If you can find them at all you made my day. As long as I know they still make them, I can hope to someday enjoy them again.

My all-time favorite, by a long way, is/was Bickel's. They seared the chips before frying, giving them an unparalleled smooth surface, sharp crunch, and deep potato flavor. Unfortunately, I can't find them anymore, they even closed down their factory outlet store, and although the brand still exists (bought by a larger snack maker, apparently) I can't even tell if they still make potato chips.

[Edited to correct spelling of the name Bickel's.]

It's predefined. There is a fascinating (or not) history to and technical justification for how technology developers settled on an "8 bit byte" which then also became a 16, 32, 64, 128, or bigger bit byte, but in every case the answer is the same: it's predefined how many digits the reader will consider.

Unfortunately, this additional information does not actually clarify the matter. Apparently there are two distinct "single subject rules", one pertaining to legislation, another to ballot initiatives. To add to the confusion, the legislative rule is part of the state constitution, and the rule that proposed amendments to that constitution, properly identified as the separate vote requirement, is often referred to as a "single subject rule".

Regardless of all that, since the legislation being voted on relates to the 'single subject' of proposed constitutional amendments, I can't see it being an issue. As long as the ballot allows each proposed amendment to be voted on separately, it doesn't matter if the legislation contains multiple proposals any more than it does if several amendment proposals appear on the same ballot, as long as they are not bound together so that they must all be affirmed or rejected as a group.

>disingenuous

You misspelled "Republicon".

The amendments to the bill putting additional proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot aren't related to the "single subject rule", which only governs how the proposals appear on the ballot, not the legislation putting them there.

And they stand basically no chance because people don't vote for them. If the popularity of either of the existing big parties decreases, and the popularity of any one "third party" increased to the point they could win some state-wide or federal office, chances are they would become the new "second party" in this supposed "two party system". Any period of time where all three parties could present viable candidates would be very brief, at best. People would then vote for the new 2nd party instead of the one that lost popularity, and people who want to denigrate the results or the voters will continue to whine about the "two party system". This isn't because American voters are dumb or craven, it's because we are smart and think we're brilliant. Logically "gaming things out", a favorite practice in the US, will always end up with two major parties that share nearly 100% of offices between them. This is because there's only two positions on any policy or bill: aye or nay, yes or no, you're for it or against it. The reasons why and ways to improve the policy or bill are infinite, but the choice is still binary, and so both politicians and voters, being aware and self-determining, coalesce into two main ("primary") parties. And it will always be that way, and trying to change it will definitely NOT improve our politics in any way at all. Yes, other countries have a 'parliamentary system' which don't have only two major parties: instead they have only two factions, ever: the government (including all the minor parties that joined their "coalition" and so act as sock puppets for them) and the opposition (everybody else).

It isn't up to the county. It is up to the state. Not every county is required by the state to have emissions testing, as I have been recently made aware.

>Since 1984

TIL. Thanks.

Am I missing something? Since when does the county have anything to do with state registration and state inspections? AFAIK, what county you file the paperwork in is irrelevant, and state inspections are required and enforced in every county in Pennsylvania.

Call your state representative's local office.

https://www.palegis.us

As with all questions about why animals do any specific thing, the ultimate answer is simply "those that didn't died out". So the question of why do birds that bob their heads have an evolutionary advantage over those of their species that didn't does not necessarily need or have a single absolute answer.

In this particular case, three major proximate reasons (any of which might have more or less impact in any particular case) are:

• tracking: the mechanical movement is actually lack of movement, because keeping their eyes nearer a fixed level is less energy-intensive than using their brains to compensate for the movement of their heads while walking

• balance: to lower their center of gravity to make toppling over when they lift one leg to step forward less likely

• leverage: by moving their heads in an opposite direction to their bodies, they use less energy in locomotion

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Unless a medical authority and court have determined that "this person" is "mentally unable", you're pretty much just spewing bullshit. "Fair" means every citizen who is of legal age gets to vote. Republicons HATE "fair", because Republicons can't win in FAIR elections.

