Go tour around Scandinavia or most of Europe for that matter, and then tell me how much better a two party system is for it’s people. In lots of the first world, they have things called trains that can quickly take all over the country, and even into other countries! Guess what happens in lots of the first world if you get hurt or sick, spoiler alert: you don’t lose your house! Guess what happens if your homeless? You don’t get arrested for it, you get support. The list goes on and on… pull the IV out of your arm, the two party system in America isn’t shitting the golden nuggets they’ve got you thinking they do. There is a reason it takes millions in investments and property for US citizens to snag an EU passport.
Yeah that’s because they are ideologically a lot further to the left as a nation than the US is, not because of some arbitrary feature of how their government functions.
Also, if the US had a parliamentary system we might not actually vote for the president. Some systems elect their Members of Parliament, who then elects the Prime Minister.
This is a problem in some systems where people like their local representative, but don’t necessarily want that party to run the whole government. Remember the phenomenon of “Congress sucks but my congressperson is okay”? It’s harder to fix that issue with a Parliament.
So then, what is your point about how we can look at any parliamentary or multi-party government to see how poorly they work? We look at them, see they are better, and then you just say that that’s not why they are better. Why even bother looking at them for evidence, then? Maybe having more voices in government is the thing that moves a country in a direction of being better for its people.
In a lot of ways, it doesn’t even feel like we have two choices. Which party should you vote for if you think we shouldn’t be bombing children? In that regard, it is almost like we have one party. How about if you think peoples lives shouldn’t be destroyed for smoking a joint? Who do you vote for for that one?
Go tour around Scandinavia or most of Europe for that matter, and then tell me how much better a two party system is for it’s people. In lots of the first world, they have things called trains that can quickly take all over the country, and even into other countries! Guess what happens in lots of the first world if you get hurt or sick, spoiler alert: you don’t lose your house! Guess what happens if your homeless? You don’t get arrested for it, you get support. The list goes on and on… pull the IV out of your arm, the two party system in America isn’t shitting the golden nuggets they’ve got you thinking they do. There is a reason it takes millions in investments and property for US citizens to snag an EU passport.
Yeah that’s because they are ideologically a lot further to the left as a nation than the US is, not because of some arbitrary feature of how their government functions.
Also, if the US had a parliamentary system we might not actually vote for the president. Some systems elect their Members of Parliament, who then elects the Prime Minister.
This is a problem in some systems where people like their local representative, but don’t necessarily want that party to run the whole government. Remember the phenomenon of “Congress sucks but my congressperson is okay”? It’s harder to fix that issue with a Parliament.
So then, what is your point about how we can look at any parliamentary or multi-party government to see how poorly they work? We look at them, see they are better, and then you just say that that’s not why they are better. Why even bother looking at them for evidence, then? Maybe having more voices in government is the thing that moves a country in a direction of being better for its people.
In a lot of ways, it doesn’t even feel like we have two choices. Which party should you vote for if you think we shouldn’t be bombing children? In that regard, it is almost like we have one party. How about if you think peoples lives shouldn’t be destroyed for smoking a joint? Who do you vote for for that one?