That is true in the US, but that is not typical. I cannot think of another democracy that is as firmly two party as the US. Even the UK which I felt was too two party has always had some smaller parties (for many decades the Liberals, and then the Lib Dems, and Northern Irish parties), many smaller ones more recently (add the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists) and with two smaller parties gaining a lot of ground in the last few years the next general election looks like a four way fight.
replyIn many countries multiple parties and coalition governments are the norm.
To add, the multiple parties in the UK just means I have more choices that are not close to my political views!
replyApparently not enough people want what you want, that is also democracy, accepting that things other people want can be prioritized,
replyThat is true, but it also means that multiple parties does not solve the problem of the parent to my first comment in this thread which as "You can pick which of the two possibilities, neither of which is even close to your political views, will oppress you for the next 4 years.".
replyThe solution is ranked choice voting and getting money out of politics.
replyThat requires actual activism, getting involved in local politics, and mobilizing. All things that Americans, ironically, can't afford. So here we are, creating trillionaires instead.
replyWhile the USA is famously a two-party system, that’s not true of every democracy.
replyThe system being 2 party, 3 party or 4 party system doesn't change much though.
If you want to improve democracy you need stronger and more independent local governments and some way for people to directly vote on issues (both local and federal/country wise). Otherwise it will always be career politicians deciding on issues based on their personal interests.
replyAnother prediction win for the Simpson's [1].
reply