this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
786 points (92.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7153 readers
238 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agree with the philosophy, but stupid that she's running for president. Until/unless we change FPTP voting the only the Democrat and Republican running even matter and if you don't explicitly vote for the one then your are implicitly voting for the other.
Why?
Other countries with FPTP have fringe candidates that almost definitely won't win elections, but influence politics considerably.
Arguably, Nigel Farage is the most influential politician in the last decade of the UK for his role in pushing Brexit, all while being in no less than three different political parties. He only recently won election as a MP on his seventh attempt, but media backing and taking disenfranchised votes from idiots basically allowed him to dictate internal policy for both main parties.
There are 650 MPs in the UK, and unlike ind the US it isn't winner-takes-all; if you win one of the 650 seats you get to be an MP
In the US presidential election, there are 50 states for a bigger population and even then winning one while losing the others achieves nothing
In the senate and house elections, which are more analogous to the UK, independent candidates are viable, right? There's at least a few. But it's not comparable to the Presidential elections
FPTP is fucked, but it's only one element of why the USA is deadlocked into the two major parties being the only contenders. The electoral college, the winner-takes-all nature... all sorts
That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the primary point. An unelected politician was able to drive change without even being elected as an MP because he had public and media support. Tell me why that isn't possible in the United States, even if it means as a fringe candidate in a primary party?
I see your point but again I'd say it's because of the US's winner-take-all system, as well as 50 states vs 650 seats
Farage posed enough of a perceived risk to the Tories that they moved in his direction to avoid losing votes to UKIP. UKIP never would have won more than a handful of seats, let alone a majority, but by splitting the right vote Labour could have beat the Tories in swing seats
And yes, that could be broadly true of a 'spoiler' candidate in the US presidential election, except that:
Only 50 states, and therefore a tiny amount of swing seats compared to the UK
more population per state than per British seat. By a whole huge margin. So its not enough to potentially appeal to 8,000 people to 'spoil' a seat
The above leads to funding issues. Not only is there more money generally in the US elections, but because you have to flip a big state not a small constituency, you have to spend way way more to make an impact. You can't focus a small budget on one tiny area and win a seat
Winner-takes-all means that as long as a campaign thinks it will win a state, and then a presidency, who cares if some counties went to a spoiler candidate?
I'd love to be wrong, and I do think that there's probably also a cultural/historical element to the US's two party dominance. But that said, its just a different system, different processes, different outcomes, different challenges than in the UK