In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.

This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.

When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.

There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away

But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope that's not a refinement, thats just a new comment.

As far as less than ideally informed voters, that's a self fulfilling prophecy - why become informed when there are two parties and you are programmed to already hate one? You just vote and party lines and move on. Politicians in the US don't even have platforms anymore, they don't need to.

[–] cgarret3@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.

Aside from that though, let’s dig in.

Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.

Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”

Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote?

Not sure where you even got that from. I just said that there is little motive for a candidate to educate themselves or for a politician to attempt to educate voters on their plans in a binary system. When you add shades of grey (other candidates / parties) there's more motivation to have tangible platforms that people can then make educated decisions on.

Plenty of other democracies have multiple parties and this idea that other parties equal pure communism and anarchy sounds like some GOP fear mongering bullshit.