So now that the dust has settled

Can we all agree that the American election system is a complete joke?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>So now that the dust has settled.. Anonymous 08/05/16(Fri)03:28:29 No.63064729▶
> Can we all agree that the American election system is a complete joke?

Oh really?

As opposed to yours?

We could have clowns blowing ou their assholes and throwing confetti and it would still be better.

It's pretty much one big theatrical drama performance, complete with name-calling and bullying. Like a schoolyard popularity contest.

>We could have clowns blowing out their assholes and throwing confetti

Funny you should say that, because that is literally what they are doing.

>Democracy
>Only got two legit options
>Both are unpopular as fuck
Is it really that unthinkable to vote for a third party?

I'd vote for Johnson if he wasn't such a shitty libertarian

I'm fucking done with this shit lads

Trump is only unpopular if you're a globalist or get all your info from CNN and Facebook

The results of the difference between the "2-party system" and "multi-party systems" is grossly overstated. The practical end result is almost identical between the two. And in "multi-party systems", the PM is basically always from the largest party in the majority coalition.

The only real difference is that we have "big tent" parties and most Parliamentary systems have "small tent" parties.

Representative democracy is a joke, period. It doesn't matter how you get there.

this
as much as we europeans like to shit on the two party system, we almost always end up with a coalition of multiple parties who have to compromise so much that no one ends up satisfied

the way that the actual elections work, with each state voting for itself, is absolutely ridiculous though

> with each state voting for itself
What?

It's the worst system in history

youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

You can litteraly get elected with 25% of votes baka

But you can at least vote for the party that aligns most with your views, instead of voting for the candidate you dislike least.

We don't have this problem in France. The main problem is that since all elections are in quick succession, it's entirely possible for a party to have entire control of the country for 5 years. Plus the President is very powerful.

see
> The only real difference is that we have "big tent" parties and most Parliamentary systems have "small tent" parties.

quèque 2bh

How is that the same? I have the choice out of 10 parties: socialists, liberals, conservatives, greens etc. the coalition may be around two parties, but if one of the coalition parties is against some legislation and the other is in favor, there are still plenty opposition parties that can support the bill and have it pass. in a two party system it's all or nothing

It's all or nothing in any system. You either vote yes or no. That's it.

The difference is that our parties have a much wider range of interests and opinions represented than yours. The group what would be several different parties into one unified structure with pooled resources.

And you can vote for specific candidates that you prefer. You don't actually vote for the party at all, just individuals affiliated with it.

Having multiple options is not the same as a yes/no vote, you can choose dem or rep, or throw away your vote to a third party. I can vote for any candidate out of 10 parties and end up with a proportianal representation.

And they either vote Yes or No on legislation. Period. Not that fucking hard to understand how law is made.

Yes, but legislation is not one thing, many bills have to be voted upon, and having a spectrum of opinions will make each combination different.

We also don't have a president that can veto legislation, it's all decided by majority in parliament, so having a accurate representation of the countries different views in parliament will result in different legislation

> and having a spectrum of opinions will make each combination different
Which is exactly what we already have. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here.

Here's an example:
two bills need to pass: increasing taxes and gay marriage
in your system there are only two possible outcomes: no/no (rep) or yes/yes (dem)

with proportional representation, let's say socialist, christian democrats, conservatives and liberals, there are four outcomes:
no/no (christian dems/conservative), no/yes (conservatives/liberals), yes/no (socialists/christian dems), yes/yes (socialists/liberals)

How is only voting for one of two candidates going to lead to these more diverse options?

No ones arguing the contrary.

Because the debate all occurs within the party.

At this point, it's clear that you are intentionally being a dense cunt.

>Within the party
I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm saying it makes a difference, you decide by majority in the party first and then by majority again in congess, it's like saying 3.46 rounds to 4 because 3.46 > 3.5 > 4
same thing with the electoral college or voting by district, it gives a warped view of the actual opinion of the people. Pic related.

Define the current American Election system in simple word?