You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.

▲ thrance an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests.

The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive the lion share of donations for their campaigns. And there are many other guardrails in place to ensure nothing impedes the slow erosion of our infrastructure and public services under the strains of austerity in profit of the few.

	▲	pstuart 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice. The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time. Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote. Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.

▲ pstuart an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment.

My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in:

  * first-past-the-post voting
  * dark money (money is not speech, it is power)
  * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery)
  * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)