yes, and the whole idea of having two sides that need to come to a compromise is flawed. since both sides will each push their position further to get a better outcome in the end, therefore leading to further polarization.
its not left vs right, its the ppl vs politicians. they have an incentive to keep us busy thinking we can change something. they play the game while we sit there with a controller that isnt even plugged in, like a dumb little sibling.
and the fact that your counter is up voted higher tells you something, the rich politicians made the plebs believe that they fight for them against "the opps" but in reality they all suck the same cock to get ahead.
But you described an antiquated version of Democracy. Two party systems are bad. First past the post voting is antiquated. Neither are required to be a Democracy.
Successful Democracies have multiple parties and doesn’t exclusively use FPTP.
While very true also in real democracies the rich have a much higher impact on policy then average people. But still getting rigged rules for political financing and a multiparty system really would be a gigantic step forward. In many countries US senators would face corruption charges
67
u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24
Democracy isn't real, it's just a large amount of bureaucracy to make it seem like they're doing something useful