What's wrong with a two party system?

What's wrong with a two party system?

nothing if the parties are good.
op's pic explains why the american two party system sucks

it keeps us more toward the center
if there were a dozen or so parties it would be bad news

We'll be one sided

Due to the lobby groups manipulating both parties, I'd say you are closer to having a one-party system.

The problem with multiple parties is that usually conservatives stick to one party while liberals split off to multiple factions.

This is what's wrong

One of the two parties, seems to have a brain parasite.

Multiple parties are retarded because in Germany there is 6 something parties and the population only votes 20% for the rest of the 80% of people

It's almost as if political parties themselves are stupid, and everyone should be voting on a per issue basis, instead of going by what the party is supposed to believe.

?¿ Could you explain this?

I would guess that a party that only gets 20% of the votes has to form a coalition with other parties?

Eventually one party takes over the other and introduces cancerous policies and lazy leaders that hurt the party. Then you got a bunch of people unhappy with their party's leaders, until some popular rich guy decides he wants to change everything so the leaders turn on him and make it hard to fix anything, basically becoming traitors to their own party and allowing the "other side" to win.

A two-party system makes it easy for capitalism to remain in power

Because it's not a monarchy

It produces legacy elections, which are horseshit.

They are same shit with different topping

Yep.
Same shit, always.

It's not a "two party system", it's an infinite party system with only two relevant parties, the American people keep it that way by not building or voting for any other parties, they could if they wanted to.

Same sorta thing that's wrong with a dictator: They only need to deal with what interests them.

In the case of the two parties just trying to destroy the name of their enemies is more important than actually being useful themselves.
Similarly a dictator only needs to deal with the interests and actions of people close to him.

But that would be like getting rid of Coke and Pepsi and replacing them with two other soda companies. We're cucked into buying brand-name stuff.

All you need to do is create a third brand, a "third position" if you like.

I would happily vote for an independent candidate, unfortunately by the time the elections roll around, everyone else will have dropped out and the only options will be Hillary or Trump.

America doesn't have a two party system, it has a single-winner system which inherently leads to two dominant parties.

This could be solved if people weren't so hung up on local representation but instead voted for a nation-wide pool of e.g. senators. This would allow other parties to get a piece of the vote.

It prevents you from having more nuanced positions.

For instance, let's say you're conservative in most ways but also have no problem with abortion. You'll never get your foot in the door because the conservative party is pro-life. Or let's say you're a liberal but you are also in support of gun rights. You'll never make it there either.

It forces politicians to take on a very strict constellation of positions. A notable example is how every conservative is required to suck israel's cock.

If you have more than two partys, your leader can be chosen with 39% of the vote. Ask this guy about the consequences of that

they're the same parties