politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Remember: Democrats are just as dependent on FPTP for power as republicans
Id say even more so. Few if any one votes for Republicans for the sole reason of them not being democrats. A much larger portion of the democrats voter base is people who simply dislike republicans more.
Really I am not even talking about voters when I am talking about power, I am talking about funding.
The duopoly grants the 2 parties extra funding that third parties can't access. This prevents real third party candidates from running unless they are already billionaire-connected. It saves the billionaires the trouble of trying to buy many parties. They can just buy the 2. So Dems and Republicans have safe sources of funding / power that can't be challenged by more competent representatives.
I think dems and republicans both correctly see their representatives as 'bought' to some extent and want real alternatives.
The funding issue, I think, also exists in forms seprate from the duopoly and needs some kind of fix in addition to RCV. Any party that gives people an alternative to politicians that are bought will clearly not appease donors seeking to buy a politician nearly as much as the big two do. I think both problems need to be tackled, and probably close together, for it to work well. The amount of depth there is to the problems that plague American democracy is honestly really disheartening. I feel many American systemic issues are like this where the current system is so far gone we'd need multiple different laws of varrying scope just to start fixing one aspect.
As I understand it the third parties could be funded better just from RCV because they would likely receive a higher percentage of the vote once the spoiler effect is no longer in place from FPTP. If they get more than 5% they get some funding and I think it scales up with percentage. Source from quick google, might be out of date.
USA democracy is frustrating. The 2 parties have spent close to 100 years entrenching themselves at this point. People who want to dig them out need to understand how they are holding on. This competition in politics paper outlines a few of the changes they've made to consolidate power. Things like party primaries, co-opting communication about elections, restructuring campaign finance law, etc.
You can read the whole PDF online if you are interested.