• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The closest a 3rd party candidate ever got

      That is what makes them a “third party,” isn’t it? When a third party starts doing well enough to win elections, they just stop being called a third party. And that has happened, or we’d be choosing between the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          So who did you vote for, the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs? Since that can never happen in a FPTP system, it stands to reason that we must still have the two parties we started with. Was there some time period in history where the US didn’t have FPTP where all the party shuffling happened?

          • Valorie12@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            You’re being pedantic. It’s obvious that I meant that it’s never going to happen this far into our current system. There’s a very obvious reason why things shuffled around a lot early on and have settled into two very distinct parties, and you’re a complete idiot if you don’t realize that…

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              Just to be clear, how “early on” is “early on?” Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred? I’ll give you a second to Google it so you can decide where the goalposts are.

              They’ve settled into the two current parties because of one reason: a lack of will to change. There are other countries that have FPTP where the parties are not so static. Yes, it’s a barrier. No, it is not insurmountable.

              Fundamentally, there is no political system that is impossible to change. Monarchies were extremely hard to change, and yet they did, once the will was there. Political systems are designed and maintained by human beings. Treating them as if they were some innate, unchanging law of the universe is as delusional as thinking that the Supreme Court could overturn the law of gravity by finding it unconstitutional.

              And indeed, our current system is unsustainable. It is, objectively, going to run up against physical constraints. It will bend or break. Trump is already an example of that. It’s very simple: adapt, or die.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      If 10% of the vote goes to x then there’s motivation to court voters from x.

      If you only vote 2 parties then you’re only courting voters from the other party.