As a non US person, it is deeply sad to read this two party crap even at this advanced stage of the collapse of your country. When are you lot going to learn that you already don’t have an impartial head of state, you don’t have impartial supreme court. Everything is political in USA. So you really fcking want to make sure you have more than 3 parties. You’re still not thinking outside the box, and you’re keeping this us them dynamic alive.
With the weaponisation of the DOJ, the dems have Kompromat on them too. They are all scared. They are all walking the same line. That’s why Bernie is so powerful, and people are doubting if AOC is up for the job.
The GOP is infected by Trump and anything from the McCain era is long gone. The DEMs have failed to lead since Obama. There are no two parties left. There is a carcass of an old political establishment leftover, and the only guy saying anything that makes sense is a geriatric that can drop dead any day.
Two parties will always get you to this kind of impasse. Truly saddening to see the lack of creative political thinking on a progressive platform like Lemmy.
It’s a fine idea and despite being a longshot it’s probably the only way anything good ever happens in America again, but a word to the wise:
You go into a revolution with the people you’ve got, not just the people who have their head on straight. The ideological mix of America currently isn’t the group I’d pick for outlining the underpinnings of a new republic.
Not saying a revolt is a bad idea even, just making the point that we live in an imperfect world, and politics make for strange bedfellows. The sheer geophysical fact of North America means the rift between urban and rural can never be truly reconciled.
But it can be minimized, ideally a new US would go back to see if we can rework the Articles of Confederation with some lessons learned from the EU. The states have largely settled into their borders and I suspect that the stupid competition that caused the Articles to fail could be corrected. Also we really need to prevent centralization of powers into the Federal government and the executive from ever happening again.
Back in colonial times it was very feasible to keep the executive in check. Nowadays it is a technological fact that the executive needs nuclear authority just to be in a position to make a timely counterstrike effort.
At least, this was the dogma last I checked, maybe there is enough interdiction capability now to change this dynamic. I would be delighted to learn otherwise, but given the necessity of secrecy in these things any evidence must be compelling.
That said - Until the logic of MAD ceases to prevail, there is an insane sort of game theory rationale for an executive with extensive powers, regrettably. It’s hard to see how to get past the eventual nuclear war scenario without a one world government. With nukes we are walking a tightrope, but we cannot reasonably expect to do so indefinitely.
You could still have an elected commander in chief, just don’t invest so much civil power into them. They don’t need to have control over every fucking governmental department.
I’m only pointing out that nukes are fundamentally a threat to the rule of law. We can’t invent a world without them just yet, but we should at least think of them as a systemic threat to the world we’re trying to create
In their infinite wisdom our forefathers gave us a winner take all system, and when you only have one winner you get a two party system or minority rule. It’s just maths.
To have a real winner the president needs 270 voices in the electoral college, if a third party won enough States that wouldn’t happen, what then?
Same in the Senate and Congress, if neither the Democrats or the Republicans have enough seats to have a majority because of a third party, they’ll need to work with that party.
Just because it’s not part of the culture it doesn’t mean it can’t happen and that politicians won’t have to deal with it if it does.
As a non US person, it is deeply sad to read this two party crap even at this advanced stage of the collapse of your country. When are you lot going to learn that you already don’t have an impartial head of state, you don’t have impartial supreme court. Everything is political in USA. So you really fcking want to make sure you have more than 3 parties. You’re still not thinking outside the box, and you’re keeping this us them dynamic alive.
With the weaponisation of the DOJ, the dems have Kompromat on them too. They are all scared. They are all walking the same line. That’s why Bernie is so powerful, and people are doubting if AOC is up for the job.
The GOP is infected by Trump and anything from the McCain era is long gone. The DEMs have failed to lead since Obama. There are no two parties left. There is a carcass of an old political establishment leftover, and the only guy saying anything that makes sense is a geriatric that can drop dead any day.
Two parties will always get you to this kind of impasse. Truly saddening to see the lack of creative political thinking on a progressive platform like Lemmy.
What exactly do you expect us to do besides a violent revolt?
…what do you mean ‘besides’?
Violent revolt and sign an improved constitution
It’s a fine idea and despite being a longshot it’s probably the only way anything good ever happens in America again, but a word to the wise:
You go into a revolution with the people you’ve got, not just the people who have their head on straight. The ideological mix of America currently isn’t the group I’d pick for outlining the underpinnings of a new republic.
Not saying a revolt is a bad idea even, just making the point that we live in an imperfect world, and politics make for strange bedfellows. The sheer geophysical fact of North America means the rift between urban and rural can never be truly reconciled.
But it can be minimized, ideally a new US would go back to see if we can rework the Articles of Confederation with some lessons learned from the EU. The states have largely settled into their borders and I suspect that the stupid competition that caused the Articles to fail could be corrected. Also we really need to prevent centralization of powers into the Federal government and the executive from ever happening again.
Back in colonial times it was very feasible to keep the executive in check. Nowadays it is a technological fact that the executive needs nuclear authority just to be in a position to make a timely counterstrike effort.
At least, this was the dogma last I checked, maybe there is enough interdiction capability now to change this dynamic. I would be delighted to learn otherwise, but given the necessity of secrecy in these things any evidence must be compelling.
That said - Until the logic of MAD ceases to prevail, there is an insane sort of game theory rationale for an executive with extensive powers, regrettably. It’s hard to see how to get past the eventual nuclear war scenario without a one world government. With nukes we are walking a tightrope, but we cannot reasonably expect to do so indefinitely.
You could still have an elected commander in chief, just don’t invest so much civil power into them. They don’t need to have control over every fucking governmental department.
I’m only pointing out that nukes are fundamentally a threat to the rule of law. We can’t invent a world without them just yet, but we should at least think of them as a systemic threat to the world we’re trying to create
In their infinite wisdom our forefathers gave us a winner take all system, and when you only have one winner you get a two party system or minority rule. It’s just maths.
Ranked choice voting would certainly help.
No doubt, but it would require a huge effort across all fifty states and has already failed a bunch of times.
I’ll be dead before we have ranked choice voting. And I’m not even that old.
To have a real winner the president needs 270 voices in the electoral college, if a third party won enough States that wouldn’t happen, what then?
Same in the Senate and Congress, if neither the Democrats or the Republicans have enough seats to have a majority because of a third party, they’ll need to work with that party.
Just because it’s not part of the culture it doesn’t mean it can’t happen and that politicians won’t have to deal with it if it does.