Technically true, but there is no real choice. The US doesn't have a proportional voting system but uses first past the post voting. This by default will result in a two party system. If one party splits up or loses voter to a third party, the remaining party will utterly dominate the politics until one of the other party comes up on top again.

Sane countries do have a proportional voting system which allows several parties to flourish.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's the point I (and the simpsons) is making though. If people didn't vote for one of the two parties because "anything else is a wasted vote". Even with FPTP you'd get a more varies result, at the very least in the upper/lower houses.

But that doesn't happen, and that's how they have us all by the balls.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But that doesn’t happen, and that’s how they have us all by the balls.

Well that's very easy when one party openly is working to destroy the whole democratic system.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 9 months ago

Very specifically, in the upcoming US election. Going to say, yes you need to stop a certain tyrant from getting another term. But as a general comment this happens regardless.

Even all the years, at least in the UK, for quite some time a decade or so ago we had two parties, one that was 1mm left of centre and the other 1mm right of centre. If people didn't like the fact they had a choice of Kang or Kodos, they did. But, everyone voted that way anyway.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 0 points 9 months ago

That's great in theory but there's this thing called the collective action problem that pretty much explains why that can't / won't happen.