this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
837 points (98.6% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7612 readers
744 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sk1nnym1ke@piefed.social 31 points 1 day ago (9 children)

As a German I don't understand why the USA basically do have two political parties. I know there are technically other parties but they have no impact.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 96 points 1 day ago (4 children)
  1. Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

  2. Because Americans didn't listen to George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against "alternate domination" of a 2 party system.

  3. Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And because now that it's entrenched, the two parties will collude even past the death of the country to keep it that way

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This comment from another post here on Lemmy says it all.

I was listening to the 5-4 podcast recently and they repeatedly stressed the point that Trump has lost ≈90% of lower court decisions and won ≈90% of Supreme Court decisions, which is an absurd swing. I’ll try to dig up a source on it though. Still it’s blatantly obvious that the SC has completely abandoned the rule of law and the constitution.

Without rule of law, we're no longer a country.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

Reading actual SCOTUS rulings can be pretty wild. The one for the 2000 presidential election basically said "we're giving this to Bush for no particular reason but this is a one-time decision that should never in the future be used as a precedent" despite the fact that precedent from previous rulings is pretty much their whole thing. Even the stay they issued to stop the recount in Florida early in the process basically said "the recount must stop because it would impair the legitimacy of a Bush presidency".

The ruling against Roe v. Wade was just comedy. They were using English law from centuries before the United States even existed as precedent for their decision.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There’s some structural reasons (the senate, primarily) that American politics will almost inevitably devolve into two parties.

If I could do one thing to fix American politics it would be to abolish the senate, which gives low population states an insanely unbalanced level of influence over national politics.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It drives me ls me crazy that Alaska gets the same amount of senate votes as California when we’re fifty times their population.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

Wyoming too, which has even fewer people than Alaska.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

(the senate, primarily)

Fair point! In Canada our senate is appointed by the Prime Minister and the position is lifetime. They rarely reject bills from the lower house.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wow, I didn’t realize there even was a Canadian senate, I only ever hear about parliament and figured it was all MPs.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Exactly lol. All commonwealths have an upper and lower house just like the USA. I believe their senates are appointed as well, though I have not verified that.

Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

Nope. FPTP is the norm worldwide and two party systems very much the exception. Even in the US, it's only been the last third or so of the country's history that two have managed to become so all-conquering in spite of being so unrepresentative.

George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against "alternate domination" of a 2 party system.

Pretty sure he was very much against the concept of political parties in general, rather than having any preference as to how many.

But yeah, the two major parties HAVE pretty much embodied all his worries and more..

Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

That's a big part of the problem, sure, but the issues of regulatory capture and the two parties themselves being in charge of how the entire system works (including the barriers to entry for everyone else) is MUCH more critical.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

Didn't Jackson warn about point 2 as well? Or was it Jefferson? Someone did, and it also went unheeded (or used as a blueprint.)

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because they don't do proportional voting like you Germans or we Austrians do, most of their elections (and all federal ones) have one winning candidate in a state or congressional district.

And there is mostly not even a requirement for 50% of the vote, but the candidate with most votes wins. That creates the two party system.

The parties in the US are much broader than in our countries, it's very common for different members of the same party to vote against each other.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Exactly, what that means is that we have a tactical concern where the more voters represented by an elected official and the more disparate they are the worse of an idea it is for you specifically to split a vote. That's actually why Abraham Lincoln (the guy who was president during our civil war and oversaw the abolition of chattel slavery) won his election.

This creates the irony of it being somewhat common to have a lot of differing meaningful political choices for city council, third parties being not rare in state government, third parties being very rare in the national congress (though some independents will happen, notably from weird states like Vermont, which is a very rebellious in a cool way state), and third parties only win the presidency in times of calamatous upheaval. For context the last time a third party won the presidency is the election I linked earlier in this comment, half the country went to literal war over that result.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is actually 2 flavors of the same party. The USA is a one-party state, controlled by the capitalist party.

EDIT: lol you can downvote me while you decide whether you want to vote for the Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border or the other Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border 🤪

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

two the two people who downvoted this person, it's true though. any two party system is a one party system where all government decisions are made long before we find out about them as the politicians form coalitions within their parties. the republicans didn't become MAGA in 2016. they became MAGA in 2014 and 2015. 2016 was just them announcing their coalition

[–] denial@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago

"Winner takes it all" makes it inherent to the system. They really really need to change that. But that is hard, when it keeps the only two relevant partys in power.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Google "Gerrymandering". It'll all come together.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh man, I'm not sure how to condense this much context.

  1. Since the days when the USA was economically reliant on slavery for land development and market growth, the US population has been split over the issue of race and ethnicity. Even before that, the USA was founded by religious conservatives fleeing the church reforms in Europe. "Freedom of Religion" was put into the constitution not to separate church and state but to protect church from state. Because of these very strong and very harmful ideologies, naturally the people split into two camps: for ethnonationalism or against.

  2. The US Constitution is very old. The USA as a country is very young, but it's still one of the oldest democratic systems of government still in use today. It is very flawed: utilizing the electoral college, capping the seats in the house, each state with wildly different population getting two senators, the senate confirming judges, and worst of all "first past the post" ballots. In hindsight a lot of this is terrible for a functioning democracy, but the ethnonationalist party doesn't really like democracy anyways so it's going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

It's kind of like how the Weimar Republic was before the Nazis took over. There is a united hard right party and then theres the SPD. You COULD split the SPD's influence into farther left and communist parties, but then if they don't individually have enough seats they fail to form a government the Nazis have opportunity to become majority in the face of continued inaction from the government.

[–] Asafum 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but the ethnonationalist party doesn’t really like democracy anyways so it’s going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

In other words literally never going to happen. The electorate has been hand picked by legalized gerrymandering that getting a supermajority is less likely to happen than getting bitten by a shark that's getting struck by lightning as you're winning the lottery :(

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Idk, we came close for like 3 months in the 2010-2011 congress.

We cod get 67 DNC in the midterms if we magically voted out all 20 Republicans, which would be very cool if unlikely.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have no impact for several reasons, but one weird thing about us Americans is that we're never happy. The Clinton years were peace and prosperity. Nope! Not having any more of that, in comes Bush. We did well enough with Obama. Nope! In comes Trump.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

I don't know about Bush, but the people who voted for Trump decidedly did not do well enough with Obama. Radical wealth redistribution is necessary to fix American society and Obama was not that.

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't you only have like 3 who are usually I'm the running?

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

That's 50% more parties!

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

We have first past the post voting, not ranked choice or star voting