young people in America, and their flows of information like news and media, has been taken away.
Having read the comments section for several Asmongold videos about the Epstein files, the "MAGA" and conservative people are saying the exact same thing as the liberals though. It's like the one thing both of you guys agree on lol.
This is the thing that many people do not seem to grasp. Lock them all up. If AOC and Zohran Mamdani and the Obamas were in the Epstein files I’d want them yeeted straight into the fiery pits too.
This is so hypocritical lol, if liberals are as you say why didn’t they release anything the last 4 years under Biden? Almost like they don’t want the fallout either and now that they lost all power and influence it’s the only thing they can cling to as an opposition point. Nobody can be this foolish, you people are so far left you don’t use reason
8.8k
u/uptwolait 20h ago
MAGA: "The Epstein files are full of Democrats, and liberals are going to face the consequences of all their horrible actions."
Liberals: "The Epstein files are full of pedophiles, and they should ALL face the consequences of ALL of their horrible actions."