> For example, Finland has lower attainment rates for bachelor degree equivalents than the US. This would seem to disprove your point.

In Finland, most university students go for a master's degree. A bachelor's degree is often seen as sort-of a safety valve, if it turns out you didn't have what it takes to complete the full master's degree. So you get at least some sort of degree from having been to university rather than just having your high school diploma as your highest official educational achievement.

Even if we look at just masters, Finland is only slightly ahead a 16% vs the US 12%. But using this sort or logic, then why not compare doctorate degrees, for which the US has 2% attainment vs Finland's 1%? To me it seems like drawing random line to fit the narrative when I don't see anything in the degree metrics that points to Finland being more educated. We could use different metrics, such as some sort of test, or test scores at the secondary level to say Finland has a better education or education system (we'd have to see the numbers to verify, but I wouldn't be surprised).

I have no interest in a one country vs. another country pissing match, just pointing out that (arbitrarily) selecting the bachelor degree as some kind of metric might be highly misleading, at least in the case of Finland.

Except we just looked at the numbers and showed it doesn't appear to be misleading. I was merely responding to the person stating they would bet that Finland would be the last democracy to decay due to education. But it seems the educational attainment is roughly equal. I also called out that other metrics might be better indicators, both if we were using education and if we were looking at other factors like culture.

My only issue with your comment is it seems to blame a two-party system. It is my understanding/belief though that a two-party system is just inevitable in the U.S. When a 3rd party has risen it acts only as a spoiler to the party it is most aligned with.

It's only as inevitable as the current voting system. If it changed to some kind of ranked choice, new parties would quickly gain representation.

To be sure. But here we are.

Why does that make it inaccurate to blame the two party system? The two party system causes the problem, but that doesn't mean something else can't cause the two party system.

Yeah, not inaccurate ... maybe loaded? I wasn't really refuting the point, merely responding to why OP may have been getting downvotes. Sometimes words can suggest a bias and people may respond to that.

With increased granularity of representation, you can have more parties. Breaking The Two Party Doom Loop discussed details.

Our country has not increased the number of representatives sufficiently to allow local issues to reach national stage, so instead we all worry about national issues over local ones, for one example.

Most local issues shouldn't be handled nationally due to the diverse perspectives. That's pretty much the whole point of the (largely ignored) 10th amendment.

A third party has never had enough support to really be viable. Nor have we had multiple alternative parties with viable support. Right now it's all or nothing. If you had multiple new options with nuanced positions (even just filling the quadrants of social/fiscal conservative/liberal), then people could have real options. I admit this is unlikely under the current structure. However, it could take shape with structural changes to the voting process. Yes, even with some of its negatives, ranked choice might be one possible road to multiple mainstream parties.

> A third party has never had enough support to really be viable

The republicans were a third party. Granted the old Whig party was seeing significant troubles, but they still were a third party and thus prove you wrong. 3 parties are not viable, but third parties are.

Sure, I should have qualified in the past 100 years, or modern times, or whatever. The political environment, the modes of information, types of issues, and even the culture has drastically changed since the Republicans surpassed the Whigs. It's not really an applicable example to the modern scenarios.

Don't know why the disagree, but this is a real problem and plagues the House of Representatives which then allows actually incompetent but loud candidates like Greene and Boebert to vote on important and serious legislation.

If these individuals are exceptions and the rest are competent, then there should be minimal impact beyond creating a side show. As a tiny minority, they wouldn't have any real sway in the bill construction within their party, especially if it has any chance of passing. The split between the parties is usually narrow, so the representatives with the most potential to influence passing legislation are the ones near the center margins as they may vote against party lines and provide a bigger base of support. The reps near the outside margins tend to have less influence. Even if they sway some stuff during the creation of the bill, it's stuff that likely has to get ripped out to find enough support to pass into a law.

But if things are passing by only 1 or 2 votes anyways, where anyone 1 persons vote is a major deciding factor, that's an indication of a bigger issue. Such a divide means that half the country feels they are getting screwed and there was little compromise to include their concerns.

    > If these individuals are exceptions and the rest are competent

I've got news for you, then!

If they're the average, then why call them out as specific examples?

Not exactly. The house of representatives should be much much larger than it is.

The same thing with the senate too. Current senate setup gives a lot of power to empty land.

"Current senate setup gives a lot of power to empty land."

That's the entire premise that got the smaller colonies to sign on. It's a feature, not a bug.

I mean, owning slaves was a feature at one time. Features change with time.

How do you think that would work out? I would guess the less populated states would leave if they feel disregarded. I mean, that lack of representation was the basis for the revolution.

> It's more likely to be related to culture and political structure than education is my guess. Unless, maybe, we want to use a different definition for education than just degree attainment. For example, Finland has lower attainment rates for bachelor degree equivalents than the US. This would seem to disprove your point.

The university educated are the top. Politics is not about the top few percent, it's about the masses. At this the US education system is really bad, especially in poorer areas.

Overall, I believe the number was something like 46%+ had a college degree of an associate or higher. So it's not just the top few percent. But I do agree that many areas of the US, especially in specific subjects, are lacking. But that sort of ties back to my comment on culture since the voters and locals have some influence on what is taught or what is not.