One thing I would point out about the comparison between Korea and Vietnam is that the latter was the first “war” (i.e., active military engagement) where the media had direct video access to ongoing military operations.
Before that time, the media’s involvement was generally tangential to any major activities and all materials was vetted by the military before (delayed) public release.
A lot of the political ads on both sides are centered more around “don’t vote for this candidate!!”
And I think the R’s were far better at that particular messaging . . . and the general American public are highly susceptible to this form of influence.
Heck, after JFK took office as POTUS, he often visited with Eisenhower for his advice on handling different international situations; especially in dealing with Russia and Cuba.
And they were very far apart in their general political views.
In fact, one of the first things that JFK did after taking office was to reinstate Eisenhower as a general.
Also…while US third parties typically run fairly lousy candidates, how much of that is because we know that third parties aren’t viable? If there were a path to power, even on a minority / coalition member basis, the third parties might attract both non-wacky candidates and voters.
This is something that actually makes you long for the old days.
The NDP has majorities in BC and Manitoba today. Liberals are basically non-existent at the provincial level in those provinces so effectively there are two political parties.
At the Federal level, a power of having three or more parties is the ability of the small party to deny power to one of the two larger ones and/or force a larger party to work with it and thus greatly influence legislation. Several examples of that in Canada.
I think I posted the multi party systems work best in a parliamentary system. When there is direct election of a president most countries have a 50% rule where you end up with a two candidate run off
When sandboxing political systems, you can also get stable multi-party environments when you have legislative districts represented by multiple individuals when the voters can vote only for a single individual.
In political systems where all voting is done with mechanisms like RCV/iRV, it’s debatable whether you get a potential for multiple parties, or whether political candidates just get smushed more towards the current center of the voting public.
lol you’re right, I completely forgot.
and Saskatchewan, eh. and bc, well, of course.
I like our system because so far we get a pendulum. We awing to the right hard for a bit. Then it swings right or left with a minority so there had to be compromises with the other parties to get anything passed, then it swings to the left. Nothing lasts too long, but once in a while we get a majority that let’s the govt bulldoze stuff, other times it’s all negotiation.
I’m no expert but I feel like this works well.
It’s not debatable as it’s already happened in Australia. The two main parties were on the nose in some districts so the greens and the teal party (and possibly others) picked up federal seats. The smaller parties can sometimes hold the balance of power, and stop the two main parties from getting too far out of line from voters expectations
I was sloppy with my comment, and should have clarified a US-flavored system that might adopt RCV/IRV.
I don’t know whether the Australian experience with the viability of multiple parties could be attributed to RCV/IRV or to Australia operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system.
It’s likely a bit of both. Rcv allows a voter to vote for their favorite candidate while still showing which of the major party cabbages they prefer. This means there isn’t that fear of their vote going to waste.
The parliamentary system means that the smaller parties get a say in governmental decisions if neither major party has a majority. It is also much easier to remove an unpopular leader. Of course, that potential instability in leadership also has its disadvantages.
The US is a low trust society, or has become one. US is a melting pot cultures, which will always result in a lower trust level regardless of how unbiased we all think we can become. Immigration from the Southern border has put pressure on trust, just like prior waves of immigration that came before it. None of that is new.
What is new is how social media can be used to further erode trust. Politicians have found this useful to gain power. I believe that this is happening in all countries at some level, and would consider the polarization in the US as a bit of a canary in the coal mine on what will happen elsewhere, but I think its a bigger issue here because that fundamental trust level in society started at a much lower level.
I wouldn’t be too eager to simply blame ignorant American’s for voting for Trump - if you do, you are going to completely miss the developing history lesson for your own country.
I’ve been reading a biography of T. J. “Stonewall” Jackson of the American Civil War. I get similar vibes to what’s happening politically today as what apparently existed in the US from 1825–1866.
And now we have this…
Hegseth will be renaming this ship, due to its beardo vibes.
Funny. I think it has always been a highly gullible society.
I don’t think I was assuming they’d vote for Harris. If I remember correctly I was arguing that Americans were fine with Trump.