>Idk how to reply like that.

While creating a reply comment, select the appropriate text in the comment you're replying to. Use the pop-up menu to choose "Quote". Or, just type a 'greater than sign' (>) and then type or paste the text you want to reply to.

>And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain.

I'll presume you meant 'emergent property' rather than "part", and ignore the attendant question of whether an intellectual abstraction qualifies as "physical". The issue then is whether consciousness is an integral aspect of the [human] brain or is an epiphenomena (an inconsequential side effect). Survival is not the foundation of philosophy, it is merely a prerequisite for philosophizing. The substance and topic of philosophy are all those aspect of existence beyond mere "survival".

>I’m trying to get to absolute root of why?

In POR this (both the question and the answer) is identified and described as the ineffability of being. The conundrum you face is familiar to every four year old and their parents: questions of "why" can only be answered by statements that might satisfy either party, but never actually resolve the issue (teleology) because that answer in turn can simply prompt another query as to 'why?'.The approach conventional science and religion uses is referred to in POR as "turtles all the way down".

>I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

It really should be. And I think it actually is, or you would not be here trying to discuss philosophy. The necessity of your consciousness is the absolute root of "why".

>The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead.

You are simultaneously misrepresenting the truth of the gedanken and misunderstanding the philosophical implications of that truth. The cat is not dead until the superstate of being both alive and dead collapses to a finite state of either living or dead. Your assumption (which seems reasonable in reality but is physically incorrect in terms of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's Cat,) that it is dead even if we do not know it yet, is inaccurate. Schrödinger's cat isn't dead until you open the box to find out whether it is alive or not.

>The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Up until you start talking about that damned cat, meaning you are referring to quantum physics rather than biological organisms, sure. But metaphysical uncertainty is real even outside of the spooky weirdness of QM. It's just easier to be in denial about that until the empirical experiments and math of physics makes it undeniable, forcing you to confront it's reality. You say your awareness cannot have any effect on the universe, but that assumption is backed by the same reason as a baby who thinks that things stop existing when they can no longer be seen.

The resolution to all this requires an unconventional perspective, which POR provides. The effect of your consciousness only needs to have a minuscule impact on the universe in one very particular and specific case in order to have an effect on the universe. It does not have to be a general effect or affect, as in "magic", to be real. That one real and necessary absolute root of being, where your consciousness can change what happens in the physical universe, is self-determination. Since the conventional approach you are relying on for your thinking can only explain self-determination as "free will" or an illusion, your approach fails, because it is neither.

Thanks again for your time. Hope, it helps.

>I believe self awareness is just a small part of the brain

Self-awareness isn't a part of the brain at all. But it is the most important property of our brains, regardless of what proportion of our neural processes related directly to conscious thoughts. Survival is a minuscule consideration, in comparison; even creatures without brains survive and apparently act with volition.

>And I believe I “die” each time I zone out.

Then you are using that word very differently than everyone else does. Your outlook seems bleak and cynical, which isn't unusual these days, but isn't as necessary as your postmodern analysis suggests.

>It is a”sad” reality but like the cat in the box, if u wait 100 years to accept the cat is dead, it won’t change the state of the cat.

I presume you are referring to Schrödinger's cat. That cat remains alive no matter how long you wait to open the box. But it doesn't die until you cause it to assume that state by opening the box; half the time, anyway.

> Feedback is appreciated, I’m just beginning my philosophical journey.

Start with this.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

> whether a hot dog is or is not a sandwich is surely dramatically different from whether Pluto is a planet.

Not really even a little bit, for all the reasons already discussed, as I will again explain:

> With Pluto I take it at a broad level of description people are looking at whatever data, trying to systematize it in accordance with whatever empirical/logical criteria

Nope. Now, granted, because the issue with Pluto is a very limited one in several ways, your mistaken notion of systemization is closer to being realistic. But it highlights the inadequacy of that model at the same time.

First, in that case there undoubtably is an explicit authority involved. And in theory they are only dispassionately determining what category and object belongs in. But what happens in real life? Rather than describe the issue as "whether astronomers call Pluto a planet or a dwarf planet" becomes "whether Pluto is a planet", with 'dwarf' planet being a 'demotion' (whether something is a "dwarf" is no different than whether it is a "sandwich", syntax be damned) and a tempestuous argument because it involves whether school children will learn the same "nine planets" their parents did.

Words aren't words in science. They're merely alphabetic symbols for mathematical quantities or logic categories chosen to resemble words, effectively as a mnemonic device. Science works well, because math (aka logic) works well, for physical objects, which can't intentionally change their behavior because they don't like what someone said. Whether you should care about what a scientist says depends on whether the math works out, it never actually has anything to do with the meaning of the words as descriptors for what they measured to produce quantities for their calculations. Unless you believe scientists are priests who's moral dictates must be followed, they are not in charge of what words we use.

Now the problem is that the word "science" is, like "finger", a word. Whether something is "science" actually depends entirely on why someone might call it science, or why someone might not. We again are taught that there is a "concept" or "category" the label confers and by which we can infer validity and certainty in an absolute sense, and there are, of course, good reasons for that notion.. But they revolve around the justifications for calling something science (the process, the empiricism, the mathematical predictions of future objectively quantifiable results) not any magic power the 'label' has. 'Science', ultimately, is a word, and like all words it isn't a label for a logical category of "thing", it is an identifier and descriptor who's validity depends on whether it is recognized as accurate within a particular context, not any existential ability to be calculated True of False in a universal sense. People who are emotionally certain that language is (or must be, or wouldn't work unless it was, or would benefit by being) a formal system then invent new 'categories' like soft science to maintain their faith in their assumed conclusion when their initial argument can no longer be defended. Is psychology actually science or a scholarly tradition of myths? There are philosophers (themselves assuming conclusions and wishing dearly for philosophy itself to be an analytic science) who insist that all science is myth-building, and only consciousness truly exists.

>Thus the 5 is not a number example. I imagine you’d be reticent to acquiesce in that alleged revelation?

I believe you really mean whether 5 (or any other number) is real, rather than whether 5 is a number. I am very familiar with the "located in time and space" criteria. I would not describe my position as reticent, acquiescence, or allegation, but actual revelation: it is the same question as whether a hot dog is a sandwich. As an object, all sandwiches can be located in time and space. As a category of thing, "sandwich" does not occur in time or space. Whether a restaurant puts it in the "sandwiches" section of their menu is as potentially trivial and potentially consequential as whether astronomers regard Pluto as a planet, or whether school children learn to recite that categorization as if it was a fact.

> I guess one thing I suspect is that they don’t care much about being faithful to a common concept of planet or finger or whatever.

They definitely do; their entire worldview would unravel (according to the dogma of their faith, although in real life the change would be less dramatic and more beneficial, since their worldview is inaccurate in this regard) if words weren't empty symbols used as arbitrary labels for "concepts" and logical categories for "concepts" which are themselves "concepts". This explains the supposedly revelatory explanation of the status of a thumb as a finger that initiated your dive down the rabbit hole of existential epistemology because it rocked your worldview.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

As long as the only people "put at risk" are the accused criminals (and the majority of them are Not White), the people who have the most power in our governments (Republicons) will think: "all the better, good!"

>But I care about the general moral.

Whether the thumb is a finger is not really any different than whether a hot dog is a sandwich. With all due respect for Kripke, if formal systems of any kind whatsoever could resolve such things, they would have been resolved long ago, whether by Kripke himself or by Aristotle or by someone in the interim.

>Could the authorities conclude that green isn’t a color?

Green isn't a color. Green is an experience of perceiving a frequency of electromagnetic radiation that opsin molecules most sensitive to ~535 nanometer wavelengths respond to. So the authorities say.

