I don't think the politics of the assassin actually matters all that much. What matters is how partisan the response is - and that's been pretty seriously partisan for all of the high-profile and political assassinations we've seen over the past handful of years.
Two party is the natural result of first-past-the-post voting schemas. The constitution has nothing to do with it, the way our votes are counted does.
Sure - no system is perfect. That said, runoff (like Condorcet) and positional (like Borda) systems tend to produce elected representatives that are more acceptable to a larger number of people. They're more likely to incentivize voters to select people that they *want* to have in charge, instead of voting against people they want to lock-out of office.
It's not "the american system", it's FPTP. It doesn't necessitate left-right divisions, but it absolutely devolves to a two party system, and it forces those parties further and further apart.
Funny thing though - conservatives say exactly the same thing in revers. They say that the so called "extreme right" is largely imaginary, generated by the fear and paranoia of the left wing.
As we have seen, and are seeing, is that EVERYTHING can be instrumentalized.
That hasn't happened in Canada.
Except when it might have been a Dem.
What sort of wokeness is this? You keep using that word? What do you define as woke? A lot of what is defined as "woke" was something that the right wing just created out of thin air to rile up the simple minded.
Oh, absolutely. "Woke" is purely used to demonise the things Rightists don't like.
I can go with the definition that “woke” is the stuff that can rile up the simple-minded. It is obvious that there are a lot simple-minded voters in the US (and every other country), and politicians ignore it at their peril.
If the extreme parties are isolated on the wings, the extreme right, and the conservative lite cannot work together. If they could, the extreme right is not isolated. See Israel for an example.
or the victim is a dem
Heck, given that list, it sounds like it doesn't even have to be scary to scare them.
Well if you think that Thatcherite reich-wingers and Hitlerite reich wingers are poles apart.
No it was caused by the fact that cis-het while male conservatives couldn't dictate to everybody else what they can and can't do. Don't take the reich wing's bullshitand rationalising as gospel. As long as LGBT+ people are allowed to exist, women work outside the home and think independently and minorities exist as anything other than slaves the republican party will be permanently in high do.
Canada doesn't elect PM directly, as I understand it?
Way to snip a post so you can pretend to miss the point, I guess. Here, let me help you out with the part you clipped:
Sure, sure. The right wing totally invented out of thin air
You know, all the important issues that have left-leaning moderates who totally aren't Trump supporters up in arms.
I'm quite openly opposed to the vast majority of progressive positions. Not being progressive doesn't make me not classically liberal. It just makes me pragmatic and able to consider the likely consequences of those policies. Seriously, being able to use extrapolative thinking to see that legalizing the use of hard drugs and providing wet shelters for addicts is likely to deteriorate the quality of life for everyone else in that community, and that it does not reduce the impact of addiction and improve long-term health and well being for addicts isn't exactly an illiberal observation.
