Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's also worth noting that 90 million people who are eligible to vote didn't vote at all.


It's also worth noting the first past the post system encourages duopolistic government (Almost China and NK's monopolistic government ;) ) People vote against their sincere choice by voting for one of the two most popular candidates instead.

Some other systems: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_HOR.htm http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system


> Almost China and NK's monopolistic government

That's one of the most perniciously false equivalence I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. The US has elected congressmen, elected senators, elected governors and an elected president. Even the top two presidential candidates are chosen from a wide field in primary elections. Portraying that as a stark choice between only two options and saying it's practically the same as China and North Korea, which provide no choice whatsoever, is really pretty disgusting.


You do realise that in USA, people mostly vote for republicans or democrats despite some hating them?

Rest of world have multi-party governments. Many more choices.

So much for an example that puts people on defensive instead of raising awareness of how distorted the electoral system in USA is.


And the US has primaries. Last year there were 17 Republicans all trying to win their party's nomination in a series of open votes; out of those, the eventual winner, Donald Trump, was perhaps the candidate least liked by the party establishment.

If anything, the problem was too many candidates, combined with a first-past-the-post system. The majority of primary voters disliked Trump, but were split between several preferred candidates (who I group because they were far more similar to each other than to Trump). Trump got a certain segment of the vote all to himself.


Joke or not, the comparison to China or North Korea is awful, and not at all close to accurate. For example, when the BBC went to report on an independent candidate in China, plainclothes policemen blocked them from entering the building[0]. North Korea is at least an order of magnitude worse off.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38005603


I was pointing out that China and North Korea are monopolistic. Of course they don't allow more than one party with the system they set up.

Look at USA, it's duopolistic due to the system set up. There's only republicans and democrats.

What's funny is that China (Don't know about NK) brags that anyone can run for government but people only vote for one party. Just like USA brags that anyone can run for government but it ends up becoming republican/democrat.

Do you see the monopolistic/duopolistic point I was making?





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: