Text for the lazy.

Duverger's Law

In political science, Duverger’s law holds that single-ballot plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system.

Duverger’s law is the reason why U.S. voters select one of the two leading candidates when voting tactically, even if a third-party candidate would better represent their interests. This behavior arises out to fear of vote splitting

One consequence of Duverger’s law is that you can improve the viability of third-party candidates by changing the voting system. For example, Approval voting is more resistant to vote splitting and therefore more conducive to third-party candidates.

Much appreciated

If no one has claimed Injustice 2, I'd be interested. Thank you for doing this.

Be sure to flip this out at your local diner. Bonus points if you hand the waiter back their butter knife back first.

Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

If you poop out the stolen item, I think we can move past calling them a "suspected" thief.

Jokes on them, I use a Trace Buster Buster Buster

Wait until you find out What's playing second base.

Wait, this is real? Can someone attempt to explain his rationale? Or is there some context not included?