• frigidaphelion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      Im just hoping that people recognize that despite the EXTREMELY unfortunate choices here, one administration is going to be a lot better than the other regardless. Shit choice.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      Unfortunately I don’t think this will ever happen. It has benefitted both parties at different times, and introducing more parties only invites competent competition. Something they don’t want to fight with.

      When the US fails (whether it be the next 10, 50 or 100 years) I think It’d be this.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        More importantly it’s benefited the corporations. Don’t kid yourself. Both are lined with the gold of the rich.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      With hindsight 2008 Obama/McCain and 1992 Clinton/HW were the only two presidential campaigns in living memory with decent candidates on both sides.

      (Depending on your opinions of Dukakis and whether or not 1988 was in your living memory I suppose)

    • Zorg
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The 2-party nonsense is unfortunately built into the system. First past the post voting practically guarantees only two dominating parties will exist at a given time.
      There are initiatives like e.g. the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact but that will only effect presidential voting. Mixed member proportional representation works reasonable well in many countries, but seeing how it largely eliminates the benefits of gerrymandering - on top of needing to pass an amendment to the constitution through congress -it will not happen this century…