| RolStoppable said: Rejecting both turns into supporting the worse side in a two-party system. |
The obvious answer: why not change the two-party-system? Nearly every democracy in developed countries has more than two relevant parties, the US is the obvious deviation. So the obvious thing for any rational person is to stop relying on just two parties.
And no, a winner-takes-all is not the reason, you don't need proportional representation to fix that. This two party system is not created by actual rules, it is created by the stupid legend that choosing third-parties would lead to demise, just like you do. If you are aware that more countries outside the US exist we could look there: France, Japan, the UK all have winner-takes-all systems, and they all have more than two parties. So stop spreading inaccurate bullshit, the US could've more than two parties as well.
And as I shown with actual data and not just claiming everyone disagreeing is stupid like you do, the other countries do better in regards of wealth distribution.
