> The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly.
I disagree with you.
In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy.
The US system is how much can you accommodate corporations held up against how little can you listen to the population and still get away with it. In a two party system, that is a lot.
I could write an example-scenario with two frozen pizza companies vs. 8 frozen pizza companies and which choices you'll end up with for dinner, but I think you get point.
It's called fair competition and America seems to have forgotten its benefits for the general population, both in politics and in business.
Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution. Pushing for systems that work, is.
Okay. Well, you're going to have to provide practical examples on why decades of testimony and support for various policies (or the reps that push them) is somehow not a product of the electorate's own volition.
You have hypotheticals and a general model for what might alleviate the support (or implicit support for these policies). But you fail to address what I actually stated: the electorate IS voting for this. They have voted for this. They will continue to vote for this. You provided no evidence to negate this historical record. You provided an example of "two options vs many options" which completely and utterly misses the point I'm making.
>Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution.
Your words, not mine. I called them unqualified. However you've brought to mind a favorite quote that I'm going to modify:
"There are idiots in the market" -> "There are idiots in the electorate"
Let's not also forget that due to gerrymandering (for the house) and disproportionate rural control (for the Senate and Electoral College), the people in fact voted against this but we still end up ruled by a spiteful backward minority.
I disagree with you.
In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy.
The US system is how much can you accommodate corporations held up against how little can you listen to the population and still get away with it. In a two party system, that is a lot.
I could write an example-scenario with two frozen pizza companies vs. 8 frozen pizza companies and which choices you'll end up with for dinner, but I think you get point.
It's called fair competition and America seems to have forgotten its benefits for the general population, both in politics and in business.
Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution. Pushing for systems that work, is.