You’re only able to choose two options, how is that democracy? I thought democracy was about being able to choose anyone you think is suitable to be a leader, not one of two pre-selected people. At that point, it’s not much different to a one-party system, just with two people rather than only one person.
First past the post voting systems are exactly what limits it to two parties.
We somehow have more than 2 parties in Canada even with FPTP. And yeah, it sucks. The left’s vote, in particular, gets carved up into tiny pieces and the conservatives take advantage of that all the time. We desperately need voting reform and it occasionally gets dangled in front of us, only to be shot down. Kind of like high speed rail, which is being dangled again of late.
If you watch the video you’ll see that there’s an ongoing process that gradually eliminates parties until there’s only two remaining. Canada has been progressing along this path. There’s only one national conservative party of any note now, and on the left only the Liberals have any chance at forming a government. The NDP can only act as a spoiler for the left. Give it some time and the NDP will wither away, leaving only the Liberals and Conservatives.
I consider Trudeau’s betrayal of his electoral reform promise to be one of the worst political stabs in the back that has happened to the Canadian electorate in recent history.
And yet, in the upcoming election I’m going to vote Liberal. Hell, I’m probably going to do volunteer work for their campaign. Because in my particular riding the projections are currently a tossup between Liberal and Conservative, with the NDP having only a 1% chance of winning and no other party having any meaningful chance of winning. So in my riding Liberal and Conservative are the only choices that matter. The two party system has already arrived in the spot where I live.
I hate this. But I recognize the reality of the system I live in. This is basic game theory, voting third party would only harm my own interests.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If this wisdom was truly internalised by most people, there would be global revolution.
There’s a lot of stupid shit in philosophy, but this is one of the dumber beliefs.
Do you notice how what you just said is not a conversation starter or even a joke? What’s your goal here, just to talk shit? What’s your ideal outcome for leaving this remark, exactly? Do you even have one.
Calling out dangerously foolish rhetoric is a civic duty.
Calling out disinformation takes effort. If I’m wrong and you give a shit, talk to me. I’m a regular person who is generally pleasant, maybe you can be too.
Well, this is a bit of a tangent, but the effectiveness of calling out disinformation actually correlates inversely with effort imo. It’s the typical sealion asymmetrical warfare thing. It’s a lot easier to say a lie than it is to disprove one. Mocking and insulting a disinfo statement is far more effective. Parity of effort.
In terms of “the purpose of a system is what it does”, I’m not quite sure how to start. Believing such a statement requires a level of disassociation with reality that makes intelligible discussion difficult. You’re flatly disallowing the entire possibility of someone setting up a system with a purpose, and the system failing to achieve that purpose.
The dangerous part of the theory though, is the implied malevolent intent. It’s like the evil inverse of religious “everything happens for a reason”. If a scientist comes up with a new strain of drought-resistant corn, and the corn develops a previously unknown mutation and crops fail and millions starve, well clearly that evil scientist intended to kill millions of innocent people. It’s absurd.
exactly