[atoav]

Karl Popper described democracy as a system that is not defined by giving you the chance of getting people you like into power, but by giving you the chance to remove those you disliked.

A duopoly that is this far apart in terms of ideology and goals is preventing that part. What needs to happen for a convinced Dem/Republican to vote for the opposing party to pu ish bad behaviour within their own party? This is much easier with more parties with more nuanced choices.

[rendall]

> A duopoly that is this far apart in terms of ideology and goals

I don't know that I would be able to convince you otherwise. Just, if you think that GW's extraordinary renditions set a dangerous precedent but Obama's Disposition Matrix was an unfortunate necessity (or vice versa, as but two examples), you just may be distracted by tribal affiliation. As another example, if you were to get close to passing meaningful election reform that would enable effective multiple "third" parties, you would see the polarized duopoly close ranks in unified attacks on the idea - and on you, personally - pretty darn quick!

My advice to anyone who will listen is to really pay attention to the sins of your own side, really listen to your opposition without reflexively what-abouting. Eye opening. It doesn't mean the other side is better! It's just helpful to know. Also, shows a way forward, as slim as that may be.

[atoav]

> My advice to anyone who will listen is to really pay attention to the sins of your own side

I am not from the US and do nopt plan to ever live there. With the distance of a European perspective I'd even phrase this more harshly: Don't pick a side. you don't have to. Judge political actors by their actions, that means by what they get done and by what they prevent from getting done. It is also okay to stand behind single political individuals if they do a compelling job and shine through their integrity and endurance.

Your job is to remove people from office if they fuck up. And that includes people on "insignificant" levels of politics, be it your town, city, province or whatnot.

What baffles me most about the US, is that you guys can elect somebody as a head of state who has millions less absolute votes than the other candidate and not completely loose your shit about that fact alone. Where I am from this would cause riots in the streets for weeks.

[rendall]

You're referring to the Electoral College. I won't get into much detail about it, but it serves the purpose of ensuring that the rural vote is not swamped by the urban vote. Shockingly, those who are of the urban clans believe it should be abolished, but it has long tradition.

Personally, I think the Electoral College is not nearly as bad as the first-past-the-goalpost-winner- take-all electoral system for every single office from President to town council. Your best strategy will always be to put all of your resources behind one of the two front-runners in any election. Voting for anyone else makes it a certainty that your opposition wins. Fixing that somehow to be a more proportional representation system would at last break the duopoly and calm everyone down. People would finally feel like their values are represented in government, rather than compromising or settling.

[FooBarBizBazz]

> Personally, I think the Electoral College is not nearly as bad as the first-past-the-goalpost-winner- take-all electoral system

Agreed. This even has a name, Duverger's Law:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

[dr_dshiv]

Bring back ostracism? It was a key part of Athenian democracy…

[rendall]

Make Athens Great Again!