Yeah, but is certainly where a third party would take a run, like the Republicans did in 1860. And the possibility of both parties running radical candidates is a problem with closed primaries that encourage radical candidates early on.
Ah, okay.Because at the moment a party can win a majority of the seats with only 30% of the vote (and, potentially, substantially less true support), thereby being able to dictate their rules to the majority which did not vote for them. It doesn't happen in the US, because it's a strict two-party system with large regional divides, but it happens a lot in this country, where we have a substantial third party and smaller constituencies.
If he had won the popular vote he would have won the popular vote, avoiding all the drama and butthurt in that election. Bush wouldn't have been an extremist candidate if he won the popular (not that he really was anyway).Well, as it happens he lost the popular vote in 2000, yes, but he could very easily have won it, and my argument would still apply.
Well, in general, they are because they can't try anything too dumb lest the vote swing to the other party.I'm not disputing that it (generally) leads to two large parties, just that they're not always centrist.
No, because that was a problem with America's particular implementation of FPTP, not FPTP itself.Yeah, but that doesn't invalidate my basic argument..