[sirwhinesalot]

I think your last point is very reductionist. Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win. A diverse parlament results in paralysis and the fall of government (happened in my home country multiple times).

The two parties that end up viable tend to be financed quite heavily by said wealthy, including being proped by the media said wealthy control.

The more right wing side will promise tax cuts (also for the poor that don't seem to materialize) while the more left wing side will promise to tax the rich (but in an easily dodgeable way that only ends up affecting the middle class).

Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one. And I think the wealthy backers wanted it that way.

[bruce511]

Im not sure why you are being downvoted. You make a reasonable argument.

I would contest some of your points though.

Firstly, not every country votes, not all that vote have 2 viable parties, so that's a flaw in your argument.

Equally most elections produce a winner. That winner can, and does, get stuff done. The US is paralyzed because it takes 60% to win the senate, which hasn't happened for a while. So US elections are set up so "no one wins". Which of course leads to overreach etc that we're seeing currently.

There's a danger when living inside a system that you assume everywhere else is the same. There's a danger when you live in a system that heavily propagandizes its own superiority, that you start to feel like everywhere else is worse.

If we are the best, and this system is the best, and it's terrible, then clearly all hope is lost.

But what I maybe, just maybe, all those things you absolutely, positively, know to be true, are not true? Is that even worth thinking about?

[sirwhinesalot]

Just to be clear, I'm not a US citizen.

But I know people whose preference would be something like Ron Paul > Bernie Sanders > Trump > Kamala, which might sound utterly bizarre until you realize that there are multiple factors at play and "we want tax cuts for the rich" is not one of them.

[bruce511]

When you vote for a guy who plans to raise prices, when you vote for a guy who already tried to remove Healthcare, when you vote for a guy who gives tax breaks to the rich, when you vote for a guy who is a grifter, then don't complain when you get what you voted for.

People are welcome to whatever preference they like. Democracy let's them choose. But US democracy is deliberately planned to prefer the "no one wins" scenario. That's not the democracy most of the world uses.

[johnnyanmac]

> Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win.

Not necessarily. That's a result of first past the post, not of voting in general. ranked choice voting solves a lot of this extremism 2 party system. The dominant parties need to at least pretend to appel enough to moderatism that a 3rd party isn't outvoting both of them.

>Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one.

So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.

[sirwhinesalot]

> Not necessarily. That's a result of first past the post, not of voting in general. ranked choice voting solves a lot of this extremism 2 party system. The dominant parties need to at least pretend to appel enough to moderatism that a 3rd party isn't outvoting both of them.

Yup, we really need to fix this problem in many countries. Ranked choice is a great idea that should be pushed for.

> So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.

That was my perception of it at least. I'm not a US citizen. Job market might have been a big one but even that is partially social as a rejection of globalism.