[noduerme]

Just my on-the-ground view as an American, I've seen both major parties in this country change radically in my lifetime to the point of being unrecognizable. In the case of the Republican party this has happened twice.

The USSR had only one Party, but intra-party politics were all the more fierce as a result. I'm not saying that a full or even reasonably varied spectrum of true, non-spectacular or intelligent alternatives are being presented to the American voter. Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement.

The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties.

[nikitaga]

> The ideological spread between Joe Manchin and AOC covers most of the ground covered by center and left European parties.

Most Americans don't have the option to vote for AOC or Joe Manchin (nor for their ideological equivalents). Neither for congress, nor for the President. They get shit candidates and still vote for them because the only viable alternative is an even worse candidate from a party you hate more than the other one. This is very much by design of FPTP, because it prevents third party competition from posing any threat to established parties. The two parties just pick their ideologies from a list of hot topics and never face any competition for the implementation of those ideologies.

This is very much not the case in more proportional voting systems, which provide true political competition across the political spectrum, not just superficial ideological posturing that isn't subject to competition. This is all very well known both practically and academically with tons of research to back it up. Youtube and wikipedia have all the mechanics, the references, and real world data, spelled out.

> Just that what a 2-party system lacks in superficial variety it may more than make up for in internecine disagreement

Sure, a political duopoly is better than a monopoly, but just like in other markets, only slightly so. Political power is a market like any other market, and needs significant competition from more than a couple actors to produce outcomes that are best for the consumers (voters). Even that AmEx case is a prime example, a direct result of shitty parties produced by this shitty election system. And that result will stay here for decades if not forever, regardless of which party is in power, because this election system is not going anywhere, and will keep producing such results.

[biztos]

I used to be really impressed with European-style proportional representation, until I spent a lot of time in Germany.

I still prefer it to two-party system, but the last German election ultimately came down to two wet-noodle candidates absolutely nobody liked nor respected, and one of the wet noodles won. Now the establishment lumbers on, having lacked anything like a political vision for generations now.

I really wish there were more of a market of systems in the world, so we could think bigger. Probably wouldn't matter to the US, but just in principle.

[noduerme]

>> Most Americans don't have the option to vote for AOC or Joe Manchin (nor for their ideological equivalents). Neither for congress, nor for the President.

But Americans do usually have a wide variety of choices in the primaries. It's the primaries where the actual policy ideological positions are fought out. There would be no AOC - or MTG, for that matter - but for some highly motivated sets of voters with various axes to grind. However, most Americans prefer political gridlock to any well-tuned agenda. The reason AOC and MTG are outliers is because most nominees are forced to run toward the center in general elections, and govern toward the center if they win. Yeah, this is why they mostly end up endorsing corporate handouts, and we can all decry it, but it's arguably a lot better than letting the more extreme left or right-wing agendas come in and flip the table.

Considering other presidential systems, look how close France was recently, to Marine Le Pen and genuine fascism. Or how quickly Venezuela turned into a one-party state under Chavez. Consider how close we were to Trump replacing the elected government.

The status quo in which corporations call the shots and banks rob everyone has been de rigeuer in America since the 18th C. This is an unfortunate but ultimately comprehensible state of Hobbesian chaos. The weakness of narrow-agenda political parties is the strength of that economic engine, and we are all - all of us with cars, houses, tech jobs, and money to blow on vacations and dinners - beneficiaries of a system that moves very, very incrementally and doesn't try to steer a tanker like a speedboat.

[nikitaga]

> how close France was recently, to Marine Le Pen and genuine fascism. Or how quickly Venezuela turned into a one-party state under Chavez.

People who have strong opinions against proportional representation invariably seem to be completely uninformed about its particulars, and love nothing more than to bring up random countries that they know nothing about and that have little to do with proportional representation, or blame all the country's problems on an election system for no reason.

1) Both French and Venezuelian presidential elections were held under a simple voting system that is a lot closer to FPTP than to proportional representation in its mechanics. The only difference from FPTP is that they have a second round between the two candidates who got the most votes. In the US two party system that second round wouldn't make any difference 99% of the time.

