Mnementh said:
There are usually more candidates than the ones of the two major parties. I know, I know, unlikely to win. But this mindset it is unlikely to win is actually what makes it more unlikely to win for other parties. In the past the two parties of the two party system did switch sometimes. And looking outside of the US: a lot of countries have majority election systems and still more than two established parties: UK, France, Japan for example. The US needs to break out of the only two terrible candidate mindset. |
It's the winner takes all aspect and the fact that people are forced together in largely arbitrary geographical blocs. It's why Oklahoma has 30% Democrats in its population, but zero Democrats in either its House or Senate Delegations instead of the one or two House delegates (out of five) it would have if the seats were distributed according to proportion of votes received.
In 47 states during a Congressional election, if a state has twelve Congressional districts and the Republicans won 34 percent of the votes, the Democrats won 33 percent of the votes, and, say, the Greens won 33 percent of the votes in every single district of the state, the state's Congressional delegation will have twelve Republicans, zero Democrats, and zero Greens. Three states require runoffs until a candidate wins a majority. The other 47 states can be won by a plurality, and that plurality takes all.
It's why Biden will get zero electoral votes from Oklahoma in November instead of two. If three small parties in Oklahoma combined got 51 percent of the vote and the Republicans got 49 percent of the vote, all seven of Oklahoma's electoral votes go to Trump.
It is impossible for third parties to be viable in the United States. The system can barely support two parties, let alone three or more.
In a system like this, nobody is going to gamble on a third party.
Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 12 March 2024
