this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
716 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
1969 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and some other smaller countries.

[–] Kecessa 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Australia's isn't based on FPTP or anything explicitly, nefariously, anti-democratic — except the part where media ownership is one of the most monopolised of all western "democracies", or the part where most state and federal politicians are financed by the wealthiest individuals and corporations (not in the American direct payment, openly corrupt, kind of way. More in the golden parachute, regulatory capture, quid pro quo kind of way).

Interesting how 5 eyes are all stuck in a plutocratic two-party system, huh? Almost like the MIC and most advanced mass surveillance apparatus in history has a lot more influence over our politics than any of us realise...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

It's true that many large established liberal democracies right now have only a maximum of two major parties with any realistic chance of holding power.

In Germany, that's the Social Democratic Party and the CDU/CSU. In Spain, it's the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and People's Party. In Taiwan, it's the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party. In New Zealand, it's the National Party and the Labour Party. In Singapore, it's the People's Action Party and the Workers' Party.

I think I can even argue that liberal electoral democracy in general trends towards two major political parties or permanent coalitions—a centre-left liberal coalition and a centre-right conservative coalition.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not Canada. The NDP is more than just a spoiler. They hold the balance of power right now!

[–] Kecessa 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

How many NDP ministers have we had at the federal level in Canada's history?

What parties have had their leader be the prime minister?

The NDP kept what party in power longer than any other minority government in Canada's history?

What party would have taken power had the NDP not postponed the elections?

What party will take power to replace the one in place come next election?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s not what determines whether a country is a 2 party system or a multi party system. There are plenty of countries that have small parties which have never formed government themselves but nevertheless have held real power in coalitions or minority parliaments.

Canada’s public health care system was created by Tommy Douglas, an NDP MP and party leader. If Canada were strictly a two party system like the US then that would never have happened.

[–] Kecessa 0 points 1 month ago

Douglas implemented it in... Saskatchewan. At the federal level it was implemented by a Liberal majority government.

At the federal level the NDP and Bloc only have power insofar as the Liberals and Conservatives choose to entertain them, the Liberals could have decided not to implement any of the NDP demands and then the Conservatives would have taken their place and then all of the NDP objectives would have been buried and forgotten.