Why do European countries have more diverse politics?

In Europe you have communists, socialists, Greens ranging from ecosocialists to liberal cosmopolitans, liberals, christian-democrats, conservatives, populists, nationalists and other random ones depending on the country, while in the US there are only left-libs and con-libs

Attached: 1280px-European_Parliament_as_of_June_2015.svg.png (1280x658, 257K)

We don't have that first past the post degenerate voting system.
Except for the bongs.

because europe is not as smart as think they are and as usual they fucked up by trying to be too clever

How is having more options bad?
But even with fptp you can have more, see Canada, UK

A winner-take-all voting system reduces the electoral landscape to two parties.

It's just a distraction.

Not in Canada, India, the UK, etc

Proportional voting based on state party lists. But then the EU parliament is 99% white post Brexit

Attached: 8DCDEFB3-F446-4325-AD9D-E4404D4EDAF1.png (540x410, 112K)

>the UK
is on the verge of a two-party-system, just not such a rigid one than the modern USA. The House of Commons is ~90% just 2 parties.

>Canada
also very much split in 2 major parties

>India
no idea about the electoral system of India

The UK has regionalism. Canada too. America is mutt.

Divide and conquer, they all just follow one and the same agenda.

Some politcians offed themselves over here,... or so they tell us after bringing up the fact they do nothing but follow orders they get through text messages.

Attached: 673423.jpg (500x448, 38K)

Canada has long been seen as a 2.5 or three party system, while the UKs situation is as diverse as Spain's
UK yes, Canada no. The three main parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic) are national parties

Italy too. I mean most if not all European countries use proportional representation, but a lot of them still use FPTP/plurality voting.

First Past the Post voting systems along with the fact that they are way less multiracial and multiethnic which splinters and fragments people ideologically, etc. to the point where only big tent parties are viable.

I didn't know that. Thank you for educating me.

Because we're retarded cucks. I wish we had one party rule.

Italy has a mixed system, they use both

First past the post is the only democratic system, Hans.

Elaborate, please.
Why is it better than a proportional system?

Or IRV, STV or even a French-style runoff system

>founding fathers - don't have political parties, trying to be too clever will fuck you over
>yanks - create political parties

Thats the european parliament. Its always held hostage by the Krauts. Its no democracy. It needs an upper house with equal state representation.

Different voting system. They get more than one vote.

Most euro countries have several groups, including yours

Because it keeps fringe parties like communists or green commies out of political decision making. Plus, it means you have one actual representative you can call up and who has an incentive to take you seriously as he depends on your personal vote in his small district every few years. Unlike party list shit, a district with say 50,000 voters can be turned by a 1,000 votes. So he better not piss of 1,000 of his voters by approving stupid shit like Article 13.

but it does have an upper house, it's called the Commission. it has exactly that: equal state representation

Because of electoral system. Most European countries use proportional system whereas Anglos (Brits, Americans rtc) use majoritarian system which favors two parties.

Seems like a good system.
>Because it keeps fringe parties like communists or green commies
However wouldn't this logic apply to nationalist parties too?

>founding fathers- do whatever the fuck you want because the nation's interests will be determined by the political class either way
>yanks- does whatever they want