2) It takes some epic lack of self awareness to complain about some right wing loser in another country, when your own country's FPTP system elected Trump despite him losing the popular vote, and then almost elected him again. Whereas the French loser you're complaining about lost 66%-to-34%, and even worse than that the previous time she ran.

3) Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with their election system. Nor do presidential elections have anything to do with proportional representation. But if you like looking at random countries and assigning all their problems to their voting systems, why don't you look at this map and tell me how well those countries have been served by FPTP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/me...

> most Americans prefer political gridlock to any well-tuned agenda

You don't know what Americans prefer, because currently they are exhibiting their preferences under duress. The primaries only serve to choose a candidate who will be "electable" under a broken FPTP system come election time – it is a losing proposition from the very start. Americans are only given the illusion of choice, with all the fanfare to keep them happy. They never see any real choice the way people living in proportional representation countries do.

> a lot better than letting the more extreme left or right-wing agendas come in and flip the table.

Lol. US politics is disintegrating largely because of FPTP elections, UK did Brexit largely because of FPTP elections, you think other countries on that FPTP map are doing much better? Proportional representation systems are a lot better at keeping extremists out of power, because in FPTP extremists hijack mainstream parties who win elections and end up governing.

In proportional representation systems, extremists get elected in small quantities and then productive coalitions form to keep them out of power, so they end up just warming the seats in parliament instead of destroying the country. This isn't just my opinion, it's been studied, researched and proven. Look. It. Up.

[nl]

I don't think any of your points are wrong, but you neglected to address properly the substantial and useful point the person you are replying to made: That it's the primaries in the US system that provide citizen driven democracy.

That's a fair point, and a meaningful one too.

> The primaries only serve to choose a candidate who will be "electable" under a broken FPTP system come election time – it is a losing proposition from the very start. Americans are only given the illusion of choice, with all the fanfare to keep them happy.

Well there's clearly some evidence this isn't the case. 2 out of the last 3 presidents (Obama and Trump) were not the pre-ordained establishment candidate, and it was broad popularity by primary voters that caused them to become the candidate.

[nikitaga]

Their "broad popularity" only ever existed in the context of US FPTP election, in the context of a two-party system. If Americans had the option to vote for e.g. greens or labour or fiscal but-not-social conservatives, neither Obama nor Trump would be as popular. But Americans don't have such options, because even though some of them are right there on the ballot, voting for anyone but the two major parties under FPTP is literally throwing your vote away.

And it's not any different in primaries. Primaries are also FPTP, with all the same mechanics. The notion that you're better off voting your heart in primaries without consideration for all the standard FPTP mechanics making your vote useless is just another lie to make Americans feel better about their broken system, and is not backed by any math.

[noduerme]

I brought up France and Venezuela as examples because they are more analogous to the US, in that they have powerful presidencies. It was to point out that the FPTP voting system is not all; more important for balancing the people against the state is the power (or lack thereof) of a parliament or congress to check the executive branch. The US is headed in a direction wherein the congress simply rubber stamps the executive of the same party; but again, to my point about Americans preferring gridlock, this is exactly why the opposition tends to gain seats in off-year elections.

And to my point about the wide range available in primaries within each party, it's exactly why longstanding politicians lose their seats to others within their own party who are more attuned to the electorate.

I think the focus on voting systems is misguided, but in any case, it's written into the Constitution and has been this way since the 1770s, and there is zero chance, ever, that the United States will adopt a parliamentary system. So the whole thing is moot. And as interesting as it is to read the opinion of America's faults from someone from a country with only one functioning political party, where all local and party elections are determined by force / kidnapping / murdering the opposition, it's tiresome to be lectured as to which system is more successful at improving people's lives or fulfilling the electorate's demands.

[nl]

I don't entirely agree.

I live in Australia which has a preferential voting system, and yet two parties dominate for the most part.

There are electoral-related reasons for this but also there are branding/marketing reasons that make it more likely that large parties continue to dominate.

It's easier for large brands (parties) to hold mind share. It's very hard for minor parties to build a brand built around anything other than opposition to specific things or outrage.