Do Americans not understand the concept of a political alliance? Smaller political parties like the PSL, Green and Cornell West get a bargaining chip, and can force “the lesser of two evil” to agree to their terms in order to form a stable government. That is how it works for the rest of the world.
For example, Republicans tend to have Christian evangelicals and business interests.
Yeah.
But at least the Christian evangelicals’ shareholders keep them so accountable to their core values that the desires of the mostly unorganized pastors leading the business owners have no meaningful say in the outcomes. (This is Sarcasm)
and we’ve been trying for decades to reform our system for a better voting system. first past the post elections force strategic voting. that’s the kind of elections we get. the only place where vote shares matter is for distributing public campaign finance funds.
To maybe add some more detail; I live in Massachusetts. My vote basically does not count. At all. Because my state will vote blue by a landslide, no matter what. And since that is basic political knowledge to everyone, how Massachusetts votes isn’t even part of anyone’s calculus for National elections. The only states that matter here are the “purple” or swing states, where it’s uncertain. They literally decide the election. I actually voted for Gary Johnson back in 2016 (because I did not understand Libertarianism at all back then (but of course I thought I did)), but I was safe in the knowledge that not only would Gary Johnson not win, but my state’s elector’s were literally guaranteed to go to Hillary. So I voiced my minuscule bit of discontent, knowing I was absolutely not helping Trump in any way. My comments do require some background understanding of the toxic burn pit that is the Electoral College, so give a shout if you have any questions.
Sometimes a “3rd party” candidate will drop out of the race and endorse one oh the “big two” (see RFK Jr. for example) or they will remain in the race and “secretly” act as a “spoiler” to siphon votes away from their ally’s opponent.
There’s no “form a stable government” step in the US. A party with 30% of the vote can take the whole thing. The US government is already stable, it is owned by the capitalists and staffed by bureaucrats and Dem/GOP politicians. They compete to haggle over which ruling class strategy for profit maximization is best.
You are correct that there is a bargaining chip aspect, though. But that is a level of electoral calculus far beyond people that think political power is a trolley problem based on a meme.
Do Americans not understand the concept of a political alliance? Smaller political parties like the PSL, Green and Cornell West get a bargaining chip, and can force “the lesser of two evil” to agree to their terms in order to form a stable government. That is how it works for the rest of the world.
We do, that’s just now how our system works…?
To add, our two major parties tend to adopt (to varying degrees of commitment) popular movements so they’re effectively already coalitions.
For example, Republicans tend to have Christian evangelicals and business interests.
Yeah.
But at least the Christian evangelicals’ shareholders keep them so accountable to their core values that the desires of the mostly unorganized pastors leading the business owners have no meaningful say in the outcomes. (This is Sarcasm)
Yes, but we make those alliances before the election, sometimes even before the party primaries. Both big parties are coalitions of aligned factions.
and we’ve been trying for decades to reform our system for a better voting system. first past the post elections force strategic voting. that’s the kind of elections we get. the only place where vote shares matter is for distributing public campaign finance funds.
To maybe add some more detail; I live in Massachusetts. My vote basically does not count. At all. Because my state will vote blue by a landslide, no matter what. And since that is basic political knowledge to everyone, how Massachusetts votes isn’t even part of anyone’s calculus for National elections. The only states that matter here are the “purple” or swing states, where it’s uncertain. They literally decide the election. I actually voted for Gary Johnson back in 2016 (because I did not understand Libertarianism at all back then (but of course I thought I did)), but I was safe in the knowledge that not only would Gary Johnson not win, but my state’s elector’s were literally guaranteed to go to Hillary. So I voiced my minuscule bit of discontent, knowing I was absolutely not helping Trump in any way. My comments do require some background understanding of the toxic burn pit that is the Electoral College, so give a shout if you have any questions.
Sometimes a “3rd party” candidate will drop out of the race and endorse one oh the “big two” (see RFK Jr. for example) or they will remain in the race and “secretly” act as a “spoiler” to siphon votes away from their ally’s opponent.
There’s no “form a stable government” step in the US. A party with 30% of the vote can take the whole thing. The US government is already stable, it is owned by the capitalists and staffed by bureaucrats and Dem/GOP politicians. They compete to haggle over which ruling class strategy for profit maximization is best.
You are correct that there is a bargaining chip aspect, though. But that is a level of electoral calculus far beyond people that think political power is a trolley problem based on a meme.