> Suppose physicists announced that. I think I want to say they could be wrong.

It seems like you are reticent to confess that, as if physicists, biologists, or scientists in general are priests with the blessing of God who must not be contradicted. This is scientificism, not science.

>The fact that the authorities announce a classification doesn’t make it automatically right. But could it be right?

Ay, there's the rub.

"Could" is something we mere mortals must deal with. Scientists (and analytic philosophers like Aristotle or Kripke) should stick with "is", and we should ignore them when they don't, because they are not priests providing divine revelations.

The meaning of words (like "finger" or "sandwich") does not derive from being codes for logically precise and consistent categories. Socrates was [mistaken ]( >But I care about the general moral.

Whether the thumb is a finger is not really any different than whether a hot dog is a sandwich. With all due respect for Kripke, if formal systems of any kind whatsoever could resolve such things, they would have been resolved long ago, whether by Kripke himself or by Aristotle or by someone in the interim.

>Could the authorities conclude that green isn’t a color?

Green isn't a color. Green is an experience of perceiving a frequency of electromagnetic radiation that opsin molecules most sensitive to ~535 nanometer wavelengths respond to. So the authorities say.

> Suppose physicists announced that. I think I want to say they could be wrong.

It seems like you are reticent to confess that, as if physicists, biologists, or scientists in general are priests with the blessing of God who must not be contradicted. This is scientificism, not science.

>The fact that the authorities announce a classification doesn’t make it automatically right. But could it be right?

Ay, there's the rub.

"Could" is something we mere mortals must deal with. Scientists (and analytic philosophers like Aristotle or Kripke) should stick with "is", and we should ignore them when they don't, because they are not priests providing divine revelations.

The meaning of words (like "finger" or "sandwich") does not derive from being codes for logically precise and consistent categories. Socrates was mistaken when he said that in order to know if virtue can be taught we must first define it. Substitute 'wisdom' or 'knowledge' or 'sandwich' for "virtue" it makes no difference. The definition of a word depends, innately, inherently, and intrinsically, on context. Whether a thumb is a finger or a hot dog is a sandwich depends on why you are using the word "finger" or "sandwich", not on the physical (or historical, or "conceptual") properties of fingers, thumbs, wieners, or food.

Conventional philosophy includes a supposedly unavoidable premise that words (or "concepts", a word invented to avoid dealing with this very issue/truth) cannot have communicative value in this fashion: they must be codes or else they are meaningless. Nothing could be further from the truth. (I mean that literally, not just figuratively.) Your intuition may tell you (since you have been taught according to this convention) that this informal/non-categorical/illogical method of words and language would result in incomprehensibility: that words would be unintelligible if their definitions were entirely derived from context rather than "authority". But the truth is, this is how words have always worked, since humankind first started using them. And it is worth pointing out that we started using them long before we realized we were doing so, and came up with the word "word" to identify and describe them, let alone before analytic philosophers started insisting they'd work better if they were a formal and logical system of codes.

So the reality (and I mean that, again, literally rather than rhetorically) is that scientists are authorities on science, which is about quantities and formulas, not words or reality. There are ways (contexts) in which a thumb is a finger, there are other ways it is not. It isn't really that confusing unless you want it to be. Your brain might be nothing more than an organic computer programmed by natural selection and operant conditioning, but your mind is independent of that, and is all about self-determination, reasoning, morality, and ignoring as much of what you've been taught as you need to in order to do better than those who taught you.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

>man's abilities are evolved abilities - or they're not.

A false dichotomy.

>If you dismiss injection of self-reflection by a higher power, what else can they be?

The ability to dismiss false dichotomies, I suppose. Need they be more? Are you saying that because self-determination is not a magic power, it is therefore not real?

Please don't take those questions as merely dismissive rhetoric, I think they should be considered and answered. I entirely agree with you and empathize with your perspective, I sympathize with your premise. But you're ignoring the possibility that reason itself is an evolved ability, and I think I know why. There are three reasons, two of which I'll explain.

