For one Jon (((Stewart))) makes sense, right Sup Forums?

For one Jon (((Stewart))) makes sense, right Sup Forums?

were not pretending to be retarded until after hillary makes her speech stupid

No. People who bitch about the 2 party system don't understand why parties work and how they help the country.
If we had split parties, one big tent leftist group could have plurality rule for decades, virtually unopposed, and we could do nothing to stop it.
Having a two party system prevents a country from going off the rails, as there will aleays be an opposition party, usually in controll of the legislature, to mediate and argue against reform.
That way, we rarely drift too far left or right, except over a large amount of time, and then it's with the people rather than a vocal minority.
The two party system is a powerful and important piece of American politics. There always must be a reliable opposition, otherwise the plurality become tyrants.

This.

Peña Won with only 32% of votes.

Two party system may be pretty stupid but it's better

>all members of the parties think exactly alike
Whether we have two parties with divergent opinions or 500 parties with unique opinions literally makes no fucking difference

fucking jews, I swear, this is why I'm voting for Hillary, so ISIS can take down Israel once and for all

>pretending like he is against 2 political party system
>doesn't promote other parties that exist
that is some Grade-A kikery

that is bullshit and you know it. you can't be an anti-gun republican nor a logical democrat.

>Bipartisan bullshit """"""helps"""""""" the country
I'm gonna let this slide because I know when you said "the country" you actually meant "the rich" and you're absolutely right about that.

>I hate the two party system
>but vote democrat, because god knows I've been shilling for them for the last decade

Good ol' Jon Leibowitz doing it again

No, multiple parties create a first past the post system. Say you have candidates A, B, C, D, and E. A gets 31% of the vote, B gets 19%, C gets 24%, D gets 10%, and E gets 16%.

Despite the fact that 69% of the people OPPOSED A, group A will win with a minority vote. Eventually people catch on and vote for someone likely to win who also has their best interests relatively in mind.

>implying he didn't steal that from George Carlin

"We have the illusion of freedom. We have lots of meaningless little choices to make that disguise that in the important things we have no choice. We've got 31 flavors of ice cream and 2 political parties"

>Basically what i mean by this is VOTE HILLARY OR YOU'RE A RACIST NEO NAZI PEDOPHILE RAPIST

Fucking kikes

>anti-gun republican
Mark Kirk
>logical democrat
Jim Webb

>implying the GOP isn't leftist

SLIDE THE WHOLE BOARD CLEAN

NOW

WE NEED TO IMMEDIATELY START MAKING NORMAL SLIDE THREADS WITH CATS AND SILLY FUNNY STUFF IN THEM.

GO

MAKE

NORMAL SLIDE THREADS WITH CATS AND SILLY FUNNY STUFF IN THEM.


SLIDE THE WHOLE BOARD CLEAN

NOW

SLIDE THE WHOLE BOARD CLEAN
8937482374872347823784
NOW

only a kike like him would know we have 8 different kinds of coke

No, our system makes more sense than the parliamentary model. It forces the voter to make compromises, not the politicians. In our system you, the voter, know who you are getting into bed with and what you are voting for. Most sane people won't 100% agree with either party. They are forced to make their own compromises. In a parliamentary system, a voter gets to vote for a candidate that shares more of the voter's values, but in the end the voter is more distant from the actual democratic process.

The two parties divide into a bunch of smaller factions under that umbrella.

In the primaries you have 10 brands of conservatism battling for control of the party. We have more than 2 viewpoint, we just have them knock each other off and narrow it down to two for generals instead of having a party with like 30% of the vote win.

...

fpbp

Nope

the more political parties, the easier it is to dominate the system

you can establish a "norm" or "consensus" that is "respectable"

and exile anyone who is about preventing new immigration or whatever into the disrespectable field

That's funny because him and the rest of Hollywood vote for a certain political party like their lives depend it.

I'd like to see you keep the economy functioning without their input, champ

>literally shill for the Democrats for a decade, mocking every conservative
>g-guise, we need to allow for another party

What a lying faggot.

>Hurr durr I'm a """conservative"""
>Let's return to the 1950s with the economic policies of the 1880s

I bet you're also one of those people who thinks that the rich actually paid their 90% in the Eisenhower years.

Not an argument

>muh fairness

>retired

>is a guest on some show every other day

>anti political party

>has literally never not shilled for democrats

What a fucking kike

>I want to reform affirmative action
>But such that affirmative action exists, let's make it based purely on income and not on race

The Webb Democrats are dead and it's sad.

the voting system would still be based on 50+% majority vote. if no party had that many representatives then no party could single-handedly do anything.

Oh were they elected and successful? No shut the fuck up, but thanks for proving my point ~ love you

I don't understand how a popular political commentator doesn't know the effects of something as fucking basic as single member districts.

Which is why coalitions are common in parliamentary systems.