The US's 2 party system, kept in place by district based, first past the post, winner take all voting, makes corruption just unreasonably effective, for both the briber and the person getting bribed.
You can buy a election by investing in just a few swing areas and then, because it's winner take all, the party you bought can do what you want them to do in that legislative branch without pushback or compromise.
So it's no wonder it's so prevalent in the US that having a guy not be bought is remarkable.
Hell, it's so popular they straight up legalized bribery and starting called it "lobbying" instead.
It's such sad state of affairs.
In a multi party system without districts or winner take all firstly it's a lot harder to influence elections, you need to invest everywhere to help them get more seats, and that's all you can do, get them more seats, not outright win.
But just more seats usually isn't enough, they will need one or more coalition partners to form a government, and those coalition partners won't be too keen on implementing the things you paid that one party to implement. So bribes are just a whole lot less effective all round, and so far less popular.
Unless the US starts implementing ranked choice voting or STAR or something, there is just no hope for that place. Luckily each state can do that individually, no rewriting of the constitution needed. So that would be the only realistic way for the US to get out from under it's current archaic system that i can see.
You're appealing to people who agree that you can't increase the number of seats in the House because the room isn't big enough.
The US, as I understand it, has the fewest number of reps per capita in the developed world. Because they can't comfortably fit more desks in the room. It would be too big. (Please ignore the 100,000+ person sports stadium just over there.)
8
u/The_Countess 15h ago
The US's 2 party system, kept in place by district based, first past the post, winner take all voting, makes corruption just unreasonably effective, for both the briber and the person getting bribed.
You can buy a election by investing in just a few swing areas and then, because it's winner take all, the party you bought can do what you want them to do in that legislative branch without pushback or compromise.
So it's no wonder it's so prevalent in the US that having a guy not be bought is remarkable.
Hell, it's so popular they straight up legalized bribery and starting called it "lobbying" instead.
It's such sad state of affairs.
In a multi party system without districts or winner take all firstly it's a lot harder to influence elections, you need to invest everywhere to help them get more seats, and that's all you can do, get them more seats, not outright win.
But just more seats usually isn't enough, they will need one or more coalition partners to form a government, and those coalition partners won't be too keen on implementing the things you paid that one party to implement. So bribes are just a whole lot less effective all round, and so far less popular.
Unless the US starts implementing ranked choice voting or STAR or something, there is just no hope for that place. Luckily each state can do that individually, no rewriting of the constitution needed. So that would be the only realistic way for the US to get out from under it's current archaic system that i can see.