>2015
>Having "democracy" with 2 parties
wut_8t.exe
Not to mention first past the post voting system, electoral college, gerrymandering. The US can barely be considered a democracy.
>inb4 we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
>>52952893
fuck off
>>52952893
I wish my political opinions were based entirely on memes too, Czechfriend :^)
>>52953074
You can't refute what I said Patel. Sure the US is technically a democracy, just not a very advanced one in terms of the electoral system.
>>52953207
No memes at all my burger friend. Gerrymandering is a practice that actually happens in your country. There have been cases where a presidential candidate who had more votes lost due to the electoral college and anybody who knows what first past the post actually means knows it's a system that inevitably results in 2 dominant parties. Don't see any memes in what I just said.
>>52948707
>>52953207
>>52953357
I also forgot to add Citizens united.
>>52952999
republic >>> monarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mob rule
>>52953207
>Objective observations of the political structures in place are memes
Are Princeton studies done examining 20 years' worth of data memes too?
>>52953357
>>52953477
>>52953647
dank memes, bros :^)
>>52948707
Our parties are far more diverse than European parties. Anyone left of center, from Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders can be a Democrat, and anyone right of center, from John Kasich to Mike Huckabee can be a Republican. In addition, parties are very weak, with barely no control over how its members vote.Additionally, as far as I know we're the only country that directly chooses which candidate from each party runs for a seat. So, the fact that there are two parties isn't a real problem in America. Granted, there are problems with gerrymandering and the Electoral College, but those are unrelated.
>>52948707
There are dozens of parties.
>>52952893
Gerrymandering has literally ZERO effect on the Senate and President you ignorant Bohemian nigger.
ITT: let me tell you about your country
>>52953891
>In addition, parties are very weak, with barely no control over how its members vote.
not really true if you look at the data
>>52953954
>There are dozens of parties.
But the system is made in a way where they pretty much can't succeed.
>Gerrymandering has literally ZERO effect on the Senate and President you ignorant Bohemian nigger.
It does however have an effect on congress, I never said it specifically affected the presidential elections.
Also an american calling somebody a nigger, top kek
>>52954034
Not that US specific though, plenty of other countries have similar systems in place and they face similar problems, like the UK. It's a discussion primarily about the electoral system, your country is just a very relevant example of bad rules in politics.
>>52954224
There's no direct control from the parties themselves; there's no penalty like becoming a backbencher if you don't vote along party lines. Congressmen can vote however they like, and the only penalties they might face are things like not becoming a committee chair, which isn't that much of an incentive.The polarization of parties is a recent phenomenon, caused by outside events.
>>52954224
There have been Congresses with as many as 7 parties represented. The system can and does allow for it without issue. Voter preferences are literally the only thing standing in the way.
>>52954346
And yet you don't elect your own head of government.
the system is stupid though
how can americucks even defend this?
are you that blind?
>>52954555
>how can americucks even defend this?
It's easy.
1. Pledge Allegiance to the flag every day.
2. Listen to some libshit foreigner insult the Greatest Country on Earth.
3. Fly into an incoherent rage.
>>52954407
Yeah it's not like North Korea where dear leader tells you how to vote but inner party pressures do influence politics massively, it's a system based on you scratch my back, I scratch yours and this is a symptom of it.
>The polarization of parties is a recent phenomenon, caused by outside events.
well it is only getting worse, what do you think caused it? Also this is something that could be improved by having a system where many parties are in the government, there is less polarization that way.
>>52954515
It is possible but the system is heavily against it happening, trying to deny that you are essentially a two party state is just ignorant.
This here is a pretty good explanation of what the first past the post system actually means https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I never praised my country as some perfect democratic utopia, so it's absolutely irrelevant in this case.
>>52948707
Technically its a republic not a democracy, but we do have more than 2 parties its just none of them are popular enough to break the 5% threshold needed to get the large government grants. Without these grants its difficult for these smaller parties to gain relevance as sadly money wins elections in the US.
>>52954614
Not really. In places like the United Kingdom and many other countries with parliamentary systems if you don't vote with your party, any chance of having greater personal success in politics ends. So, parties are more polarized in other systems. There are many reasons why American parties at this moment in history are pretty polarized, including the passage of the Civil Rights Act making Democrats distinctly leftist and Republicans distinctly right. In addition, with the advent of the Information Age, more voters are becoming informed--and more informed voters tend to be either far right or far left. So, because the more ideologically extreme are more likely to vote, and they are growing in number, more polarized politicians are being elected as a result. Other reasons exist too, and it's subject to quite a bit of academic debate, but the reasons don't lie in the system itself. For much of American history, under the same system, parties were far less polarized.
>mfw first past the post kept UKIP out of the house of commons
>>52954555
Same rules apply for you too mate. FPTP is retarded.
>>52954555
Admittedly, it's not as good as a Parliamentary system with proportionate representation, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be, and it even has some advantages.
>>52955031
Ok it probably has a lot to do simply with the political culture in the state.
>making Democrats distinctly leftist
honestly I'm not convinced about that, maybe this is just my perception since Europe is generally much more left wing than the US but the democratic party is at best a centrist party. It is still immensely pro business and liberalism is it's core ideal (in the classical sense of economics, nothing do with social justice, that's the US meaning of the word) It just seems leftist since modern republicans are shifting into the extreme right.
not that we don't but people don't vote for them
or rather they can't get the funding to get their message out
or like the libertarians they have to piggyback
private funding was probably the worst idea but people seem to have no problem with it
>>52955503
It's centrist by your standards, but by our standards they're leftist, so that's what they're called here. It has nothing to do with our system, we've just always been a bit more conservative as a whole than Europe.
>Democracy
>FPTP
Pick one fags
>>52955584
people don't vote for them since in a FPTP system it really is throwing your vote away. If you adopted some more proportional system within a couple of years more and more parties would be gaining ground.
>>52955612
perhaps, but I would say it's centrist by world standards and most importantly in terms of political theory.
>democracy
>good
While the Electoral College does have problems, it very rarely causes any real problems in our democracy. And gerrymandering, while very stupid, only affects one house of our national legislature and some state legislatures, and some measures are being made to curb it. American democracy does have flaws, but people grossly exaggerate the negative effects of the Electoral College and gerrymandering. And first-past-the-post, the way it's executed in America, hardly creates any problems with representation at all, unlike with countries like the United Kingdom. I'd say it's almost as good as a proportionate Parliamentary system.
Honestly, I'd say the biggest problem is simply that our system as a whole was designed to be inefficient, which was all very well and good in the 18th century when government had few duties, but in the complex society of the 21st century, that becomes more and more undesirable. That, and having many different levels where interest groups can enter and distort the process of making legislation and its administration.
