Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
^ "Always discourages" until it happens. In Britain, splinter parties don't usually do well and we return to the big two: Labour or Tory. Nevertheless, at various times, a politician has made the break and struggled along for a few election cycles. Usually the break occurs over a policy principle and with such bitterness that neither side care much about any damage they are inflicting on the other. Still waiting for Liz Cheney to set up shop with Adam Kinzinger...
|
"until it happens"
Except in this country it does not happen. This isn't the UK. We don't have a parliamentary system and though i couldn't get into the specifics of exactly how British politics works i know enough to know it's pretty different from our own system, where a de facto two party state has been essentially unchallenged for centuries. We've seen the parties change. We've seen parties die and be born. We've even seen them swap roles more or less. But we haven't seen a serious 3rd, 4th, etc option emerge.
When it does get considered, let's say by the green party or something, it gets shot down as a Trojan horse for the other side. It does often inadvertantly help the opposition. So that's where the lesser of two evils comes in. The two parties can always appeal to the fear of their rivals to discourage any splintering. So in essence the answer to your question of why not is linked to the description i was giving before.
The Democrats rely mainly on fear of Republicans to get elected and if you ask them why not go third party they will tell you straight up that only one of the two parties can win so they are really the only game in town.... They implicitly benefit from the lack of options and it is of course self reinforcing because the more entrenched they become the less plausible the case for third parties becomes...
Quote:
Sorry if I was being over defensive with all my "not my fault" comments !
TBH, I don't really understand your logic about "not a real choice". As a teacher, I often set questions like this: Yesterday I (go/went) to the bank.
Just because there's only one correct answer doesn't mean that students don't have a choice to make.
|
what you are missing is that the point of the choice is supposed to be that we rely on the people to determine what the right choice is. It assumes the right answer is actually up for debate.
If we agree that it's not and there is only one right choice, we are only granting people the freedom to make the wrong choice. If the wrong choice is voting in an actual autocratic Trojan horse then we are giving them the freedom to destroy democracy. I don't see what utility such a choice provides. We can split hairs on whether you want to call it a "choice" but when i say it's not a real choice i mean that it is not a worthwhile choice.
Quote:
|
As for being better served without all the worry of elections, I don't agree at all. Some inefficiency and inconvenience attaches to the democratic process, but imo it's a price worth paying if it means keeping a one-party state at bay. Ask the people who live under an autocracy and I bet they'd swap their system in order to have a democratic voice.
|
if the one party state was literally the same Democratic party same agendas but they never had to negotiate with the GOP you think they would not be more effective? Wasn't your big gripe that we haven't granted them enough power? What I'm describing is functionally no different than the government that would emerge if the Democrats just so happened to consistently win every election and every seat... At that point the distinction between one party always winning and a one party state seems pretty nebulous.
Quote:
|
And as for doing it over and over again, many people would see that as a privilege, a safeguard, a chance to revise their opinion, not as a problem. If your complaint is that the GOP is spoiling the fun of choosing by constantly pushing for an autocracy, I suggest you take it up with them.
|
i would see it that way too if it were a meaningful choice. If it's just literally the choice between good and evil just write a script to select good every 2-4 years and be done with it. Then you don't have to worry about the voters failing to give the Democrats enough power to get **** done.
Quote:
|
Another comment I don't really understand. The Dems are providing an alternative to an autocratic party overthrowing a "free and fair" election. How is that NOT saving democracy?!
|
i believe they are unlikely to actually save us. I will give them the credit after they do so, not beforehand.