First, you rightfully believe that free will has to be a gift from God or else it doesn't exist. This is true, but it is also true that self-reflection doesn't require free will, just self-determination.

Second, you assume "reason" is logic. This is false, but it is also the assumption that modern and postmodern (and neopostmodern) philosophy (apart from theistic morality) has relied on (and been trapped by, it is a "tar pit") since the time of Socrates.

I had the same position you do, felt the same frustration, and was stuck on the same problems, years ago. Plus, I was even more desperate than you are to find answers, for personal reasons. And believe it or not, I managed to extricate myself from the tar pit by finding answers. I've been trying to help other people do the same ever since. Consider it plausible even if it isn't certain. What have you got to lose?

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

>We are animals with evolved abilities like all creatures on this planet.

Here is where your reasoning starts to fail. (Although, if I'm being honest, it was actually earlier when you said you were wary of "reason", by which I presume you actually meant logic, but let's skip that issue for the moment.)

We are animals with evolved abilities unlike any other creature on this planet. This alone doesn't distinguish us. Every species of creature has some evolved abilities which are different from all other species: this is part and parcel of being a distinct species. But with humans it goes beyond that, because of the specific ability we evolved to have, which is demonstrably unique in result.

>Reason is an evolved ability that did not somehow leap past biological barriers & provide us with a god-like tool to unlock the mysteries of the universe.

Returning to that earlier point, then: reason is an evolved ability that leaps past biological barriers and provides is with a tool to unlock the mysteries of the universe. These mysteries become less mysterious therefor. Reason need not be "god-like", in fact it cannot be God-like, but overcoming biological (and other physical) barriers is exactly what it is for, and what it accomplishes. But (and this is the most important issue in all of philosophy, the key to unlocking all of the things about human behavior which are not merely biological abilities but the capacity to go beyond biological and physical barriers) reason is not logic. It is something more than that. It is, among other things, the ability to conceive of logic, and it must be greater than logic, it must transcend mathematics and deduction and even induction (or any other formal system) in order to recognize, discover, invent, or develop formal systems like logic, which you have been taught to identify and describe as reason. That, the limitations of logic, is what you are raling against, what you are wary of, and you are using reasoning to do so.

>The lion could be said to be using the faculty in a simplistic manner while we are using it in a far more complex way.

The lion uses no reason nor logic. The lion is logic, with no reason. It's genes are logic, the physics of the nucleotides and the proteins they "encode" is logic, the entire universe is logic, limited by mathematical laws although we know not how. But lions (nor whales, elephants, dogs, birds, apes, or fungi) have no consciousness, they do not have reasoning, they are unaware of the existence of biology or logic. They have no reason to be, they engage in no reasoning, and they are incapable of deciding how they should behave, they merely exist and do whatever their biochemistry causes them to do. Humans really are different. You can say that reason is an illusion, that consciousness is merely an unsolved engineering problem or a gift from god or a ground state of the universe, what you're really doing is denying the evidence. Humans are different. We aren't just a different kind of life, we are a different kind of matter, even though our biological existence is the same as any other life form and our atoms are the same as any other object. Our consciousness isn't a fiction, our language is not a logical code, and our morality is not simply social norms.

>I step back from saying evolution is true; I stick with evolution is highly plausible

You remind me of Richard Dawkins, stepping back from saying God isn't true, and sticking with God is merely implausible. Socrates' showed that accepting uncertainty is a necessary aspect of reasoning. Descartes showed that doubt is a fundamental premise of consciousness. But sooner or later we have to man up and accept the fact that being unsure if humans are moral creatures (and that God does not exist!) is a disastrous and unproductive pretense.

>as animals we think to assist survival of the species.

