I know we technically have more than two choices, but what would need to change for it to simply be 1) person A, 2) person B, or 3) throwaway vote.
And maybe there are multiple avenues?
In: Other
Despite what the others say, the problem isn’t just First Past The Post, and changing the electoral system won’t fix it (though it should be changed regardless).
The problem is the US’ Presidential system. Fact is, there can only be one President, and that ultimately means you’re going to end up with 2 parties, the party of the President, and the party that opposed the President. The *balance of power” that Americans tout as a founding principle is largely an illusion, the US Federal Government, and especially the Executive Branch, is one of the highest concentrations of power you can find in any remotely democratic nation (and frankly, moreso than some deeply undemocratic ones. Decentralisation of power and democracy aren’t necessarily correlated).
The US is one of the world’s oldest democracies, and that’s credit to the American system, but that also means it’s lacking many of the more modern democratic features that have developed in recent centuries/decades. The Presidential system is a pretty blatant one, and it’s telling that so few democracies are Presidential. By some metrics, the US is the only significant Democratic Presidential Republic, and that’s assuming you call the US a democracy. But, it’s not the only one. The Electoral College, the way Congress is formed, the way bills are passed, the way the Supreme Court works, etc etc, are all very 18th century conceptions of democracy.
Basically, the US’ system was designed in the Age of Absolutism, and carries much of the philosophy of governance of that era. It would require a near total rewrite of the US’ entire system of governance to not result in a two party system, and that’s just not something that’s likely to happen any time soon.
Latest Answers