US political system

bump

US has the retarded supreme court justice nomination tied to presidency system, making people scared to even lose once
UK has the equally retarded house of lords, but is not tied to the PM

I was told the reason being that most 3rd parties in the US only became big because of a single issue. When they got big, though, one of the two major parties would take over that issue, removing the 3rd party's reason for existing.

It is not that we don't have 3rd parties in the USA it is that they serve a different purpose.

But now that I think about it, with that explanation it only furthers the idea that the two party system in the US is controlled by a single over arching entity.

The Two Party System is an effective means of instituting democratic government.

A multi party system makes coalition government essential, and results in compromise policies where unpopular things are done in order to gain government support for more popular ones. Government is prone to stall or failure from coalition breakdown, but most importantly: voters who vote for the smaller parties no one likes feel that their voice is irrelevant to the process (it is) and this leads to growing detachment from the democratic process.

In a Two Party System, both parties require the support of a large portion of voters; this leads to center leaning parties, whose platforms carry wide support across the population. In this system where both parties LARGELY agree, neither side feels that a government of the day is so far removed from their views that the democratic process is untenable.

In a Two Party System, gradual societal change can be undertaken without wild swings back and forth that lead to social instability. A center right party can win an election by moving towards the center to beat an unpopular left wing government, and then contest subsequent elections on a proceedingly more right wing platform. The deposed left wing party then attains a route back to power by moving center and scooping up any voters who wanted "a party less left wing than the old government, but not as right wing as the current government is becoming".

Of course; this necessitates a left - right divide which perhaps does not represent reality or the views of voters. This issue is normally solved by the presence of minor parties who cannot realistically enter government (libertarian, green, etc), but suffice to drain votes away in marginal constituencies: in polling and elections the main parties see this and can attract those voters (and important constituencies) by adopting their major points into their platforms.

Could OP explain me: Why huge country have only one party?

I do not, however, know very much about how elections of executive positions like President function in regards to this: the US seems to use extremely large constituencies in a FPTP system and has no legal recourse to alter the voting map,

Y'all should really cut California in half so Republicans at least have a POSSIBILITY of winning the north.

Brit ironically asking for this when there are mps worth 5k and mps worth 100k votes

>supreme court justice nomination tied to presidency system

It is a cancer of any legal system, but as far as I know extra-parliamentary US-parties has not any significant obstructions imposed by the state. So I don't think that bonds between SC and the presidency are the reason of existence of only 2 ruling parties.

>The Two Party System is an effective means of instituting democratic government.

I agree that this system has specific merits. I asked why US people don't vote for any other parties? What cause of that? Is it money of corporations spent on media-propaganda or strong traditions and habit of voters or GOP and Dems make their job so well that voters has no need to appeal to any another party?

Do you speak about Russia? We already have no parties and even policy (in terms of the West). It is very sad but the thread is dedicated to another subject.

The system is perfect.
The elections are a competition about which party looks more inane retarded dumb or straight up dangerous.
And then the people will vote for the other big party, because they know that other people will vote for one of the two big parties.

It's game theory.
If you know that everyone else if probably going to vote for something shit, you're going to choose the less optimal choice, because that has a higher chance of winning and if you choose the super good choice and others don't you are fucked.

>real one
Let this fucking meme die.

The political cartoonist was more redpilled than you you fucking cuck.
Yeah keep blaming "the jew" you retards. Do that, and completely ruin your chances of anyone taking you seriously.
Also don't focus on the actual culprit group most of whom are actually evil and instead concentrate on a broad demographic and hate them undifferentiated.
Like some fucking nigger with the white people.

>the people will vote for the other big party, because they know that other people will vote for one of the two big parties. It's game theory.

Looks persuasively. Self-sustaining system.

Do you know about evidence of
grave corruption in high-level US policy?

>Do you know about evidence of
>grave corruption in high-level US policy?
I dunno is the fact that they literally have a name for it and a system for it enough?
Lobbying.
Corporations go up to politicians and ask them to do stuff, and in return are allowed to contribute to campaigns.
like Soros who together with companies owned by his entourage financed more than half of Hillary's campaign.
The same Soros that is a persona non-grata in the UK for having almost caused an exchange market collapse called black wednesday. Singlehandedly.

>Why during hundreds of years any other US parties of federal level have not appeared?

that's not true though.

before the civil war we had presidents that were neither democrat or republican

our parties are actually more like coalitions in parliamentary democracies

each one has at least 5 major internal factions or 'wings' that get elected on different issues