Animals don't do that, though. If they thought at all (they do not, though the neurological impulses in their brain is only teleologically, not physically, different from the neural impulses which are our thoughts) they would only consider, care about, or assist their own survival, and seek to be the definition of the species rather than merely a single creature doomed to die. Evolution is undeniable, the mechanism of natural selection is so absolutely true and unavoidable that even God, if It existed, could not prevent it from occurring. But knowing evolution is true (beyond the notion of causation itself, a mere fiction in comparison) does not mean that what some person or expert (or ALL people and experts, if we can imagine such a universal consensus) claims the implications of evolution are is likewise true.

>We are animals. With limited evolved abilities.

We have that one evolved ability which has no limit. We can imagine things that aren't real, and consider whether they should be real, and devise methods to make them real. Just because we are still animals doesn't mean we are still just animals. Consciousness isn't just sense perception with a larger neural network, it is a very specific and particular (and also holistic) perception (to be explicit and give it a name, it is self-determination and theory of mind) that isn't limited to senses (or sense) with a larger neural network. 😉

>We are in the present world situation partly because we deny our evolved limitations.

We are in the present world situation entirely because we have the ability to ignore our evolved limitations. The real problem is that we deny that, as you are doing. If we were just animals like any other, we wouldn't be in this mess. And if we accept the moral responsibility of reason, instead of trying to avoid it by confusing reason with "logic", we can work our way out of this mess, and any other situation we might find ourselves in.

> We are a lion starving to death at the water hole because plausibility is not certainty.

What is the water, in your metaphor?

We are apes trapped in a tar pit, unable to figure a way out because plausibility is as close to certainty as anything beyond cogito ergo sum ever gets. We cannot overcome metaphysical uncertainty (whether there is anything beyond our perceptions) and we cannot overcome epistemic uncertainty (whether there is anything to our perceptions) and we need to stop using that as an excuse for remaining stuck in this damned tar pit. 🤓

It is a well-established (though by no means universally accepted) premise of human behavior that negative reinforcement (punishment) is almost entirely ineffective past the age of reason (about four to seven years old) and of limited value even before then. Nevertheless, most people far older than that continue to desire retribution for an injustice. There are valid and good reasons for this desire, but that it can be a deterrent (a prospective negative reinforcement, in other words) is not really one of them.

As for rehabilitation, it, too, has a meaningful basis in the arena of criminal sentencing, but coercion nullifies the possibility of rehabilitation: a human cannot be forced to rehabilitate, they can only be convinced to obey. Also, the practice of providing heightened opportunities for rehabilitation to criminals contradicts the demands of justice, by essentially rewarding convicts for previous bad behavior and (if this can even be considered separate) effectively substituting advantage for retribution, in a social sense.

For imprisonment to be just and moral, it should be seen as simply sequestration, removing an individual from society. Whether it is a punishment or is an adequate opportunity for voluntary rehabilitation is for the convict to determine. Making their living conditions as sparse as humanely possible based on the nature of their crime is appropriate, but willfully (including through malicious neglect) making their circumstances intolerable or horrifying in a misguided effort to maximize either punishment or deterrence is not merely inhumane, it is counter-productive.

It really doesn't matter how severe or horrendous the crime was. The optimim process from a social perspective is whatever has the greatest statistical likelihood of resulting in a convict both recognizing and accepting the immorality of their actions and voluntarily choosing to rehabilitate themselves. And what we are currently doing in the United States is not that. A large part of the reason we have such a significant problem with crime in the US is because of the prison system in the US, although the teleologies are so complex that most people aren't interested in understanding how that is possible. And the people who most definitely (and erroneously) believe in punishment have any easy time convincing anyone who has any desire for retribution against lawbreakers to vote for the Wrong Wing Party, and spewing atrocious lies about anyone who does manage to understand that 'the beatings will continue until moral improves' is too much of a joke to even be funny.

"My parents whipped the hell out of me, and I'm a better person for it," is something that only comes out of the mouth of a severely emotionally damaged individual.

It all comes down to what is meant by "moral" and "improve". It seems to me the only way to accurately describe any change in the present society as an "improvement" must include considering whether it will (or at least could) likewise improve the future society by that same measure. Any other approach is unreasonable and immoral.

