You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
you can’t prove a negative, but a positive claim has been offered here. so the person putting forward the claim must support it, as a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The very assertion that a negative claim can’t be proven is itself a negative claim, to frame it another way. Though that claim is unproven as it would be a paradox to be otherwise.
you’re making that up
You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
this is not a mathematical proof. it’s a story.
Don’t come to Lemmy for math proofs, particularly in a political conversation. What an obtuse statement.
the claim is that it’s mathematical fact. I am only demanding a proof
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
That’s not math. those are just questions.
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
you can’t prove a negative, but a positive claim has been offered here. so the person putting forward the claim must support it, as a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You absolutely can prove a negative, actually.
The very assertion that a negative claim can’t be proven is itself a negative claim, to frame it another way. Though that claim is unproven as it would be a paradox to be otherwise.
Removed by mod