[jk563]

I think it's a fairly large assumption to make that they all voted for him specifically. I don't think it's too crazy (given he won <50% of the popular vote in the 2016 primaries) to assume a large number of those voters voted "Not Democrat" or voted Republican instead of voting Trump specifically.

[bjeds]

That's beside the point: there is _obviously_ a fraction that is much greater than 0% of the people who voted for Trump (whether they voted for him or against his opponents) who will now feel oppressed because the person they voted for - whatever reason - is now banned from the largest social media network in the world. This fraction is from the large (millions) group of people who had nothing to do with the riots.

I mean, read the article: Facebook has realized the same thing and that's why they are recommending their employees to not wear Facebook branded clothing.

Like it or not, the pool of disillusioned people is now much larger and I'm not particularly keen on learning what effects that will have down the road.

[confidantlake]

They also felt oppressed because the Trump lied to them repeatedly and told them their vote was stolen. Luckily many Republicans, including the 2 cabinet members that resigned, have decided they can no longer support Trump. Twitter banning him will lead to less division, not more.

[mensetmanusman]

This is true.

In a strong 2-party democracy voting against one party looks equivalent to voting for another, even though the intention is not.

[Cthulhu_]

This is a problem with the US system at the moment. It was the same issue with the Brexit referendum; people got two choices (remain or leave), while the process was a lot more subtle and there were plenty of 'in between' solutions available. People voted leave for single issues, while leaving actually caused multiple issues that affected them directly.

Anyway tl;dr the US needs massive political reform and one should never be constrained to just two choices.

[randomsearch]

The inability of the American and U.K. electoral systems to reform themselves will destroy both countries.

[neartheplain]

What makes you say that about the UK? As an American, I’ve always been envious of what I perceive as the UK’s greater electoral flexibility, expressed through systems like snap elections and Parliament’s role in appointing the chief executive.

[randomsearch]

> What makes you say that about the UK?

Same problems as the US. We have a two party state, which means very broad coalitions, no real choice, and a lot of unheard voices. Just like the US, we have suffered deindustrialisation as companies shipped production overseas, encouraged by our politicians, and those people who lost out have no way of fighting back. Their resentment has grown to the point where it is now finding expression through Brexit and populists like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

Proportional representation provides a "release valve" for angry minorities, in that new parties can form. Some people think this is a danger, because they see those parties gaining some real power, but what usually happens is their supporters see the realities of political compromise, see some gains, at least feel represented, and the anger recedes.

The first place we're seeing the cracks is the UK leaving the EU whilst NI has not, and support for Scottish independence on the rise.

More pertinent to your reply: without a constitution the flexibility is simply exploited for party political gain, which often destabilises the country. Similarly, the trend has been in recent decades for the executive to increasingly take power away from parliament, which has proceeded unchecked. So some of us envy your constitution and the lack of gaming in e.g. the timing of elections. And let's not even get started on the "ceremonial" royal family...

[arethuza]

Parliament doesn't have a direct role in appointing the PM - it's pretty much an internal party decision.

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leader...

[neartheplain]

I suppose what I mean is that I like how this process produces PMs who are aligned (at least to start) with the majority will of Parliament, since the party/coalition with the most seats in Parliament gets to pick them.

In contrast, US Presidents are elected with zero input from Congress and are often at odds with the House and/or Senate majority.

[pjc50]

The UK is likely to fragment, ironically through electoral politics rather than violence, as Brexit disadvantages hit Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I'm not yet willing to predict mass violence but I will remind people that we had an opposition MP killed during the campaign for Brexit.

[adamcstephens]

The two parties that hold all the power in the US make sure that it’s just the two parties. How do you reform a system when the people who benefit from the system hold ask the cards?