Contemporary philosophy (at least the US university domain) can be almost entirely divided into two barely related and non-overlapping categories:

• Analytic philosophy: logicians who wish they were mathematicians or AI programmers

• Everything else: pedants who can do very little except endlessly reconsider what historical philosophers wrote and attempt to logically categorize their thoughts in an effort to derive a better system than analytic philosophy.

There are occasional exceptions, like Chalmers, who qualify as the historical philosophers the second group tries to dissect, except for the incidental fact they aren't dead yet. It takes a great amount of brilliance to be a Chalmers, and working (and hobbyist) philosophers need something to do that doesn't require that much fortune of talent.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

You still don't get it: this is not a discussion about quantum physics, and nothing I have said either denies that QM is weird or contradicts the scientific findings in quantum physics.

Metaphysical uncertainty is still just metaphysical uncertainty, you're just used to being able to dismiss it in classic physics. People love to go on and on about how the human brain is incapable of comprehending "reality" and metaphysical uncertainty is just a psychological limitation of our minds, and then the mathematical undeniability of wave/particle duality or Heisenberg Uncertainty or spooky action at a distance comes along to make it clear that metaphysical uncertainty can't be ignored as easily as you'd like. Scientificism has made you arrogant, and now you're being humbled by science itself, and because you don't like that or the emotional uncertainty of real life, you're transferring your cognitive dissonance onto me.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

I'm not trying to be fatalist or defeatist, but honestly, all you can do with that is change which parties the top 2 contenders are in, you can't prevent there being a top 2 contenders, or it being in every individuals (whether candidate or voter) self-interest to align themselves with one of those two. Even the most diverse party systems in other countries always come down the faction in power against the opposition faction.

There are only two ways of changing this, and neither of them is ranked voting, instant runoffs, open primaries, or any other alternate electoral mechanics. The first way is to change reality so that laws do not either exist or not exist, and bills do not either pass or fail, requiring legislators to vote either yea or nay. That is not possible physically, but philosophically we can still consider it as if it weren't a necessary, logical, and metaphysical certainty.

The second way is to change our understanding of reality, without needing to change the electoral process at all. The truth is that it doesn't matter how government representatives are selected, some of the people being governed are going to have wanted a different representative. It is inherent in the duties of a government official to serve everyone, including people who voted against them (or didn't vote at all). If an official got 12% of the vote (while running against a dozen others who each got less) or 88% of the vote, it shouldn't matter, and the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy is to consider the official legitimate regardless. This is difficult to do, I realize, given that we must judge the validity of a government (particularly a democratic republic) by the results as much as the system itself. Most people want everything to be simple, and it isn't surprising that many don't believe that an office holder who only got a plurality rather than the majority of the votes deserves to be in office. And so it isn't surprising that office holders (regardless of party, but more often authoritarians) consider their selection as a mandate to serve their Party's unified goals rather than their constituent's diverse interests. Logic makes the first easy and the second impossible, so why would anyone bother not doing the first or even attempting the second?

Even an official who got 88% of the vote must be fair, and adequately represent (not faithfully parrot, but decently serve) the other 12%, and anyone who abstained or was disenfranchised. We rightfully have no tolerance (though we are not everyone in this case) for using government power once secured to punish those who didn't help secure it or pledge to help maintain it. But logic makes us animals or robots: to be fully human, we must accept the need to attempt potentially impossible tasks, and that includes self-government, which is the real purpose of both republics and democracies, either separately or in combination.

We can either abandon that pretense of "the problem is the 2 party system", which is a strawman, and recognize that a plurality is just as legitimate as a majority, so we no longer demand (by our expectations, whether or not we demand it in our actions or words) that we maintain a two party system so that whoever gets more votes also gets a majority of votes; or we can insist it is a fact rather than a pretense, and say that unless an unlimited number of candidates are on the ballot and one of them gets a majority, no election occurred, and get rid of parties all together. I know which one I think is more achievable and productive; how about you?