The main reason why this is different for the US is the language of the Constitution effectively forces a two-party system, despite several of the framers really not wanting political parties as we have today.
The US doesn't have the same concepts of coalition building as many other types of governments do (coalitions being a way for many smaller parties to compromise with each other, reach consensus, and pass policy).
In the US, if you don't quite fit into one of the two major parties, then your "say" is effectively nullified. This is why the two parties have a huge range of voices - but are compelled to rally behind a singular set of views (usually their presidential candidate's) in order to gain power and accomplish anything.
For example - Bernie fans have been snuffed a few times, and their voices effectively silenced from the mainstream discussion. Even if you disagree with those viewpoints, they should get representation. Coalition building would force their voices to be heard in a meaningful way via compromises with other similar-but-not-quite-the-same parties.
Another example - Democrats held a primary election and chose their presidential candidate, which later dropped out of the race. Now Democrats are being told who they must vote for otherwise they will lose power. Many Democrats will hold their nose and vote for the new Democrat candidate, despite not liking the candidate or their policies, because they don't really have another choice. The wide range of views held within the Democrat party will be boiled down into whatever the candidate's views are - everyone else loses their "voice". Many smaller, more focused parties would help solve this issue as well.
That's not actually a difference between the UK and the US - we in the UK have a two party system as well, in effect.
For the last 100 years, every elected prime minister has been either Labour or Conservative. Occasionally at the head of a wartime coalition or propped up by a minor party, but far more often not and always from one of the two main parties.
Nice job paying lip service to a general issue as a spring board to push nonsensical partisan talking points. The general argument would have been much stronger had you analyzed the party that's been taken over and lobotomized by radical extremists, yet you just skipped right over that whole elephant in the room. "Many Democrats", as well as this libertarian, won't be needing to hold our noses as we vote for Harris out of a sense of overwhelming conservatism. I don't agree with the majority of her political views, but at this point in history you can consider me a single issue voter in favor of bureaucracy, which we have come to take for granted far too much.
> Nice job paying lip service to a general issue as a spring board to push nonsensical partisan talking points.
> the party that's been taken over and lobotomized by radical extremist
> won't be needing to hold our noses as we vote for Harris out of a sense of overwhelming conservatism
> I don't agree with the majority of her political views
> at this point in history you can consider me a single issue voter in favor of bureaucracy
You have unintentionally proven every single point I've raised in this entire thread. I could not have imagined a more perfect demonstration of what is wrong with US politics. The worst part - you probably felt vindicated writing this, failing to realize this behavior is exactly the problem.
The US doesn't have the same concepts of coalition building as many other types of governments do (coalitions being a way for many smaller parties to compromise with each other, reach consensus, and pass policy).
In the US, if you don't quite fit into one of the two major parties, then your "say" is effectively nullified. This is why the two parties have a huge range of voices - but are compelled to rally behind a singular set of views (usually their presidential candidate's) in order to gain power and accomplish anything.
For example - Bernie fans have been snuffed a few times, and their voices effectively silenced from the mainstream discussion. Even if you disagree with those viewpoints, they should get representation. Coalition building would force their voices to be heard in a meaningful way via compromises with other similar-but-not-quite-the-same parties.
Another example - Democrats held a primary election and chose their presidential candidate, which later dropped out of the race. Now Democrats are being told who they must vote for otherwise they will lose power. Many Democrats will hold their nose and vote for the new Democrat candidate, despite not liking the candidate or their policies, because they don't really have another choice. The wide range of views held within the Democrat party will be boiled down into whatever the candidate's views are - everyone else loses their "voice". Many smaller, more focused parties would help solve this issue as well.
In short, the US needs more political parties.