[yoran]

I think Americans don't give enough attention to the bi-party system as an important cause for the current political divide, and increasingly, civil divide.

My hypothesis is that a two-party system creates the divide because it encourages such a powerful "us vs them" feeling. I've never seen such disdain or hatred towards people on the other side of the political spectrum as in the US. I'm from continental Europe and that divide there is much less present. And I think it's because we have so many different parties, that the "us vs them" feeling isn't so powerful.

Sure, social media and the completely politicized media landscape exacerbate the issue. But I think the root cause is the two-party political system.

[nescioquid]

> a two-party system creates the divide because it encourages such a powerful "us vs them" feeling

I agree, but that's just the punch-and-judy show. The real disaffection stems from seeing how the incentives of politicians are reliably not aligned with their nominal constituents.

We have legal precedent establishing money as speech, and a steep hill to climb for any third party to win the prerogatives which the two major US parties enjoy, like automatically getting your candidate on the ballot in all 50 states in federal elections.

I decided some time ago to never cast a vote for either of these two parties again. Even speaking with people who decry the bankrupt nature of these parties, they still view casting a vote for a third party as throwing their vote away.

[durbleflorp]

Personally, I agree both parties are severely problematic, don't feel they're equally problematic.

I vote for third party candidates with policy I actually agree with when it isn't going to negatively affect me or others when they inevitably lose.

The sad reality is that FPTP makes strategic voting necessary if you want to have any kind of power. In addition to the issues you mentioned we need score or ranked choice voting so we can begin a transition towards actual accountibility, and hopefully eventually a more diverse set of parties.

Voting for a third party candidate is effectively throwing your vote away in a protest no one will ever hear in a FPTP system.

[nescioquid]

> Voting for a third party candidate is effectively throwing your vote away in a protest no one will ever hear in a FPTP system.

Voting for a 3rd party is not a de facto protest vote, nor is it throwing it away in any case. What power do you get for voting for a party not aligned with your interests? If a third party should achieve a 5% vote, they are eligible for federal funds and would have a big impact on ballot access nationally.

That may not be very persuasive to you (based on conversations I've had with others who felt similarly), but I no longer need regret voting strategically (which actually feels like throwing my vote away).

[durbleflorp]

I actually voted for a third party candidate in 2020 because I knew I could do it without supporting Trump and didn't feel either candidate represented my views.

I was only able to do that because I knew my vote wouldn't ultimately matter in my state's contest though.

In score or ranked choice voting I could both articulate my actual preference in a way that was publicly visible and still make the strategic vote(s) I needed to get the least bad of likely options.

FPTP is one of the least expressive voting systems you could have, and it is objectively terrible for third parties. This isn't a controversial opinion, it's what that vast majority of political scientists agree with.

Third parties are irrelevant in American politics and will continue to be unless we change our voting system (and campaign finance).

[anigbrowl]

Unless you are in a jurisdiction which offers ranked choice voting, then this is equivalent to throwing your vote away and then being surprised when nobody wants it. Also, and orthogonally, eliding the distinctions between the two main parties over a systemic issue that arises out of the constitutional structure means that a party can be incentivized to discourage you from voting by pandering to your dissatisfaction using sockpuppets.

[mindcrime]

But I think the root cause is the two-party political system.

I get what you're saying, but I don't completely agree. Firstly because, to the extent that we can say we have a "two party system" that itself is an effect with a deeper cause. And if you buy the theory behind Duverger's Law[1], the fundamental cause is the mechanism we use for elections, with "first past the post" voting in single-member districts.

My second quibble concerns more of the definition of "two party system". Clearly we do not have a "two party system" in the most literal sense, as there are plenty of other political parties in the US, and several of them routinely have candidates elected to office (the Libertarian and Green parties come to mind) albeit mostly at lower levels.

So yes, we have a system where two parties are dominant, but they are not exclusive and I think that difference matters. Why? Because I believe talking about us having a "two party system" creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop further enforcing the Duverger's Law effect and becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

[yoran]

OK, the US doesn't strictly have a two-party system. But in practice it is, at least at the federal level (which dominates the political discussions). Sure, in theory a Libertarian or Green candidate could become president in 2024. But that will never happen, because the media landscape is strongly colored by either the Democrat or Republican party . So they have no incentive to let anyone but from their own party come to power.

I get your point that denoting it a "two-party system" only makes it worse. But I don't know how to bring it up without mentioning it :-)

[gruez]

>My hypothesis is that a two-party system creates the divide because it encourages such a powerful "us vs them" feeling.

any more than a >2 party system?

[yoran]

Yes I believe so.